Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Tim_Murphy

Scary and very sad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/01/usa.religion

Galvasean

Don't they realise God invented medecine so they could save their child!!?

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't they realise God invented medecine so they could save their child!!?

Which day was that on?

MrP

robindch

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Scary and very sad

Very scary and very sad that the kid died -- four weeks younger than my own kid which puts it in perspective for me.

While it's is thoroughly commendable that they are to be prosecuted for manslaughter, it would be interesting to see if the preacher at this church could be prosecuted as an accessory to manslaughter, since he/she was probably aware of what was going on, and may well have chosen to do nothing about it.

Such a prosecution, even if it failed, would send a clear and unambiguous message to people in this position that they will be held to account for what they preach.

kelly1

Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.

You're not putting god to the test, you're putting what people say about god to the test. That's quite a different thing.

Tim_Murphy

While it's is thoroughly commendable that they are to be prosecuted for manslaughter, it would be interesting to see if the preacher at this church could be prosecuted as an accessory to manslaughter, since he/she was probably aware of what was going on, and may well have chosen to do nothing about it.

Good point actually. Whilst the preacher would not be as responsible as the parents he would certainly be an accessory to what happened. It might depend on whether or not he could be held accountable according to the letter of the law.

Such a prosecution, even if it failed, would send a clear and unambiguous message to people in this position that they will be held to account for what they preach.

Agreed.

wolfsbane

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Scary and very sad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/01/usa.religion

Agreed. Such are the tragic consequences of mistaken beliefs followed to their logical conclusion. Legal intervention would have been appropriate before the death, and is certainly so now - as a deterent.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

You're not putting god to the test, you're putting what people say about god to the test. That's quite a different thing.

Two followers of a fundamentalist Christian church that favours faith healing over conventional medicine are to be prosecuted for manslaughter after their daughter died of a treatable infection.

My point is that these fundamentalists forced God into a corner so to speak by expecting a miracle while refusing medicine.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

My point is that these fundamentalists forced God into a corner so to speak by expecting a miracle while refusing medicine.

So God only heals sick people who also take advantage of modern medicine? Conveniant that.

crotalus667

It will be interesting to see if the law hey are charged with stands up if challenged on constitutional ground ‘s , another thing to ponder is that if someone gives advice that god will heal their child can they be charged in relation to the fact that they gave medical advice with out being entitled to ??

Tim_Murphy

My point is that these fundamentalists forced God into a corner so to speak by expecting a miracle while refusing medicine.

so God punished the child because of the behaviour of her parents?

kelly1

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

So God only heals sick people who also take advantage of modern medicine? Conveniant that.

Of course not. Haven't you heard of miracles? People usually seeks God's help as a last resort.

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

so God punished the child because of the behaviour of her parents?

No. I'm sure God didn't give the girl the disease. But they were effectively trying to force God's hand. If God had healed the girl, it would set a precedent and other would be more likely to follow suit. This is trying to force God to suit us when it should be the other way round.

Tim_Murphy

People usually seeks God's help as a last resort.

People pray when their loved ones are sick all the time. Most wouldn't wait until the last resort before praying for Gods help.

No. I'm sure God didn't give the girl the disease. But they were effectively trying to force God's hand. If God had healed the girl, it would set a precedent and other would be more likely to follow suit.

I wasn't suggesting that God gave the girl the disease. So you are in face saying that God lets the girl die because he doesn't want to set precedent?

kelly1

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that God gave the girl the disease. So you are in fact saying that God lets the girl die because he doesn't want to set precedent?

Don't you see it as a kind of blackmail? You cure my girl or I'll let her die sort of thing. So if God did give in, it would set a precedent, wouldn't it?

Bisar

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't you see it as a kind of blackmail? You cure my girl or I'll let her die sort of thing. So if God did give in, it would set a precedent, wouldn't it?

The guardian article is a little sketchy on the motivations of the parents but it doesn't sound like it was a case of "heal my child or else". It sounds more like they trusted god implicitly to heal their child - a trust that was misplaced as it turns out.

Incidentally, would healing sick children really be such a bad precedent to set?

Tim_Murphy

The guardian article is a little sketchy on the motivations of the parents but it doesn't sound like it was a case of "heal my child or else". It sounds more like they trusted god implicitly to heal their child - a trust that was misplaced as it turns out.

Incidentally, would healing sick children really be such a bad precedent to set?

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Don't you see it as a kind of blackmail?

How exactly would it be blackmail? It seems that they were merely putting their faith in their god, and following their beliefs, beliefs that were obviously strongly held.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

My point is that these fundamentalists forced God into a corner so to speak by expecting a miracle while refusing medicine.

Not at all.

The bible is quite clear on the matter -- Matthew 7:7 ("Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."), or Proverbs 3:5-6 ("Trust in the Lord with all your heart [...] and he will make your paths straight") or James 5:16 ("The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective"). There are plenty more in a similar vein as I'm sure you know.

These fundamentalists are clearly believing verbatim and without question, what they have been told, either by the bible and/or by their local preacher, to believe.

Either god is not keeping his promises according to written text of the bible, or else the bible does not reflect the wishes of god. You can't have it both ways.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

No. I'm sure God didn't give the girl the disease.

Assuming for a moment the existence of an all-powerful and ever-living God (I'm an atheist), He is by definition entirely responsible by either action or inaction for the disease, the infection of the girl and her death. A Christian is not meant to doubt any of that but rather to have faith that this is part of God's plan.

None of the above requires a good Christian to reject antibiotics. A sad tale, from anyone's perspective.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Not at all.

The bible is quite clear on the matter -- Matthew 7:7 ("Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."), or Proverbs 3:5-6 ("Trust in the Lord with all your heart [...] and he will make your paths straight") or James 5:16 ("The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective"). There are plenty more in a similar vein as I'm sure you know.

These fundamentalists are clearly believing verbatim and without question, what they have been told, either by the bible and/or by their local preacher, to believe.

Either god is not keeping his promises according to written text of the bible, or else the bible does not reflect the wishes of god. You can't have it both ways.

Why is it you speak with such authority on the matter? Your language is so definitive. Its like, 'This is the way it is, so these are the scenarios'. Could you answer me, who was jesus addressing when he said this? Also, when the manifestations of the gifts of spirit are mentioned by Paul, why is it that 'some' have the gift of healing. 'Others' the gift of prophesy, 'others' the gift of tongues etc? Also, maybe these folk in question are not righteous in the eyes of God. There are so many other possabilities yet you jump at the chance to stamp on the christian faith. Why not be a bit more open to the fact that you may not be as enlightened as you think? Instead of trying to manipulate scenario's to suit your agenda, be honest. Just a suggestion.

CodeMonkey

JimiTime wrote: »

Why is it you speak with such authority on the matter? Your language is so definitive. Its like, 'This is the way it is, so these are the scenarios'. Could you answer me, who was jesus addressing when he said this? Also, when the manifestations of the gifts of spirit are mentioned by Paul, why is it that 'some' have the gift of healing. 'Others' the gift of prophesy, 'others' the gift of tongues etc? Also, maybe these folk in question are not righteous in the eyes of God. There are so many other possabilities yet you jump at the chance to stamp on the christian faith. Why not be a bit more open to the fact that you may not be as enlightened as you think? Instead of trying to manipulate scenario's to suit your agenda, be honest. Just a suggestion.

There was an episode of My Shocking Story on Discovery the other night about a teenage girl in african who got a life treatening bone tumour growing on her jaw. Google "Pastina Nkotki or "Face Eating Tumour" if you want more details. She has weeks to live without the operation. Anyway, the mother along with her local church charity secured an operation in a top hospital in miami. The operation was successful, girl was saved and they went back to africa.

When the operation was taking place, the mother was constantly praying with the nuns that came along with her. When they got back, she couldn't wait to tell everyone about how Jesus, not the doctors, saved her daughter. There was a big party in their local church, they praised their lord. Why is it ok for religious people to manupulate scenario's to suit their agenda and strengthen their faith?

So if you get what you prayed for it's god's doing. If you don't then god is testing you or whoever was praying (including those nuns) might not righteous in the eyes of God. This nonsense is too convenient.

The girl died anyway months later. Maybe god changed his mind afterall.

PDN

CodeMonkey wrote: »

There was an episode of My Shocking Story on Discovery the other night about a teenage girl in african who got a life treatening bone tumour growing on her jaw. Google "Pastina Nkotki or "Face Eating Tumour" if you want more details. She has weeks to live without the operation. Anyway, the mother along with her local church charity secured an operation in a top hospital in miami. The operation was successful, girl was saved and they went back to africa.

When the operation was taking place, the mother was constantly praying with the nuns that came along with her. When they got back, she couldn't wait to tell everyone about how Jesus, not the doctors, saved her daughter. There was a big party in their local church, they praised their lord. Why is it ok for religious people to manupulate scenario's to suit their agenda and strengthen their faith?

So if you get what you prayed for it's god's doing. If you don't then god is testing you or whoever was praying (including those nuns) might not righteous in the eyes of God. This nonsense is too convenient.

The girl died anyway months later. Maybe god changed his mind afterall.

Since a church charity made the operation possible, then I would think that the parents are quite justified in giving the praise to Jesus.

Of course if the child had been a rich Westerner then the doctors would have taken the money and carried out the operation without the church charity needing to get involved at all. In that case we could give the credit to the doctors, or maybe to the power of money?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Very scary and very sad that the kid died -- four weeks younger than my own kid which puts it in perspective for me.

While it's is thoroughly commendable that they are to be prosecuted for manslaughter, it would be interesting to see if the preacher at this church could be prosecuted as an accessory to manslaughter, since he/she was probably aware of what was going on, and may well have chosen to do nothing about it.

Such a prosecution, even if it failed, would send a clear and unambiguous message to people in this position that they will be held to account for what they preach.

I think such a prosecution would be an excellent idea, and shouldn't be too difficult to prove. Most churches make audio or visual recordings of sermons etc (as Barack Obama can testify ) and anyone who encourages people to avoid appropriate medical treatment should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

JimiTime

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Why is it ok for religious people to manupulate scenario's to suit their agenda and strengthen their faith?

So if you get what you prayed for it's god's doing. If you don't then god is testing you or whoever was praying (including those nuns) might not righteous in the eyes of God. This nonsense is too convenient.

The girl died anyway months later. Maybe god changed his mind afterall.

'Religious people'. Thats the hurdle you have right there. 'Religious people', alledgedly blew up the twin towers. 'Religious people' slaughtered millions in the crusades. 'religious people' suicide bomb civillians on a regular basis. Rather than look at the behaviour of people who claim faith, you must in good concience seek the truth. 'Religious people' can be misinformed, worship false gods, be self righteous etc etc. Looking at how 'religious people' behave will not really reveal much. The key is knowing the fruits of the true God. Only then will you recognise it in others.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Since a church charity made the operation possible, then I would think that the parents are quite justified in giving the praise to Jesus.

If it was an Islamic organisation that organised the trip would you think that Muhammed deserved praise for saving the girls life?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If it was an Islamic organisation that organised the trip would you think that Muhammed deserved praise for saving the girls life?

I think the parents would be entitled to praise the 'Prophet' if his followers, in attempting to follow his teachings, had made the trip possible.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

I think the parents would be entitled to praise the 'Prophet' if his followers, in attempting to follow his teachings, had made the trip possible.

I would like to think that people care for sick children in their community not because they are Christian, Muslim or whatever religion but because this is a natural human response. I praise the Christian community who did raise the money but I believe the fact that they were Christian was less important than that they were a community.

In any case I have to say I dislike this idea that Jesus should recieve praise when people do good simply because the opposite is not the case. When a person does bad it is him and him alone who will recieve the punishment for his actions, likewise I think when a person does good praise should be reserved for just this person.

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I would like to think that people care for sick children in their community not because they are Christian, Muslim or whatever religion but because this is a natural human response. I praise the Christian community who did raise the money but I believe the fact that they were Christian was less important than that they were a community.

In any case I have to say I dislike this idea that Jesus should recieve praise when people do good simply because the opposite is not the case. When a person does bad it is him and him alone who will recieve the punishment for his actions, likewise I think when a person does good praise should be reserved for just this person.

Nicely put. Also there are plenty of atheists who do good deeds under the assumption that there are no afterlife treats awaiting them. Altruism and a sense of community are the key. Perhaps the path is less important.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.

Whats he afraid of?

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course not. Haven't you heard of miracles?

Haven't heard of a single verifiable miracle. But if you know of one, James Randi will give you a million dollars if you can prove it. (you could do a lot of good with that much money)

No. I'm sure God didn't give the girl the disease.

Who gave it to her then? Satan?

But they were effectively trying to force God's hand. If God had healed the girl, it would set a precedent and other would be more likely to follow suit. This is trying to force God to suit us when it should be the other way round.

poor helpless god. it's terrible the way he gets trapped by us mean humans like that

DinoBot

PDN wrote: »

I think the parents would be entitled to praise the 'Prophet' if his followers, in attempting to follow his teachings, had made the trip possible.

So your saying that the actual object of faith had nothing to do with the healing, a step forward to reality I think.

If your christian praise Jesus or muslim praise Allah for the healing, not because either actually done anything but simply because the people who helped were of that faith.

So, if your child was sick and a Muslims charity group provided money to get a required operation, who would you give the prise to ?

PDN

DinoBot wrote: »

So your saying that the actual object of faith had nothing to do with the healing, a step forward to reality I think.

No, in this particular case we were discussing a healing that was (sadly temporarily) a result of medical science and human compassion rather than any supernatural miracle. The parents may indeed see these things as answered prayer, but my point was that even the most churlish non-believer should be able to acknowledge that the parents are justified in ascribing praise to Jesus since the medical intervention occurred as the direct result of followers of Jesus obeying his principles and commands.

If your christian praise Jesus or muslim praise Allah for the healing, not because either actually done anything but simply because the people who helped were of that faith.

I would be more inclined to say that Jesus did something in the past (teaching, founding the church etc) that made the healing possible. This is similar to blacks in the USA praising Martin Luther King for making possible rights that they enjoy today.

So, if your child was sick and a Muslims charity group provided money to get a required operation, who would you give the prise to ?

I would praise God, since I believe God can motivate all kinds of people to be moved to compassionate acts. I would also praise the charitable group for their compassion and for their devotion to their prophet (even though I personally believe him to have been a false prophet). Unlike some others on these boards, I am happy to commend those with different beliefs to mine when their commitment to those beliefs produces positive results.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

I would be more inclined to say that Jesus did something in the past (teaching, founding the church etc) that made the healing possible.

Thats a bit like saying alexander graham bell invented the internet.

Do you give Jesus the blame when members of his church commit child abuse (or shield known child abusers allowing them to harm many more children or firebomb abortion clinics, or burn non believers and heretics in their houses, or deny contraceptives to women, or take away abused girls or unmarried mothers and then lock them up in a workhouse for the rest of their life for the sin of having premarital sex?

All of these things were done on the name of christ by followers of christ.

I would praise God, since I believe God can motivate all kinds of people to be moved to compassionate acts.

Do you condemn god for motivating people to do evil acts? (even if they are misinterpreting gods will, he did nothing to prevent them, or to clarify his true wishes)

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

my point was that even the most churlish non-believer should be able to acknowledge that the parents are justified in ascribing praise to Jesus since the medical intervention occurred as the direct result of followers of Jesus obeying his principles and commands.

Take the community in question that helped the sick girl. How, in your opinion, would they have acted in the same situation if they had never heard of the teachings of Jesus?

If you say that they would have still helped a sick girl get the necessary treatment then Jesus becomes optional to the equation and in my opinion utterly redundent.

If you say they would have coldly allowed the girl to slowly die then you have a very low opinion of humanity. Even Neanderthals are known to have taken care of the sick and injured members of their community, why should Homo Sapiens be any different?

Splendour

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nicely put. Also there are plenty of atheists who do good deeds under the assumption that there are no afterlife treats awaiting them. Altruism and a sense of community are the key. Perhaps the path is less important.

Most people live by atruism A.K.A.-the second commandment. and it is to be commended. Alas, we as a society have forgotten about the first and most important commandment.

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote: »

Haven't heard of a single verifiable miracle.

You operate on the basis that there is no such thing as miracles, so how would you verify a miracle? I would bet that even with video evidence and 1,000's of witnesses to a miracle you would not accept it as such.

Galvasean

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

. Even Neanderthals are known to have taken care of the sick and injured members of their community, why should Homo Sapiens be any different?

There is even evidence suggesting that Tyrannosaurus rex took care of injured relatives and T.rex is history's greatest monster! :eek:

Sangre

crotalus667 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see if the law hey are charged with stands up if challenged on constitutional ground ‘s , another thing to ponder is that if someone gives advice that god will heal their child can they be charged in relation to the fact that they gave medical advice with out being entitled to ??

It should be fine. If not the Courts would be effectively saying the right to freedom of religious practice takes precedent over the right to life and bodily integrity.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

but my point was that even the most churlish non-believer should be able to acknowledge that the parents are justified in ascribing praise to Jesus since the medical intervention occurred as the direct result of followers of Jesus obeying his principles and commands.

Actually the medical intervention was a direct result of the doctors being able to do the surgery. The Christian community could have collected as much money as they wanted, but if there was no doctors then there would have been no surgery.

Splendour wrote:

Most people live by atruism A.K.A.-the second commandment. and it is to be commended. Alas, we as a society have forgotten about the first and most important commandment.

Isn't the second commandment "Thou shalt have no false gods before me"? Do you have a different set of commandments? Whats the first?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually the medical intervention was a direct result of the doctors being able to do the surgery. The Christian community could have collected as much money as they wanted, but if there was no doctors then there would have been no surgery.

And, by the same reasoning, if I give my daughter a laptop computer for Christmas she shouldn't thank me because I'm only the guy who paid for it. She should thank Dell who were good and kind enough to make the computer for her.

Isn't the second commandment "Thou shalt have no false gods before me"? Do you have a different set of commandments? Whats the first?

You are thinking of the 10 commandments in the Old Testament - although you've listed the first commandment instead of the second. The second is a prohibition against making graven images.

Splendour is referring to the incident when Jesus was asked what was the greatest commandment.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31)

Akrasia

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You operate on the basis that there is no such thing as miracles, so how would you verify a miracle? I would bet that even with video evidence and 1,000's of witnesses to a miracle you would not accept it as such.

All I want is for people who make the claim that there are miracles to defend those claims.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You operate on the basis that there is no such thing as miracles, so how would you verify a miracle?

The same way you verify anything else. All science works on the basis that a theory of something is inaccurate unless it is demonstrated otherwise. If something happens and you cry "Miracle", it should be assume that such a theory is inaccurate to the point of being wrong until reason is found otherwise.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would bet that even with video evidence and 1,000's of witnesses to a miracle you would not accept it as such.

A video and 1,000 witnesses wouldn't alone demonstrate something as a miracle, any more than a million people watching something been thrown out of a window verifies any guess over who in the room threw it over any other guess.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

And, by the same reasoning, if I give my daughter a laptop computer for Christmas she shouldn't thank me because I'm only the guy who paid for it. She should thank Dell who were good and kind enough to make the computer for her.

No, read my sentence again. By my reasoning you could have given Dell as much money as you wanted, if they didn't make laptops then you wouldn't have been able to give one to your daughter. Besides your daughter would thank you for buying the laptop not making it, the parents of the girl should have thanked the people who gave them the money.

eoin5

I've been saying this for ages, even if miracles are real then they are a bad thing.

Assuming for a minute that some claims are real most certainly arent so immediately more faith is placed in miracles than there should be. In turn they inspire sad unnecessary events like this threads topic. It also gives a market for all the fakes that span the globe. How many people have suffered the trip to lourdes instead of getting the medical attention that they need?

Whatever way you look at it the negatives outweigh the positives.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

There is even evidence suggesting that Tyrannosaurus rex took care of injured relatives and T.rex is history's greatest monster! :eek:

Pre-history's greatest monster! History's greatest monster is that evil teenager from Coronation Street.