http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...prayer18m.html



GLADSTONE, Ore. — A 16-year-old boy whose parents rely on prayer instead of medical care has died following an illness marked by stomach pains and shortness of breath, authorities said.

Officers and a deputy medical examiner were called to the family's house about an hour after the boy's death late Tuesday afternoon, said Sgt. Lynne Benton of the Gladstone Police Department. Gladstone is located south of Portland.

Benton said the boy was surrounded by family when he died and a board member of the Followers of Christ church contacted the authorities.

The boy got sick about a week ago and — like all members of the religious order — did not receive medical attention. His condition worsened Sunday and members of the church gathered for prayer, Benton said.

An autopsy is planned.

In March, the boy's 15-month-old cousin, Ava Worthington, died at home from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, also failed to contact a doctor and are awaiting trial on criminal charges in her death.

No arrests have been made in the latest case, but the information will be forwarded to the Clackamas County District Attorney's Office for review, Benton said.

Oregon lawmakers passed new laws striking down legal shields for faith healing parents after several children from the Followers of Christ church died in the 1990s.

The Oregon City church is not associated with a mainstream denomination.

This is just evolution in progress. The weak don't survive. And by that I don't mean the "sick" but those who rely on superstition to solve serious medical problems. That is pretty archaic and sad.

It sounds cruel to say as much, but this is almost by definition a Darwin Award. The only difference is that the boy's parents inflicted death by stupidity on him, rather than the child doing it himself.

Originally Posted by highanddry

This is just evolution in progress. The weak don't survive. And by that I don't mean the "sick" but those who rely on superstition to solve serious medical problems. That is pretty archaic and sad.

No, it isn't. This isn't evolution at all. Evolution is a cumulative selection of semi random gene mutations. Cumulative means hereditary - as the "recipe" for how to make an organism changes over time, whichever changes are beneficial to reproduction find themselves spreading in the gene pool. Those changes which hurt the organism's ability to reproduce find themselves weeded out, because the individual doesn't put the genes it inherited back into the gene pool.

Why doesn't this apply? Membership in religious cults isn't inherited genetically. This boy's death, before he became an ancestor, doesn't impair the spread of suicidal behavior.

It's spread by recruitment, not heredity. Which means that even if all today's cult members killed themselves this way, it wouldn't mean the extinction of cults.

"It's spread by recruitment, not heredity. Which means that even if all today's cult members killed themselves this way, it wouldn't mean the extinction of cults." well it would because there'd be no-one to do the recruiting

That's actually not true, and I'll quickly explain why, but we're veering dangerously off track. The Yellow River Dolphin is considered functionally extinct. There are still some left, but not enough to maintain the species. If all but 1 human was killed by some sci fi tragedy, humans would die out. If all but 1 cult member was killed by their own behavior, that 1 would be able to recruit more members - even without needing a "reproductive" partner!

We could go into large scale math and demonstrate viability, but the point is that natural selection will eliminate anything that hurts reproductive fitness, while this cult (and others like it) is obviously destroying its own biological reproductive fitness, and yet not being eliminated. Finally, even if every member dies childless, they've left behind writing that details their bizarre religious thinking. Their literature itself is left to do the recruiting.

it is actually true and i'll explain why: you said 'all'.

If all members of the Followers of Christ church died today, they would have left their ideas behind them, both in their own writings and in things written about them (like this thread). Either of which is able "recruit" new members. Membership in the cult means do you believe in their model of the world. That's an idea, not a biological species.

The question is when and where does the government get to step in and say that "your religion is dangerous or espouses dangerous ideas and you can not do 'this'"??

I'm sure that most of us can agree that ritual sacrifice might be going to far, and maybe even denying yourself (or your children) medical care, but where does that line get drawn and who gets to draw it?? What about when little Billy has 17 moms?? Or little Jeramiah is denied basic luxuries like electricity??

Given that there is nothing illegal about not having electricity or 17 moms, there probably isn't much the govt. can or should do about it. What if a cult indoctrinates children and their parents into thinking statuatory rape is ok and gets the parents to sign off on the proper marriage permission form to turn their 16 year old daughter over as wife #28 for some idiot? No law has been broken, technically, but the kid never had any real choice. Child abuse? I personally don't know the answer on this one.

On the idiots who are letting their children die for lack of very basic medical attention, they need to be charged and incarcerated. They may have the freedom to try whatever they want on themselves, but they are responsible for the lives of those children until they are 18 or emancipated and an autopsy will easily show whether they are criminally liable. After the first death, the state should have done a proper investigation to find out if any other children of this cult were in danger. Given the track record preemption would have been entirely justified. Yet another reason every American should feel warm inside at the thought of bombing the cr*p out of Iran.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I'm sure that most of us can agree that ritual sacrifice might be going to far, and maybe even denying yourself (or your children) medical care, but where does that line get drawn and who gets to draw it?? What about when little Billy has 17 moms?? Or little Jeramiah is denied basic luxuries like electricity??

If little Billy has 17 moms, I'd love to be his dad! I doubt that's the most healthy life style for a child, and I'm certain it doesn't prepare them for life in modern American society. But I don't think it meets the threshold of what we need to ban. Electricity is an interesting question - the Amish say no. I think the law is it has to be brought to their houses, but they don't have to use it?

So, exactly where is this threshold? We can all agree on a lot of big questions, but you can get more and more narrow to the point where it's hard to agree. There are people who call it child abuse to raise their children in a particular religion, instead of another one - I hope most of us would agree the law has no place regulating this. Maybe chain smoking in the home and car with a child is a gray area?

No, it isn't. This isn't evolution at all. Evolution is a cumulative selection of semi random gene mutations. Cumulative means hereditary - as the "recipe" for how to make an organism changes over time, whichever changes are beneficial to reproduction find themselves spreading in the gene pool. Those changes which hurt the organism's ability to reproduce find themselves weeded out, because the individual doesn't put the genes it inherited back into the gene pool.

Why doesn't this apply? Membership in religious cults isn't inherited genetically. This boy's death, before he became an ancestor, doesn't impair the spread of suicidal behavior.

It's spread by recruitment, not heredity. Which means that even if all today's cult members killed themselves this way, it wouldn't mean the extinction of cults.

Heh you took that a little literally. In broad strokes, only the competent survive to pass on their genes.

Those changes which hurt the organism's ability to reproduce find themselves weeded out,

I'd say mental incompetency/ignorance is a change that hurts the "organisms" ability to reproduce when it equates to people dieing because they refuse modern medicine.

Where other animals are separated more by physical genetic traits, humans are distinctly intelligent which is also genetic to a large extent. Thus those with inferior genetics/mental competency... get weeded out.

But in any case, it is only humor with a dose of reality.

Sorry. Evolution is one of the most fascinating things in the world to me. It's like if you asked a lot of people about the Yankees. Do you know about memetics?

Plenty of Amish homes up here with no power coming in to them.. I personally find the Amish lifestyle strange.. Can't own or drive a car, but can get a ride from someone that does have a car.. Even pay for the ride.. No phones in the homes, yet they have a community phone out on a telephone pole..

I find it incredibly interesting how the nation has evolved when it comes to religion.. The theory was that people came here to worship freely, yet we find the majority of the laws and morals tow the Christian line pretty strictly.. Personally, I find the difference between a cult and a religion to simply be the number of people in it.. Where and when we say that religion is no longer as important as protecting a child, or woman, or man in some cases, is an issue that I doubt can be agreed on by anyone group larger than 3..

At what point does the government get to say that your personal religious freedoms are suspended for the welfare of someone else?? I agree that there are extremes that most of us can agree on, but even if we agree, are we right??

If everybody in the world agrees, we can all still be wrong. Our ancestors thought the world was flat - that you could fall right off the edge if you weren't careful! We know this isn't the case. But I do think it's a strong hint, if most people agree on something. On the other hand, public morality itself is evolving. There was a time when taking slaves and killing Injuns was acceptable - people would say things like Jesse James killed # men, not counting Indians. Almost everybody would say this is wrong, today. That might prove your point, but it's interesting (to me, at least) how everybody can be in agreement, and then everybody can be in agreement after a 180!

Do you think native Americans should be allowed to eat peyote as part of their religious rituals? That Rastafarians should be allowed to smoke marijuana? That Nevada people should be allowed to use meth? I think drug use shouldn't be regulated, at least in the way it is, but still, since we do have prohibition, does it make sense to open loop holes for religious slash ethinic groups or reasons? (I think with Indians and peyote, the reasoning is religious, but the definition is ethnic to make sure too many kids don't pretend to be members of that religion to get their kicks.)

These are good questions, and I don't really have good answers to them.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Plenty of Amish homes up here with no power coming in to them.. I personally find the Amish lifestyle strange.. Can't own or drive a car, but can get a ride from someone that does have a car.. Even pay for the ride.. No phones in the homes, yet they have a community phone out on a telephone pole..

I don't believe the Amish deny medical help where it's necessary though. I remember a story about an Amish premie baby having high tech medical equipment sent home wth him when he got out of the hospital. And I'm pretty sure all those Amish kids from the school shooting a year ago all received modern medial attention.

Actually (and I may be wrong here, but I've heard and read this from a wide variety of sources) when an Amish male turns 18 years old, he's sent out into the world. He's supposed to spend 3 days (?) in the city, living in the ways of the non Amish. Specifically, he's supposed to experience alcohol and sex. Then, at the end of this, he's supposed to decide which life style is for him.

They're kind of weird, and don't seem 100 % consistent, but you're completely right that they also don't deny life saving medical treatment to their children. (And for the record, I bring up the 18 years old story because it's actually fairly wise.)

The best parties are the Amish parties..

Actually, the freedom from the Amish rules is 2 years in some groups.. And what is sort of surprising to me is the huge number of kids that return to the fold after seeing the "real" world.. Many never make it to two years.. They just come home when they see how screwed up we are..

As for drug use in religious ceremonies, I have no problem with that at all.. Not such a big fan of "recreational" use of them though.. I've seen it go badly too many times to think that very many people can control their use..

Marriage is still common at age 13 in many parts of the world (Muslim populated areas especially). Do our child protection laws infringe on that religious right (if it is one) and if so, which should win out?

I think that if religious rights infringe on the safety of us then there should be laws against it and religious fanatics should not be able to put there children at risk.

I couldn't agree more. Our safety, and that of our children is paramount. I look forward to the day when running with scissors is a felony offense, with a heavy prison term.