If Oregonians can legally move away from God and kill themselves (assisted suicide) or kill their unborn (abortion), then they should legally be able to use God through faith healing to cure their family and live.
I rarely pay any attention to the Letters to the Editors section in any newspaper, much less The Oregonian. In the vast majority of cases, the "letters" are poorly written, barely lucid screeds composed by angry nutjjobs with far more time on the hands than common sense. Hey, 'tis better to be thought a fool than to start a blog write a letter to the editor and remove all doubt, right? Still, there was something about this letter that just left me absolutely dumbfounded.
The first problem with this argument (if it can even be called that) is that it assumes that the writer's version of God is the True, the Absolute, and the Only acceptable version of the Almighty. This, of course, is the problem with far too many Christians, Jews, Muslims, [insert name of your preferred imaginary friend here], etc., etc., ad naseum, ad infinitum. What is it about organized religion that allows so many to feel it perfectly acceptable impose the prejudices on anyone and everyone? Faith can be a wonderful thing, I suppose, but we're talking about a belief in a concept, an imaginary construct which may or may not be real depending on one's willingness to embrace an idea that isn't tangible.
The second problem, which seems so glaring as to almost not even warrant discussion, is that the writer's definition of life as sacrosanct...to himself. I find myself wondering if the writer spends his free time picketing abortion clinics with ketchup-covered baby dolls. Inflexible, intolerant...and built to stay that way, no? Women are property. Suffering (as long as someone else is doing it) build character...and God doesn't give us any more than he thinks we can handle, right? Fascinating how some folks are willing to demand others follow their rules, isn't it?
The third (and in my my, certainly the most egregious) problem is the idea the parents should be allowed to use religion to deny their children adequate and proper medical care. It's one thing if you as an adult decide to rely on faith healing instead of conventional medicine. It's quite another to deny a child medical care, particularly when denying that care results in the needless, eminently preventable death of a child.
[T]he child's parents are members of Followers of Christ, an Oregon City church that practices spiritual healing rather than seeking medical treatment, even when children become gravely ill.
A June 1998 investigation by The Oregonian found that of the 78 children buried in the church's cemetery since 1955, 21 died from treatable diseases. The Followers of Christ came under intense scrutiny in 1997 and 1998, when three children died after their parents denied them basic medical care. One of them, 11-year-old Bo Phillips, had diabetes.
Police saw Phillips' death as a clear case of abuse, because the state medical examiner ruled that the disease was easily treatable.
Pardon me for being disagreeable here, but I grew up being taught that God helps those who help themselves. If a child is sick, and medical care is readily available, then how does denying medical care to a child even begin to be considered godly? If you cannot (or refuse to) recognize that as child abuse, I'd submit that you really have no right to enjoy the rights and privileges of parenthood. If you refuse to properly care for a child, you should not be allowed to raise any. Period. End of story. Any questions?
Faith in God, whatever flavor you happen to prefer, should not shut off the supply of blood to the brain. It shouldn't strangle anything resembling rational thought. And it certainly shouldn't blind one to the reality that other sentient beings may just think and believe differently.
Then again, religion, intolerance, reaction, and hatred does make for some effective population control, eh?
