2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Let us not confuse the issues in this case. The Worthington case cannot be recklessly linked with the debate over the power of a state government to require such things as mandatory immunizations and then mingled with the broad concept of religious freedom. This is largely an issue of the rights of Ava Worthington and every other victim of the reckless and negligent practice of faith healing. Every individual who has been injured or killed by faith healing is the very direct victim of another individual?s blind faith in the supernatural (see: God, religion, prayer, etc.), namely the power of prayer and the foolish belief it will inspire some unknowable, abstract something to heal people through magic. In this way, it is a debate on responsible, moral behavior and the reasonable limits on religious freedom as dictated by the liberties of others, our society?s general moral code and its value of human life.

As we all well know, we are judged by our actions, not out intentions. And the actions, or inactions, of the Worthingtons were directly responsible for the death of their daughter Ava. Any truly moral society would defend Ava Worthington and hold her parents accountable for their actions, which were clearly wrought by their ignorant blind faith in the supernatural. On that account, I am very pleased to see that Oregon law is competent enough to hold them accountable for Ava?s death. Unfortunately, in the developing Madeline Neumann case in Wisconsin, state law may see fit to protect the reckless and lethal superstitious beliefs of the Neumanns, though I am hopeful it will not.

Blind faith in the supernatural (see again: God, religion, prayer, etc.) cannot not be allowed to be used as an affirmative defense for any species of injury or murder. To allow this is to willingly allow superstitious beliefs to trivialize our society?s system of law and our general code of morality. Quite simply, an individual?s right to be superstitious ends where the rights of others begin. Or more plainly, these rights end where they begin to harm others.

Ava Worthington had dangerous but very treatable illnesses and died because her parents were irresponsible and lacked sound moral judgment. The result of imposing their superstitious beliefs in the form of faith healing on their child was nothing less than lethal. They willingly took her rights to a long, happy life and treatment by reasonable medical means away from their daughter.

In the end, you can believe in any foolish things you want until such point as your beliefs harm others. The Worthingtons killed their 15- month-old child in this instance. To excuse this would be an outrage to reason and a perversion of the value of human life we claim to hold, not to mention a catastrophic failure of our society to protect those members in our society who are the most vulnerable.

- Alexander the Atheist

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context