When Child Killers Go Free In America: If It's Religion!

[Born_again]

To CC and Mr. Personality, IMO, I really don't think you are going off topic. The topic is so shocking I believe that there are many natural questions people are inwardly thinking; but are somewhat relative.
Yes, why are people in that particular community not thinking of a 'downgrade'* to a more conventional spiritual/religious practise, as carried out safely by millions of others worldwide? Surely the sight of your own child dying needlessly in your arms is enough to kick-start paternal instinct to see your offspring survive? How have these people been able to transcend their natural instincts to protect their children? I'll bet my last dollar that most parents on the planet would lay down their lives to protect their children from death.

*My supposition about how this particular religious sect might view converting to other less-fanatical/fundamental religious sects. I'm sure that even hard-core anti-theists or atheists would see it as an 'upgrade', ......I hope!?

[Mr. Personality]

Foreword: This is for the sake of argument. This is not an attack on anyone or anything. I realize the circumstances are totally different, please read through and understand my point before raping this post.

Let's say a child is lying in the hospital with life-threatening injuries. He can be saved but it will take a long, long time and there's a distinct possibilty he will never lead a "normal" life. Down the hall are 3 other children who will die if they don't get organ transplants. If they get them they will have a comparatively quick recovery and lead "normal," healthy lives. The first child has the organs needed. Should the first child be allowed to die for the sake of the three?

Again, this is obviously a very different situation, and you still might say, "No. Save the one and hope for the three," and you'd be entitled to that. On a logical basis, it would make sense to spare one to save three, there's no arguing that. My point is, it's a reason for letting a child die that does make sense to us as a whole. With so many things we don't understand about ourselves, others and the world around us, doesn't it stand to reason that, while it doesn't make sense to us (even me) it probably makes sense to them. The entire issue is about perspective. These people are, for whatever reason, following their faith. We don't understand it, therefor we condemn it. In the Neil Beagley case, he legally made a decision and facded the consequences, that being death. If any criminal activity (such as a minor under 14 in Oregon being forced to refuse treatment, for example) then charges should be layed through the system we have. I know on the blood issue, JWs are prepared to endure any consequences of not taking blood as medical treatment. Banning a religion, even somewhat "out there" ones (I don't think anything is as "out there" as Catholicism, but they've been around longer, so I guess they're ok?) you're giving the government more control over not just our lives, but our thoughts and beliefs. As I've said I'm not a JW, but there's no way I want a blood transfusion. I have my own reasons and if I die, I die. My wife isn't too happy about my views on this but that's the consequences.

To shut down or ban religions like this in favour of "more contemporary" forms of practice is a kick in the groin to all religion around the world. Once we do that what's to stop it from moving on to bigger, longer standing religions. "No more church on sundays. The solidarity of the group makes others feel left out"? "Jews are a race-based organization and therefor Judaism is a hate-crime"?

If you ban one religion or group of religions and eventually you'll be banning all religion altogether. Go read "Revelation" in the bible and see how that turns out.

[CoffeeCanuck]

To CC and Mr. Personality, IMO, I really don't think you are going off topic. The topic is so shocking I believe that there are many natural questions people are inwardly thinking; but are somewhat relative.
Yes, why are people in that particular community not thinking of a 'downgrade'* to a more conventional spiritual/religious practise, as carried out safely by millions of others worldwide? Surely the sight of your own child dying needlessly in your arms is enough to kick-start paternal instinct to see your offspring survive? How have these people been able to transcend their natural instincts to protect their children? I'll bet my last dollar that most parents on the planet would lay down their lives to protect their children from death.

*My supposition about how this particular religious sect might view converting to other less-fanatical/fundamental religious sects. I'm sure that even hard-core anti-theists or atheists would see it as an 'upgrade', ......I hope!?

Thanks B_a, but if I and MP were to go back and forth on whether we believe the JW religion shuns members or not, I'm sure it would take away from this discussion, and would focus soley on the JW religion. I can only speak from my own perspective and experience as well as MP. My experience comes from having JW co-workers, a friend, former JW's in my church, and a married neighbour where the wife was a practicing JW and the hubby was not. There were many times I witnessed elders (if that is what you call them) come to the house to council (berate) the hubby. The hubby and I often had discussions about this, and how he was simply fed up with JW dogma and decided to leave. I also knew a man years ago who used to be a well respected leader within the JW religion, that is until he left. He had extensive knowledge about the inner workings of the JW religion and would talk many times about it. He used to try and talk with his former friends who would stand in front of the old Dions/4-way market in Rutland, only to have them put their watchtower papers in front of their faces and turn their backs on him. Anyhow, all anyone has to do is google 'Jehovah Witnesses and shunning', to see for themselves.

You ask a very valid question B_a when you ask...."why are people in that particular community not thinking of a 'downgrade'* to a more conventional spiritual/religious practise, as carried out safely by millions of others worldwide?" To those of us who are not caught up in such an extreme faith, whether it is someone like myself who is a believer or others who are not, it's difficult to comprehend how any parent can stand by and watch their child suffer needlessly and then die. Many people in extreme religions allow fear to to rule them, as well as having a sense that they are the only true religion. In this case, as I understand it, they are a very extreme off shoot of the Pentecostal faith, who believe in the absolute literal translation of the Bible, and therefor believe all one has to do is have enough faith and if it's within God's will, they will be healed. Now, because of the fear of being shunned if they take steps to seek out medical assistance, or the fear of eternal damnation if they go against the churches beliefs, they believe ultimately that what they are doing is Gods will.

This is a touchy subject for many, as there is the freedom of religion aspect, even if one does not believe. The thing is, there are child endangerment laws in effect and unfortunately, Oregon says kids over 14 (I think?) can make their own decisions on their health. My concern though, is for all the younger children who have died. I really think this church needs to be investigated by the authorities. There is an interesting news article I came across on this church and well worth the read. Here is an excerpt. http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc1.html

Children's deaths
The Followers believe in a literal translation of the Scripture, which states that the sick shall be anointed by elders and that faith will heal all. Death, if it comes, is God's will, they believe.

Because of that, child deaths have plagued the church for decades. At least 21 of the 78 children who have died at the church since 1955 likely could have been saved with routine medical care, The Oregonian reported earlier this month following a two-month investigation.

Thirty-eight children buried in the church's cemetery outside Oregon City never reached their first birthdays. An additional 15 are listed as stillborn. Doctors say the lack of prenatal care and trained assistance during the deliveries probably contributed to the deaths. Officials suspect many of those died needlessly, but they can't be sure because government investigations of the deaths were either inconclusive or nonexistent.

In the past 10 years, three women in the 1,200 member Oregon City congregation have died giving birth at home with only church midwives attending. That's about 900 times Oregon's rate of maternal deaths, according to a conservative estimate by the Oregon Health Division. By comparison, two women in 25,000 births died at Legacy Emanuel Hospital and Health Center in Portland during the same period.

Although they practice faith healing, members of the Oregon City church visit the dentist, wear glasses and use birth control openly, members say. Nichols had a doctor remove skin cancer from his forehead. Nichols, Worthington and several former members said many people in the church consult doctors regularly, often driving to Portland or to Salem to avoid being found out by fellow church members.

"We're all not against doctors," Nichols said. "I think they're selling out their religion. They have no religion if they allow their children to die or their women to die."

Clackamas County and state officials have known for years of preventable deaths within the church. But they think state and federal laws prevent them from prosecuting parents. The fact that some adults are regularly seeing doctors confounds prosecutors and police.

"That's an inconsistency that amounts to fraud," said Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson, who last month asked the public to help prevent further child deaths by reporting illnesses among church members' children. "They're misrepresenting their religious practices. Kids don't have the ability to walk into a medical clinic on their own."

~D

[CoffeeCanuck]

Here is a link to lots of other links on this church. Did anyone know there is a sect in Alberta? I've been reading a number of articles on former members, which is quite interesting.

http://www.rickross.com/groups/foc.html

~D

[Born_again]

The entire issue is about perspective. These people are, for whatever reason, following their faith. We don't understand it, therefor we condemn it. In the Neil Beagley case, he legally made a decision and facded the consequences, that being death. If any criminal activity (such as a minor under 14 in Oregon being forced to refuse treatment, for example) then charges should be layed through the system we have. I know on the blood issue, JWs are prepared to endure any consequences of not taking blood as medical treatment. Banning a religion, even somewhat "out there" ones (I don't think anything is as "out there" as Catholicism, but they've been around longer, so I guess they're ok?) you're giving the government more control over not just our lives, but our thoughts and beliefs. As I've said I'm not a JW, but there's no way I want a blood transfusion. I have my own reasons and if I die, I die. My wife isn't too happy about my views on this but that's the consequences.

To shut down or ban religions like this in favour of "more contemporary" forms of practice is a kick in the groin to all religion around the world. Once we do that what's to stop it from moving on to bigger, longer standing religions. "No more church on sundays. The solidarity of the group makes others feel left out"? "Jews are a race-based organization and therefor Judaism is a hate-crime"?

If you ban one religion or group of religions and eventually you'll be banning all religion altogether. Go read "Revelation" in the bible and see how that turns out.

Good post Mr. Personality, but you kept mentioning ban or banning. Is this 'banning' theme taken from some press releases that I've not seen yet? Can you post the links, please?
Anyway, I don't think that we need to go too far into Neil Beagley's case as the current law of the land covers that, whether I agree with it or not. It's my understanding that the law will soon be updated to close-out that particular loophole.
I do however, feel that the youths under 14 have no protective representation. I'd say that not one of them ever had a rational thought run through their pitiful minds in their tragically short lives. Not once! They were not even equipped with the basic tool for self preservation and survival; reason.
The parents must have got to work on these poor souls from the second they left the womb. How sick is that? The babies didn't even stand a chance, not a moment of respite! For crying out loud, can't we just leave the children's minds free of adult issues like faith. It's too bloody complicated for most adults to comprehend, never mind a mentally malleable and defenceless child! Is it man's ultimate ego-trip to clone his child's mind into an exact replica of his own?

[CoffeeCanuck]

The parents must have got to work on these poor souls from the second they left the womb. How sick is that? The babies didn't even stand a chance, not a moment of respite! For crying out loud, can't we just leave the children's minds free of adult issues like faith. It's too bloody complicated for most adults to comprehend, never mind a mentally malleable and defenceless child! Is it man's ultimate ego-trip to clone his child's mind into an exact replica of his own?

The sad fact is, the parents in a round about way are victims themselves. The churches belief system was instilled into them as children, it's all they know and they in turn raise their children the same way. It's truly a vicious cycle. It's much like the mothers in the polygamist compound who recently had their children removed. Many people angrily lash out at these mothers wondering why they do not step up and protect their children. It's easy for those of us who are not part of a cult or religion that closely monitors their followers and through various tools, keeps them brainwashed and 'in line', to be outraged. What is the answer, because I don't know. I fully support ones right to choose their religion, but when innocent children who do not have a voice are suffering and needlessly dying, there has to be some form of intervention.

~D

[Mr. Personality]

If this is the religion's belief system and you are making it impossible for them to continue to practice, as many here seem to want done, you're effectively "banning" that religion. You can call it "updating" or "keeping control of" but when a person isn't allowed to practice they're religion, it's a banning.

Again this is all for the sake of argument.

[CoffeeCanuck]

I can certainly understand where you are coming from MP. It's a very slippery slope for people or the government to say for example...only these 5 religions will be allowed, the rest need to disband and either not practice their faith or choose one of the approved 5 religions. Thing is, there are laws that protect all citizens, and especially children. We may not agree with them all, but they are there, and when anyone is neglecting a child defined by the law, there are consequences. In the case of this church and other faith healing churches like it, the sad fact is, these children would never get the lifesaving help they need in time, as they are generally shielded in their homes, being prayed over. These followers sincerely believe what they have been taught all their lives, and believe they are following God's will. I'm not defending them, at all, but I do understand somewhat how they have all been brainwashed/victimized over time.

I'm curious now MP. You say you are not a practicing JW yet you would refuse a blood transfusion. As a parent, would you refuse or allow a blood transfusion for your child?

~D

[Born_again]

If this is the religion's belief system and you are making it impossible for them to continue to practice, as many here seem to want done, you're effectively "banning" that religion. You can call it "updating" or "keeping control of" but when a person isn't allowed to practice they're religion, it's a banning.

Again this is all for the sake of argument.

I haven't said I want them to stop their belief system, I just want their children removed from the peril they are in. I would dearly love the parents to carry on with their faith, albeit without the sneaky little trips to doctors in Salem and Portand. I'd never condone banning a belief because I don't like it or don't believe in it. That goes against my principles.
I would rather hope that these people understand that infanticide is not as cool as it used to be in days of yore, and come to some sort of self-regulatory consensus that the children be spared indoctrination until they are of voting age. Parents happy, kids happy, me happy.

CC, thanks for the links, I think we've been cross-posting here. I have in-laws that live in Red Deer!

[Mr. Personality]

To CC:

In all honesty as my own belief system holds, until they could look at me and convince me they were making a concious, thought out decision to refuse treatment, I'm saving my child. My views on blood have nothing to do with religion or faith, but with my beliefs. No one forced belief on me, I would give the same respect to my children.

If a parent is negligent, there are laws for that. Thing is, one has to break the law first and prosecuted after not the other way around, that's thought crime. So how do we stop such attrocities? Well, in the system we have, you can't, you can only prosecute someone who has broken a law. Not someone who has beliefs that, in certain situations, go against the law. Until the moment comes no one knows what they will do. A member of this organization may say "screw this" and take a trip to the ER. Many others would not, but you don't know until it's done. The only way to deal with this is either use what we have in place properly or start telling people how to pray.

To B_a:
I never said you mentioned a banning. My point is that the only way to stop this sort of thing is to outright ban religious practices, either some or all, which is not the answer.
You would have the children taken away from their parents because you believe their ways to be uncivilized and archaic? Hmm...didn't Harper just apologize for something like that?*

* - Not saying you had anything to do with residential schools.

[Born_again]

I can certainly understand where you are coming from MP. It's a very slippery slope for people or the government to say for example...only these 5 religions will be allowed, the rest need to disband and either not practice their faith or choose one of the approved 5 religions.
~D

I don't think we have to worry about any banning. I'm not positive on this, but I don't think there is a mechanism for a government of a secular state to ban or dissolve any religion. If there were, it would be highly unlikely that they would mobilise it anyhow, out of self-interest alone.

The churches belief system was instilled into them as children, it's all they know and they in turn raise their children the same way. It's truly a vicious cycle.

This is the part I feel uneasy with. I stand in awe.

You would have the children taken away from their parents because you believe their ways to be uncivilized and archaic?[/b] Hmm...didn't Harper just apologize for something like that?*

* - Not saying you had anything to do with residential schools.

I don't think we need to go there. Feel free to quote me, but please don't misquote me.
No big deal, I can see your sentiment.
When I see a child being forced into a potentially lethal situation, it is most certainly my overriding desire to see that child protected, by whatever means are necessary. They are not yet equipped to fend for themselves, and we as parents/adults have a duty to be their stewards. Nothing more needs to be added.

[CoffeeCanuck]

In all honesty as my own belief system holds, until they could look at me and convince me they were making a concious, thought out decision to refuse treatment, I'm saving my child. My views on blood have nothing to do with religion or faith, but with my beliefs. No one forced belief on me, I would give the same respect to my children.

I'm a tad confused. Are you saying that you would not allow your child to have a blood transfusion if it were to save their life, unless they were old enough to convince you that this is what they wanted?

Please don't think I'm trying to 'pick at you', as this is not my intent. I'm simply curious about the blood transfusion issue. Generally, as I understand it, the majority of people refusing blood transfusions, do so because of their faith. Maybe I'm misreading what you mean, so I'll wait till you clarify till I give my thoughts.

~D

[Mr. Personality]

I don't think we need to go there. Feel free to quote me, but please don't misquote me.
No big deal, I can see your sentiment.
When I see a child being forced into a potentially lethal situation, it is most certainly my overriding desire to see that child protected, by whatever means are necessary. They are not yet equipped to fend for themselves, and we as parents/adults have a duty to be their stewards. Nothing more needs to be added.

I'm confused then, what do you want? What's your solution.
Also, I was going for the sentiment and realize you didn't use those words, which is why I didn't quote.

In all honesty as my own belief system holds, until they could look at me and convince me they were making a concious, thought out decision to refuse treatment, I'm saving my child. My views on blood have nothing to do with religion or faith, but with my beliefs. No one forced belief on me, I would give the same respect to my children.

I'm a tad confused. Are you saying that you would not allow your child to have a blood transfusion if it were to save their life, unless they were old enough to convince you that this is what they wanted?

Please don't think I'm trying to 'pick at you', as this is not my intent. I'm simply curious about the blood transfusion issue. Generally, as I understand it, the majority of people refusing blood transfusions, do so because of their faith. Maybe I'm misreading what you mean, so I'll wait till you clarify till I give my thoughts.

~D

You did misread me and I appreciate your waiting clarification (God, this is turning into a downright love-in). I've bolded part of my quote to clarify what I said and admit I could have been clearer. I will do everything medically possible to save my child unless he/she can convince me they have made a well thought out decision. If my kid looks at me and says "I don't want a blood transfusion even though it will save me," but can't tell me why, stick the tube in his arm. If he/she can give me a well-thought out explaination as to why they would refuse it, then he/she has made a decision and I will fight for my child's rights when it comes to what goes in or comes out of his/her body. It's not about age, like our law system is, it's about maturity. I, personally, wouldn't take a blood transfusion to save my life (*cough*) but that's me and if my child wants blood, it's theirs.

You're right, most people who refuse blood do so based on faith. I suppose I'm a little the same, though I'd rather go with "personal belief system." Also, I don't want to wake up in 15 years to find out I'm dying of AIDS, but that's just me.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't about age, religion, law or morals. It's about personal choice. Once someone is mature enough to make their own decisions about their own bodies and lives, it's their's.

[CoffeeCanuck]

Ok, gotcha MP, thank you for the clarification. As for the 'love in'... I'd rather think of it as a nice discussion that is respectfully flowing.

~D

[JonyDarko]

Slightly off topic..

Have you ever noticed that religious fringe groups tend to indoctrinate either children or adults who are having a vulnerable spot in their life?

They are either born into it or "saved". Happy, emotionally grounded, and financially secure people do not just walk in and sign up so to speak.

Why is this?