OR couple whose daughter died untreated wants faith-healing beliefs kept from jury

[cleanhippie]

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Attorneys for an Oregon couple accused of allowing their daughter to die of untreated diabetes complications don’t want jurors to hear about their faith-healing beliefs at trial. Defense attorneys argue that evidence regarding the religious beliefs and practices of Travis and Wenona Rossiter would be prejudicial, reported the Albany Democrat-Herald.

The Rossiters, who are from Albany, are members of the fundamentalist Church of the First Born, which teaches that medical treatment is sinful and instructs followers to trust in God to heal them through faith. Since 1976, at least 82 children linked to the church have died from lack of medical treatment, according to Children’s Health Care Is A Legal Duty.

Prosecutors plan to show 12-year-old Syble Rossiter was deprived of life-saving medical care by her parents, who instead relied on faith-healing rites. “They knew she was in great peril,” said Prosecutor Keith Stein. “They didn’t seek out medical care, and the reason they didn’t do it was their religious beliefs. This is what the case is about, and in truth, this is what happened.”

An autopsy showed the girl died from diabetes complications, and prosecutors said she lost so much weight in the month before she died that a teacher confronted Wenona Rossiter about it.

The couple’s attorneys argued that evidence of their religious beliefs were irrelevant and prejudicial. “My client is requesting he be tried for the actions of that day, not for his religious beliefs,” said Tim Felling, Travis Rossiter’s attorney.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/23/or-couple-whose-daughter-died-untreated-wants-faith-healing-beliefs-kept-from-jury/#.U1faNtoMqyw.facebook

Sounds a lot like what we hear from many believers in this Group; "Religion had nothing to do with it, it's mental illness..." Or something.

Funny thing how a persons religion is SOOOO important, until its not.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. I'm so sick of these damn cults killing children.

I think the whole cult needs to be on trial, not just the parents. They all prayed over her and ignored her illness. That little girl could have lived a long time if her medical issues were addressed properly, and they fucking killed her. I could wring their necks.

[cleanhippie]

3. 82 dead kids since 1976. What. The. Fuck.

[Brettongarcia]

8. It's not just cults; the massive Copeland televangelist church, their daughter, did the same

Causing a small epidemic. By stressing faith healing - and opposing medical treatment:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/23/texas-measles-outbreak/2693945/

Ms. cbayer changed the topic of conversation to Ken Kesey when she heard this.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Cult: noun, a religious sect that does something too embarrassing to defend.

[skepticscott]

13. Nothing is too embarrassing

for some in this Group to defend. And this is supposed to be a progressive web site, inhabited by rational people.

[Kelvin Mace]

26. Copeland's church is a cult

Sorry.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. define "cult"

I tried upthread. It seems that "cult" is basically a religion you don't like.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Per the dictionary

: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous.

In my view, any church that advocates behavior which puts members in danger of life or limb, or advocates unwise/imprudent financial advice which enriches itself at the expense of the members, is a cult.

Copeland, as I recall, believes in "laying on of hands" and advocates the "gospel of prosperity". Give money to them and "God" will reward you financially. This is just a neat trick for fleecing the flock.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. "not part of a larger and more accepted religion"

dude, they are Christians, that being "a larger and more accepted religion". Your own definition fails your usage.

"laying on of hands" is a massively common practice. Milking the flock for money is damn near universal. "unwise/imprudent financial advice": tithing fits that exactly and is practiced by almost all Christian sects, or cults, 'cause the difference avoids objective definition.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. Per the dictionary,

a "religion" is:

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

While many see Christianity as a single "religion", it cannot be the case since different factions must be worshiping different "gods", even if they claim it is the "one true god". The dogmatic variations of the various groups make it impossible for them to be worshiping the same god since they espouse contradictory teachings on many key issues.

Certainly, I am open and sympathetic to those making the argument that all religions are cults, but such views are generally not well received.

Some of these religions are more harmless than others (Unitarians and Quakers come to mind), while others advocate violence, misogyny, racism, and homophobia.

tithing fits that exactly and is practiced by almost all Christian sects.

I think you are confusing advocation of a belief with the practice of same. I was raised Catholic (Nuns, parochial school, altar boy, the works) and never heard of tithing until I ran into various "born again" types in college.

A church simply asking someone for spare change is no more harmful than being asked by a stranger in the street. Being told that failure to cough up 10% of your earnings is imperiling your immortal soul is extortion (when the person believes such things). Telling people that giving money to them and a supreme being will return your "investment" ten-fold is fraud.

The "laying on of hands" is advocated by some religions, but not others. Believing that simply touching someone and invoking a supreme being to help them is delusional, but harmless, unless folk are coerced into this in lieu of actual medical treatment, or delaying of same.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. You've wrapped yourself up around the axle of your own argument.

different factions must be worshiping different "gods",

No really they aren't. Outside of people making specious arguments, "Christianity" is a religion, and all the various sects, from the Roman Catholic Church to these whackjobs, are part of the Christian religion. Well, until one of them does something embarrassing, and then they are a "cult" and somehow Christianity is not a religion with a large number of sects.

[Kelvin Mace]

71. You can't be worshping the same god when

- One advocates murdering gay people
- One doesn't want women talking in church
- One has lesbian ministers
- One says slavery is OK
- One has congregants who are all Black and definitely NOT cool with slavery
- One has magic underwear
- One believes in speaking in tongues
- One believes speaking in tongues is actually a sign of demonic possession
- One doesn't believe in demons
- One is hip deep in icons
- One views icons as idolatry
- One says the Bible (the King James edition) is the literal word of god
- One says the Bible (fill in your favorite edition here) is the literal word of god
- One says the Bible (whatever edition) is the word of god via metaphor and allegory
- One says that in order to understand the word of god you have to read scripture in the original language
- One says that a, b, and c are not true books of the Bible, but x, y and z are.
- One says that x, y, and z are not true books of the Bible, but a, b and c are.
- One says the sun revolves around the Earth
- One says the Earth revolves around the Sun
- One says whacking it will send you to Hell
- One says whacking it is fine
- One believes that to be Christian you must follow the Ten Commandments, to the letter.
- One believes that the books of the Old Testament are irrelevant to followers of Christ

And on, and on, and on.

All people claiming to be Christian, all claiming to worship the same god, but having contradictory viewpoints, rules and ethics.

So, I am back to my dictionary definition of religion:

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

Each of these groups of people are worshiping a different god with different rules, ceremonies and ethos, thus they are different religions.

I would state that you are using a theological definition of "religion" which fits your criteria, but the standard dictionary definition supports mine.

For example, for certain definitions of the term, "Gold Wing Riders" and "Hells' Angels" are both "motorcycle gangs". The two groups in question would have very different views on the definition and whether it applies to each other or not.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. So, Baptists, Catholics, and Protestants cannot simultaneously claim to be christians?

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Sure,

for widely varying definition of the word "Christian", each with their own religions and their own gods.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Pretty sure all three groups would reject the idea that they are worshipping different gods.

[Kelvin Mace]

123. And flat earthers reject that the world is round

How can they be worshiping the same god when their descriptions of that god vary wildly?

For example, who is this blue-eyed, blondish guy they keep telling me is their god, this Jesus fellow? The OT version of "god" is a certified sociopath at best, and a psychopathic killer at worst. Yet, I am told by some Christians that "god" is loving and compassionate. Some people actually tell me they talk to "god" and he talks to them. Others tell me that that can't happen, that "god" talks to us "indirectly" (If anyone told you that he talks to Thor on a regular basis, and insists that he is serious, that would earn him a stay in a special facility. Tell them that "god" talk to , especially when you insist that it is "The God", and you are considered sane.

Sure, there is some superficial agreement about the general shape of the story, but once you dig into the details, everybody speaks of a different "god" with a wide-ranging agenda.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. So, I see the President as something of a progressive on most issues. Moderate on some, but progress

ive on some as well.

Some people on this board are flat out disgusted with him as a corporatist democrat.


Are we talking about different people with the name Obama, inhabiting the oval office, or do we simply have different subjective impressions of who the President is?


All of the abrahamic traditions are referring to the same god. They just have different views/impressions of it.

[Kelvin Mace]

138. No, because we know Obama ACTUALLY exists

we can touch him, talk to him, shoots some hoops with him (Secret Service permitting, of course).

We can objectively ascertain his views and beliefs by talking to him. We may not accept what he says, or may interpret it differently, but at least we can establish what he said and the context by reviewing actual video of him and/or speaking to him directly, and by such a consensus can be reached. Not everyone will accept this consensus. The lovers/haters will reject all parts they disagree with. They will agree they are talking about the same man, when in fact, they are talking about their idea of him, which supports your point, but ONLY because we have an actual, tangible, breathing human to interact with. Despite the disagreement about what kind of man he was, we will have tons of factual physical evidence with which we can reconstruct the man in his absence. With "God", we have no such thing.

Did Obama ascend into the sky on such and such a day in Marine 1? Yes, he did. How do we know? Well, we have hundreds of witnesses, but such evidence is unreliable. But what we also have is far more concrete, objective evidence. Video tape of his leaving, fuel records, flight logs, schedules, ATC tracking records, Secret Service logs, flight data recorders, police records, maintenance logs, photos/video from dozens/hundreds of camera phones. As such, we can prove, based upon overwhelming evidence from hundreds/thousands of independent sources that Obama took a ride in his chopper on this day, at that time with certainty bordering on absolute.

Did Jesus ascend into Heaven after rising from the dead? Well, the only evidence we have is the purported eye-witness accounts by 4 individuals written 40-70 years after the incident. The testimony in question wouldn't survive the scrutiny of a first year law student.

People claim to believe in god, or in their case "God". However, there are serious differences and contradictions between the "principle" monotheistic branches. There are believers (the more tolerant ones) who will say, well, we all are worshiping the same god, just filtered through our cultural perspectives. The same argument could be made by a believer in the "Christian" god as an explanation for the variety of sects with contradictory viewpoints, visions and dogma. (I would note that this open-minded individual could be murdered as a heretic by certain factions within his own religion) This is a great handwave to get past all of the problems presented by the internecine warfare that has been "Christianity" through the centuries, but it fails on the most basic level: We can't ask the "God" directly to clear this all up.

So, that means each person/group is worshiping/believing in their specific idea of "God". This idea is predicated on what source material they read, what interpretations they make/accept from these sources, and how rigorously they test these sources. The early "Christians" took the Jewish "God" and broke him into three separate gods, then retconned it later so that the Trinity of three gods were actually all the same guy.

Thus, absent the genuine article showing up for questioning and cross-examination we cannot say with accuracy that all "Christians" worship the same god. They may share SOME of the same theological structures, but they differ substantially on practically everything else. Hell, they can't even decide what source material is canon.

[MADem]

153. It's like trying to define the word "blue."

These all look very different to me, yet they are all "blue."



People can claim to be whatever they'd like. Is a Shi'a Muslim a "real" Muslim? Some Sunnis, in Egypt especially, would say "Hell no." Is a Reform Jew a Jew? Some Conservative Jews would take issue.

I can call myself an astronaut if I want--that doesn't mean John Glenn (or the team at NASA) would agree with my assessment.

Same way with atheists--what defines one? Is a humanist an atheist? Is someone who attends "atheist church" an atheist? Who decides?

It's the individual who decides what they are. That said, it is the larger society that assesses that decision and comes to a conclusion about its validity.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. And tithing isn't a 'neat trick for fleecing the flock'?

How do I tell the difference?

Dictionaries do not set the meaning of words. They catalog usage for reference.
Some 100-150 kids in the US die every year of circumcision. By your 'dangerous' interpretation, I do hereby indict the whole of Abrahamic-derived faith.

Fun times.

[Kelvin Mace]

72. Again, I have no problem

with your view that "tithing" and "fleecing the flock" are one and the same.

As to circumcision, it would seem that CDC's latest studies has them doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

Now, that said, I believe that if you are going to circumcise a child, then it must be done by a qualified surgeon in a sterile environment with proper medical after care.

Violation of those rules is cult-like behavior in my opinion, since the adherents would be putting their "faith" above the well being of the child.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Look at that CDC article, hit control-F and look for the word 'may'.

Also, 'mixed results'.

[Kelvin Mace]

77. That's science

Try finding a science paper were the scientist don't qualify their conclusions.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. No, that's unpublished speculation.

Look at the timestamp on your link.
Then look at the timestamp on this page:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/recommendations.html

[Kelvin Mace]

128. Sorry, missed that

thanks for pointing it out (seriously, no snark intended).

But there are other studies:

There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts.

Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men

There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda (funded by the US National Institutes of Health) and Orange Farm, South Africa (funded by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS) that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention

This first systematic review of male circumcision and ulcerative STI strongly indicates that circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis. There is less association with HSV‐2. Potential male circumcision interventions to reduce HIV in high risk populations may provide additional benefit by protecting against other STI.

Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk.

Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

I still believe that males should make their own decision about circumcision, based on sound medical science, not because some tells them they are certain sure that "god" wants them snipped.

[Brettongarcia]

30. A cult with millions of TV viewers/participants?

At some point sheer size makes it recognized as normative/mainstream; de facto, ipso facto.

[FiveGoodMen]

41. I heard a better definition than size

In a cult, someone at the top knows it's a scam.

Once that person is dead, it's a religion.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. Copeland claims to have "millions of viewers"

which to me means at least two, but less than twenty (otherwise he would claim "tens" of millions). So let's split the difference and say 10 million (and I believe that number is WAY high). 10 millions viewers is not to be sneezed at, but all viewers and not participants, If we follow that 80/20 rule that means he has 2 million participants, which is less the 1% of the current U.S. population of 313 million. Hardly "mainstream". Hell, I think I can muster more Trekkies than that, and we are nerdier, but still way cooler.

[Brettongarcia]

83. Recent estimates say 4% of the population actually attends church regularly. A few more watch it

Viewers to be sure are not strong members; but neither in some ways are non-attending Christians.

Probably we would need in any case a more complicated method to find out degree of participation: consider say, 1) all those who bought tapes; 2) those who killed their children in accordance with the Copeland model. Etc.

Consider too 3) the CUMULATIVE viewers. The Copeland show was (is?) on the air for at least 10 years or more.

Finally I suspect you will end up with a very large audience; and a rather larger percentage of active participants.

Though of course this would take a full sociological research effort to find out.

In the meantime? Trekkies ARE cooler. And possibly about as influential.

[Kelvin Mace]

122. Actually more influential...

In the meantime? Trekkies ARE cooler. And possibly about as influential.

Off the top of my head Star Trek predicted/influenced a LOT of tech and subsequent cultural trends

- 3.5" floppy disks


- Optical data discs


- Flip phones, specifically the Razr -



- Laptops/iPads/Kindles
?w=300&h=170



- Blue tooth


- Diagnostic Hospital Beds/CAT scanners/MRIs


- Medical Tricorder



- Space Shuttles


- Fanfic


- Slash


- Fan convetions as mass events


- Cosplay


And so much more. Maybe in 2,000 years, Star Trek will be a religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

125. I don't think shatner EVER had a flat stomach.

[Kelvin Mace]

132. Ah, cut him some slack

He worked in the days before CGI and Photoshop.

[Brettongarcia]

90. Modern Christians desperately try to dissociate themselves from the obvious sins of other churches.

But that's just another aspect of their psychology of Denial; their failure to face their own, related sins.

Note the argument I make below. That in effect, many mainstream Christian denominations make references to God "healing" us even of physical ills; as does the Bible itself. So faith-healing is still there, on one level.But especially I note that the emphasis in "faith healing" is part of the emphasis even in allegedly better, higher, more modern Christian churches, on "Faith."

As it turns out, there are problems with faith itself. In that believing in things without evidence, causes people to ignore medical problems, and to oppose the science that would help them. A more general denigration of science will be seen to cause even liberal Christians, some very considerable problems too.

Fundamentalists inadvertently killing their own children through "faith" therefore is "just the tip of the iceberg," as many are correctly noting. "Modern," "Liberal" Christianity, we will be showing next, does many of the same things. Just at a more subtle level. As we'll be showing here soon enough, no doubt.

[Kelvin Mace]

131. Excellent point

The deal killer for me on faith healing is that no one has ever shown me a regrown limb. I would think that if your faith could remove cancer, it could replace a leg.

[Brettongarcia]

2. The judge threw out earlier examples; clearly censoring reality. Probably from religious impulse

"The judge agreed to exclude information about the 1994 death of Wenona Rossiter’s 7-year-old brother, who passed away after his parents refused to provide medical care for his leukemia.

A Linn County jury convicted her father, Loyd Hays, of criminally negligent homicide in 1996 and a judge sentenced him to five years of probation.

His wife, Christina Hays, was acquitted in the boy’s death.

The judge ruled that the two children had died of completely different causes, so he didn’t see the relevance of the prior case.

Murphy also ruled against allowing evidence of prior instances of her parents denying medical treatment to their daughter."


This judge should disqualify himself for religious bias. Or else he should be simply removed from office.

By the way? Didn't Ms. cbayer just tell us a day or two ago, that no diabetic would ever refuse medical care on religious grounds, because the symptoms were so obvious? Ms. cbayer forgetting that believers are trained to believe through suffering. And even death.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. "Who are we to judge their sincerely held beliefs?"

Somehow that line of bullshit will not show up in this thread.

[cleanhippie]

5. Of course it won't. There is little consistency when it comes to those that say that.

[LiberalAndProud]

6. When did motive become irrelevant in a court of law?

I hope this argument goes down in flames.

[elleng]

127. Exactly,

but they prefer 'negligence' to 'religious belief?'

[trotsky]

7. These tragic events present a very difficult scenario for some to accept.

Namely, that religious belief can result in direct harm to someone. Inability to accept this concept generally results in desperate Gish-Galloping to try and cast some shadow of doubt on the religious motivations, or vicious attacks on the messenger relaying the story.

Or sometimes, both.

[Brettongarcia]

10. Rather than acceptance and confession? Expect violent verbal attacks;character assassination; Denial

In fact there have been a long series of these cases reported in the press; which lawyers WANT to try as cases of dysfunctional religion. But the judge would not allow Religion to go on trial, unfortunately. (Like the case of Santeria/Lukumi exorcism causing a death, that I've cited earlier).

Believers so far have fairly successfully kept their religions from going to trial. But it's clear enough what is to blame here in all too many such cases:

"The Rossiters, who are from Albany, are members of the fundamentalist Church of the First Born, which teaches that medical treatment is sinful and instructs followers to trust in God to heal them through faith.

Since 1976, at least 82 children linked to the church have died from lack of medical treatment, according to Children’s Health Care Is A Legal Duty.

Prosecutors plan to show 12-year-old Syble Rossiter was deprived of life-saving medical care by her parents, who instead relied on faith-healing rites.

'They knew she was in great peril,' said Prosecutor Keith Stein. 'They didn’t seek out medical care, and the reason they didn’t do it was their religious beliefs. This is what the case is about, and in truth, this is what happened.'

An autopsy showed the girl died from diabetes complications, and prosecutors said she lost so much weight in the month before she died that a teacher confronted Wenona Rossiter about it.

The couple’s attorneys argued that evidence of their religious beliefs were irrelevant and prejudicial."


Expect a thousand insults from believers for presenting this evidence against them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. I spent 3 minutes mining the Googles...

...and I couldn't find any evidence that their church promoted faith healing. If their pastor didn't talk about it, it can't be a religious belief.

I blame imperialism.

[Brettongarcia]

11. Or? A typical church cover-up. When it is accused of murder - it removes the evidence?

Nobody here ever heard of criminals covering up their crimes?

The Bible itself warned that false religious believers would "whitewash" their sins.

Censorship of evidence is one of the most common ways that believers use to hide their sins. It is related the psychological Denial; the mind of the believer simply cannot face the truth. And does everything it can to disappear it. Destroying evidence. And blanking/blacking it out of their own minds.

[Kelvin Mace]

28. Second hit I came up with

http://www.firstborn.info/about_us.htm

Lots of the usual signs in my mind of people with a very shaky grasp on reality.

They seem to be saying on this page that they believing in faith healing (they don't call it that, but that is what they are advocating) but that if you choose not to take your kid to the hospital you should contact the local health department and invite them to examine your child.

BEFORE WE INCORPORATED ALL THE OFFICERS OF OUR CHURCH MET IN A FAST … IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WITH TWO OF THE MOST RESPECTED ELDERS OF THE CHURCH … IN THE UNITED STATES …WITH 100 YEARS OF CHURCH GUIDANCE
LOUIS WRIGHT … OF PARKLAND OKLA. LOYAL THOMPSON … OF HENRYETTA, OKLA.

NO ONE ELSE WAS ALLOWED … AND WE SECRETLY MET WITH THE AGREEMENT TO CONVERSE WITH THEM CONCERNING … THE SCRIPTURES … WHICH WE INCLUDED … IN OUR BY LAWS …

AFTER SEVERAL HOURS … THEY CONCLUDED THAT OUR GUIDELINES AS PER THE SCRIPTURES ABOVE MENTIONED … COULD NOT BE FOUND WITH ANY FAULT WHATSOEVER … !!!!!!!

IN CONCLUSION

THIS DOES NOT KEEP US FROM … OBEYING THE SCRIPTURE … IN JAMES 5 - 14 … ' ' IF ANY BE SICK … CALL FOR THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH … LET THEM PRAY OVER HIM … ANOINTING HIM WITH OIL … IN THE NAME OF THE LORD ' '

BUT … IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE YOUR CHILD TO A DOCTOR … THEN … WE URGE YOU … TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY : … ' ' THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ' ' AND THE … ' ' STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ' ' … USING OUR CORPORATE FORMS … ' ' CALL & MAIL ' ' … AS PROVIDED IN THE CHURCH BY-LAWS … SO YOU CAN OBEY THE LAW OF OUR LAND … WHICH GOD REQUIRES …

THE GOVERNMENT LAWS … ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL … AVOID EPIDEMICS THAT COULD EFFECT THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF OTHERS … THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE CHILD … AND MINISTER MEDICAL AID … SO WE ARE TO RESPECT THE GOVERNMENT RIGHTS … AND … ' ' IN NO WAY DO WE RECOMMEND … THAT ANY OF OUR PEOPLE … TRY TO DEFY THOSE LAWS … ' '

WE REFUSE TO DEBATE THE LAW … WITH OUR OWN PEOPLE … OR … THE REST OF THE WORLD … WE WANT TO SIMPLY OBEY …



CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN
NOTIFICATION
CALL … & … MAIL
THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

PHONE # ____________________ PERSON ___________________________
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
PHONE # ____________________ PERSON ___________________________
WE THE UNDERSIGNED DESIRE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE LAND … THEREFORE :
WE HAVE A CHILD THAT IS SICK …
NAME __________________________________________ AGE _________
WE HAVE CALLED FOR THE ELDERS TO PRAY FOR THE CHILD … WHICH IS OUR BELIEF … JAMES 5 - 14 …
BUT WE ALSO RESPECT THE LAWS OF OUR LAND… SO YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME AND EXAMINE THE CHILD AT ANY TIME …
DATE : _______________________ TIME : ____________
NAME OF THE PARENTS :
______________________________________
______________________________________
ADDRESS _____________________________________________________

PHONE _________________________

Seems this is a disclaimer of responsibility so they can say "not our fault".

[Brettongarcia]

33. Lots of times what goes down in writing, and what is said in church, is different

[Kelvin Mace]

35. I agree

but by putting it on their webs site they have "plausible deniability".

[arcane1]

49. That website makes FR appear state-of-the-art by comparison n/t

[el_bryanto]

14. It's almost like believers don't have to participate in this thread

You folks have already figured out all the things we might say.

This is an unfortunate situation, and religious belief played a role in it.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

15. Thank you

[el_bryanto]

16. That said I am a believer and I feel no personal responsibility for this

tragedy. Much as some people might want me too.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

17. You have no personal responsibility for this act, that is true.

But you do bear some of the responsibility for promoting irrational beliefs as an equally plausible alternative to science, medicine, and facts about the universer we inhabit. All believers in supernatural beings bear tht responsibility, especially when religion is held in such high regard and protected from criticism in modern society.

No, YOUR personal and particular beliefs do not resemble those of the members of this particular cult. Yet, at the same time, there are frightening parallels.

[el_bryanto]

18. And yet somehow I sleep just fine.

Frightening parallels, eh?

BOO!

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

20. I don't find that surprising in the least.

Nor do I find surprising your unwillingness to acknowledge and discuss it.

Sleep tight.

[el_bryanto]

22. We've discussed it plenty - but you set up impossible rhetorical traps

"Give me all the benefits of religion that 1) don't require believe in God or Gods, and 2) can't be duplicated by secular means." There's no answer to that question.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

25. Sounds like someone's complaints

about "gotcha" questions.

The fact that the only rational answer to a question is one that you can't accept doesn't make it an "impossible rhetorical trap". It's only "impossible" if you've completely closed your mind to some possibilities.

[cleanhippie]

32. I know the answer, do you?

The answer is "nothing". Are you willing to acknowledge that?

If not, what is the answer?

[el_bryanto]

44. I can give the answer for Christianity

And most of the religions that I am familiar with - and the answer is as you say "nothing." I acknowledge that based on those criteria, there is nothing valuable in religion that can't be duplicated by secular means.

There are faiths like Taoism or Confuciounism that are considered religions, but don't seem to require a specific belief in a God or Gods, but I can't speak for them.

But as I said previously, I don't accept those criteria. I do see value in Religion, that can't be duplicated by secular means, because I believe there is a God.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

51. What is it that you see as value that cannot be gotten sucularly?

(Is secularly even a word? Lol)

A relationship is not inherently beneficial to society, nor to an individual. A "relationship with god" may seem beneficial to you, while from another's POV, that same "relationship may appear destructive. I'm sure that whatever YOU get from your "relationship with god" can be accomplished without that belief, as I'm confident that what you get is a positive "feeling" of some sort, no? Or is there more to it I don't understand?

You seem understand the question, and the point being made here. Thanks for your honesty.

[el_bryanto]

55. To me that question is like saying

"If you don't count the engine, what advantages does a motorcycle have over a bicycle." Well maybe more comfortable seats (but that's debatable). In most other ways a bicycle would be superior - lighter, easier to store, easier to make, cheaper.

On the other hand, by discounting the engine, you throw out the whole point to the motorcycle.

By the same token, if you only accept that there are secular benefits; that spiritual benefits don't exist, than clearly religion serves no purpose that can't be served by secular means. But to do so is to ignore the whole point of most religions (again, I don't want to speak for all religions).

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

57. So what are these "spiritual benefits"? And are they universal?

Additionally, I think that's a very poor analogy, but I get your point and don't want to argue over that.

[el_bryanto]

65. I think it's a very apt analogy.

I believe they are universally available.

We've had this discussion before - you aren't likely to admit that there are spiritual benefits (which in this case I mean benefits that come from God or Gods), and I'm not likely to admit that the spiritual benefits I see are simply good feelings, which could be duplicated without needing to believe in God.

Bryant

[trotsky]

97. No, the analogy is poor.

The existence of an engine and its benefits/drawbacks can be quite conclusively demonstrated.

[el_bryanto]

98. It depends on your point of view

It's certainly apt from my point of view.

I'm willing to allow you and other atheists your point of view and I do my best to understand it and respect it.

But then again, your point of view isn't killing kids, while mine is. I guess I can't expect the same treatment.

Bryant

[trotsky]

99. Then it's a poor analogy, period.

If all it does is keep the concept you're trying to explain locked firmly within your established assumptions and POV.

[el_bryanto]

101. Well exactly.

What would be a good analogy to the suggestion that I explain the benefits to religion (particularly Christian religion) that aren't spiritual (i.e. that don't require God or Gods) and can't be duplicated by secular means?

Or isn't this another way of saying "Assuming you strip away all of that superstitious mumbo-jumbo, what good is religion?" Well the superstitious mumbo jumbo is the point to religion, so if you take that part away, there's nothing left.

So what sort of analogy could I use to explain that point that would be apt?

Bryant

[trotsky]

105. I have no idea, you're the one claiming there is something special about believing in a god -

something that no non-believer could ever experience or benefit from. If you hope to successfully explain what it is, you'll have to come up with an analogy that others can relate to.

[el_bryanto]

106. Well I'm not literally trying to convert anybody

And I don't know that you and cleanhippie have the same attitude about continuing the practice of religion.

If I understand him correctly, his position is that since all the benefits of religion can be duplicated through secular means, and since religion causes so much terrible stuff, there's something at best selfish and at worse monstrous about believers continuing to cling to their religions.

Responding to that argument one has to come up with a benefit of religion that can't be duplicated by secular means - the problem is that those benefits are, in my opinion, spiritual in nature (i.e. they involve belief in God or Gods or a supernatural world (there's more to say here as there are religions that may not require the belief in the supernatural, but as the faith we are mostly concerned in the US is the various branches of Christianity, it seems like splitting hairs)).

And it is unlikely that cleanhippie or any atheist will be willing to acknowledge spiritual benefits as real or valuable.

Bryant

[trotsky]

107. I dunno, cleanhippie can explain for himself what he thinks.

And it is unlikely that cleanhippie or any atheist will be willing to acknowledge spiritual benefits as real or valuable.

But that's not happening. No one is saying you aren't experiencing real or valuable benefits, just that these benefits can be experienced and enjoyed without religion or religious beliefs, too.

You basically agree with this, just with the one caveat: your assertion that the belief in a god is a benefit in and of itself... for some reason that you can't explain. Even to a former believer in god like myself.

[el_bryanto]

108. I have explained it

But it seems like you refuse to understand the explanation.

I'm capable of imagining a world without God - and understanding what the implications of my belief would be if we lived in a Universe without God. You seem incapable, even as a former believer, to be able to imagine a world with God and to consider what benefits would come from a relationship with God. If God existed, and if you felt you could have communion with him, what benefits could you receive?

Bryant

[trotsky]

133. Why would I refuse?

I simply don't understand. Maybe that's why I'm not a believer anymore - I realized that whatever it is you think you get from your relationship with your god, I get from other things.

Perhaps you mean a feeling of connectedness with the universe? I get that and more from the realization that every atom in my body, your body, every other human's body, and even our planet itself was forged together in ancient stars.

Or you know, taking another path, perhaps I realized that by believing in a god, I introduced more problems and questions than the alleged benefits were worth. A billion starving children needed far more help than I do, yet their calls go unanswered while I enjoy a relationship with the same entity who ignores them?

Kind of like my reaction to someone like the pope - it's very difficult, if not impossible, to embrace someone who is calling for many of the economic reforms I want but who treats half the planet like 2nd class citizens, and a fair percentage of them as being unworthy, sinful, and incapable of raising a family if they choose to love the person they want. I don't feel good cheering on someone like that.

[cleanhippie]

109. You seem to be making assumptions that you cannot, or will not, prove.

What are these "benefits"? Claiming that there is a benefit but being unable/unwilling to quantify said benefit seems intellectually dishonest. How can we discuss the merits of these benefits if no one knows what they are?

Show me a benefit, tell me how it can only come from religion, and explain how it is universal in its application, and I will readily concede the point.

[el_bryanto]

110. In order to prove my assumptions I'd have to prove the existence of God

Does trying to prove the existence of God seem like a good use of our time (particularly since neither of believes that the existence of God is provable)?

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

111. I think you are on to something here.

If one cannot prove their claim, how can one continue to insist that the claim is true/factual?

You have insisted that there most certainly is a benefit to believing in a god, yet are unable to quantify that benefit in any meaningful way.
As a reasonable person, how can you continue to insist that this benefit is really a benefit at all?

[el_bryanto]

112. The question is where does the burden of proof lie

I'm not requiring or requesting you to act on my beliefs. I'm not trying to convert you or tell you to start going to church or anything like that. I can go on being a believer and you can go on being an atheist and everything is hunky dory from my perspective.

You on the other hand, as I understand it, would like to see me and other DU Believers change our ways, and stop supporting religion which does so many bad things and has no benefits that can't be gained through secular means.

In other words, if I were to win our debate here, you don't have to do anything or change anything about yourself. If you were to win, I do need to make some serious changes to my life and my belief system.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

113. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

In this case, that person is you.

And perhaps you read past this...

Show me a benefit, tell me how it can only come from religion, and explain how it is universal in its application, and I will readily concede the point.

As well as the many other times I've stated that if you show me the proof, I will change my mind?


The burden of proof is yours, EB. Yours and yours alone.

[el_bryanto]

114. We are both making claims aren't we?

OK.

There is a God. God exists, and is all knowing and loves his children. God's understanding of the universe is far greater than our own. By reaching out to God, by communing with him, we can come to see the world from a more eternal perspective, instead of our own narrow constrained vision. This communion is available to all who seek it, although it comes more difficultly for some.

I don't think that response is going to be acceptable to you.

But again, you are trying to prove that my religious practice is unacceptable and I'm trying to prove that in a world of many acceptable positions, including atheism, my particular beliefs are one of them.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

118. No, we are not. I'm asking a question. You are making a claim.

I have concluded, based on the lack of evidence to the contrary, that there is nothing of benefit. Thats a conclusion, not a claim.

You claim that there is a benefit. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. In this case, thats you.

There is a God. God exists, and is all knowing and loves his children. God's understanding of the universe is far greater than our own. By reaching out to God, by communing with him, we can come to see the world from a more eternal perspective, instead of our own narrow constrained vision. This communion is available to all who seek it, although it comes more difficultly for some.

You have made many claims here, yet provide zero proof for any of it. Least of all, any inherent benefit that comes from your claims.

Again, the burden of proof is yours.

And please, stop trying to move the goalposts...

But again, you are trying to prove that my religious practice is unacceptable and I'm trying to prove that in a world of many acceptable positions, including atheism, my particular beliefs are one of them.

No, Im not. I asked a simple question; What benefits come from religion that cannot be had from secular methods?

[el_bryanto]

119. I cannot prove my claims about the existence of God

and the spiritual benefits of religion. Absent the ability to prove the existence of God and the spiritual benefits of religion, there are no benefits to religion that cannot be had from secular methods.

Now, since I've admitted that, and assuming I was willing to drop my belief in God and my belief in the spiritual benefits of religion, what is the next step that you think I should take?

Be honest here.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

120. Next step to take for what? I asked a question, and the answer seems to be "nothing".

The next step for you? I have no idea. Where are you trying to get?

I'd only ask that if the answer to the question is "nothing", then we (we as in this Group, society, etc) should stop touting religion as an ethical and moral guide superior to any other, and in fact, concede that when pros and cons are weighed, religion is AT BEST, a zero-sum gain, but in practicality, its inherently harmful. (since it has no benefits that cannot be had by secular methods but does have detriments that only come from religion).

[el_bryanto]

121. You get to it there at the end of your post.

I am propping up a system that is "inherently harmful. (since it has no benefits that cannot be had by secular methods but does have detriments that only come from religion)." by continuing to be religious. Is that morally acceptable behavior? Assuming I want to be a moral person, what should I do?

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

137. I cannot tell you how to live your life. That is up to you.

If you see the merits in the argument that you are

propping up a system that is "inherently harmful. (since it has no benefits that cannot be had by secular methods but does have detriments that only come from religion)." by continuing to be religious. Is that morally acceptable behavior?

What conclusion do YOU come to?

[el_bryanto]

139. Well I see hypothetical merits in that argument if there is no God.

But of course there is a God, so the argument doesn't really hold up for me.

So I guess you really have no agenda, when you post on a weekly basis about how Religion is Killing Kids - I mean you wouldn't hide your agenda, certainly.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

147. Any "agenda" I might have could be summarized thusly: Think critically about our beliefs.

And you were doing so good, too. Right up to the last post where you just HAD to take a personal swipe at me, as the REAL critical thinking about your beliefs was required.

Jesus is proud, EB. Jesus is proud.

[el_bryanto]

149. Except that you are fairly certain that if i think critically about my beliefs

I'll come to the same conclusion that you have. And gosh I'm sorry for implying that you have an agenda.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

150. When it gets down to the brass tacks of thinking critically about your beliefs, your response

is always "I believe in God, so there."

Yeah, thats some real critical thought.

Good luck, EB. See ya around.

[el_bryanto]

151. Thank you - I'm glad you acknowledged it.

I can only get credit for thinking critically if I come to the same conclusion you have.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

156. No, you get credit for thinking critically when you think critically.

"God did it" is about as far from critical thought as one can get.

[el_bryanto]

158. In your opinion - and of course that's not exactly what I said

What I have said is that I can't prove the existence of God; I suppose I should have gone on to say that one can only come to know God through interacting with him.

Bryant

[cleanhippie]

161. Prove it.

I should have gone on to say that one can only come to know God through interacting with him.

I know, I know. One has to believe in the supernatural (god) in order to know that the supernatural (god) exists, right?

Do you not see how absurd that sounds?

[Brettongarcia]

19. Still, I'd say El Byranto has eventually shown more impartiality and objectivity than many

As I recall, Bryanto was responsible for those useful DU polls; simply canvassing opinion.

And here he expresses one of the saner opinions that you hear from believers.

He has also acknowledged religious excesses.

So I'd like to sincerely thank him again; without irony or malicious intent. As even a potential ally in religious reform.

[cleanhippie]

21. I woul agree that EB is one of the most reasonable believers here.

[LiberalAndProud]

23. Nor do I hold you personally responsible.

I do find the notion that calling a stupid idea religious brings special exemption for any harm caused ludicrous. Acting on certain beliefs can be harmful to others. Your freedom, religious or otherwise, must be circumscribed at the point where that harm becomes manifest. It is not okay to withhold life saving treatment for any reason, whether the reasons be sadistic or religious.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. 'Played a role in it'.

Uh-huh.

[el_bryanto]

60. Ah - so tell me - I'm always excited to learn

If I were an honest person what would I say?

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

61. I would say their particular brand of religious belief led them directly to it.

Not 'played a part in it'.

[el_bryanto]

62. Is this thread intended to be a condemnation of religion in general?

Or this specific practice? I took it to be the latter in which case I answered the way I do. If it's intended to apply only to these religious beliefs, than your wording is more correct.

Bryant

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Very few faiths actually have this sort of prohibition.

Another example might be the watchtower folks eschewing blood transfusions.


I read the OP in the context of showing that there are at least some specific faiths that lead to this sort of behavior, not a condemnation of all faiths.

In the referenced thread (in the OP) there were dismissals along the lines of 'faith never leads to this, it's mental illness'. This is an actual tenet of this particular faith, not a individual's misinterpretation or mental illness being given thin cover by 'faith' based 'orders' or commandments.


What troubles me, as an atheist, viewing religions from the outside, is that I can't tell the difference between the church referenced in this case, and the faith of ANY other religion, aside from the material production of a dead kid. Meaning, from a 'believability' standpoint, they all look the same, or rather, I cannot say 'that one is wrong/fake/invented, this other one is 'real'. They are all materially equal claims, made without evidence or rational foundation.

If I have to accept that, for instance, Christianity is a thing, a valid form of faith with doctrines and tenets, etc, then I have to accept these folks referenced in the OP as well. The claims vary in nature, but materially they are equally evidenced and justifiable.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Here's a practical example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=125431

In that post, I am attacked for daring to criticize the catholic church's legislative lobbying efforts based on their religious morals, for an issue that is predicated squarely upon their faith in A) an eternal soul and B) the sinful nature of suicide, because their moral code is based on their religious faith.


I cannot differentiate between the claim the catholics make about the soul, and the resulting opposition to physician assisted suicide, and the church in THIS op eschewing all medical care.

They are equally unverifiable claims to me. I oppose both, but as long as the demand upon me would be to accept the catholic faith as a real thing to be respected, I am also bound to respect that of the church in THIS op.

Basically, because I have to treat everyone equally, if you want me to respect the (again, a specific Abrahamic tradition faith) catholics, I would be reason-bound to be a sympathetic member of the jury for this trial in the OP.


To be internally and logically consistent, I would be forced to vote not guilty, if their religious faith was brought up as a defense. (Since they are apparently not seeking to mention it, I would then be free to vote guilty along the lines of negligent manslaughter.)

[EvilAL]

24. Murderers, that's what they are,

plain and fucking simple. Murderers.

[Leontius]

29. Not a good word choice unless of course you are implying that it was their intent to kill their

child.

[Brettongarcia]

31. Probably criminal neglect or manslaughter would be better; or perhaps Murder 2

[cleanhippie]

36. Perhaps he means God is the murderer?

If the god they believe in is real and true, that god failed to answer their prayers, or wilfully let that child die.

Otherwise, their beliefs are absurd and irrational, and they chose to ignore reality in favor of said absurd and irrational belief, making them 100% culpable.

[Leontius]

37. Yeah that make so much sense , I always hear people referring to God as "they".

[cleanhippie]

39. Whoosh! Goes the point over your head.

I made an edit, too. Perhaps it makes more sense now?

[Leontius]

42. So your take is that they were unable to distinguish reality from their religious delusions

making them mentally incapable of knowing they were doing something wrong, harmful or illegal and therefore should not be punished by the court.

[Brettongarcia]

45. Often believing "absurd" things, even when clear evidence disproves them, is culpable ignorance

[cleanhippie]

48. Lol. Hardly.

But keep up the good work evading the tough questions. As usual.

[Leontius]

52. You've asked no question tough or otherwise to evade but you have sidestepped yourself

right outta here. Good work.

[cleanhippie]

53. You apparently didn't retread my post after the edit or are choosing to ignore it.

Sidestepped? No. But I am laughing my way out.

[Leontius]

54. I retreaded it but still no question asked, just four lines of poorly stated opinion is all I see.

[cleanhippie]

56. You see what you want to, I guess.

Still laughing though.

[Leontius]

140. Clowns gotta do what they do and you seem good at it.

[cleanhippie]

148. Your inability to articulate an advanced thought beyond a childish insult is just sad.

Did you have a bad experience with a clown as a child?

[Leontius]

154. Oh please when you go into your childish little act, and you always do, don't try

a comeback with the word childish in it, it really highlights what you do. Your silly little act is just really fucking tiresome please get a new one because this one is just too boring and predictable. If you have a question then ask it. I don't really even know why I respond to you any more, hope springs eternal I guess and I do always hope you will engage at an adult level instead of this silly shit you do and believe me from the crap you usually post listening and learning would really help you grow.

[cleanhippie]

155. Lol.

Prove yourself to be capable of adult conversation, then let's talk.

[Leontius]

157. When your parents get home tell them the mean man called you a childish clown.

I'll probably forget but for now I'm done with you and your juvenile bullshit. Maybe you'll grow up but I doubt it given your past history here.

[cleanhippie]

160. Lol. Project much?

[Brettongarcia]

40. Elohim is plural, often

[Brettongarcia]

43. Woops! Forgot another evasive technique by believers: quibbling over minor points

As a form of sleight-of-hand misdirection; the classic magicians' method. Always divert attention from the main subject.

[Leontius]

46. Oh bullshit, the post was plainly referring to the parents not God so any attempt at misdirection

is solely the result of CH 's post. So direct your comment to him.

[EvilAL]

47. Second degree murderers then.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I'm confused, if they don't bring their faith into it, what is their defense?

'We just sat there like assholes and did nothing, for no particular reason whatsoever'?

Seems like they are throwing away their only possible defense.

[struggle4progress]

70. Belief in faith-healing is no longer a defense in Oregon. I might guess they'll argue

they simply had no idea how sick the girl really was -- though that could be an uphill climb

[elleng]

129. I agree.

Haven't thought about this thoroughly, but seems to me 'religious belief' might get them more sympathy than 'negligence.'

[ladywnch]

68. I love how these people wear their religion on their sleeves

and demand the right to proselytize, and shout about it from the mountain tops until it is something important......then they go silent and talk about how their faith is a private matter and nobody else's concern...etc.

Nice to see they are willing to stand strong on their faith.......oh yeah........right.

hypocrites

[struggle4progress]

69. Some additional details from the press:

... In 1996, a Linn County jury convicted .. Loyd Hays of Brownsville, on charges of criminally negligent homicide. He was sentenced to five years' probation. Hays’ wife, Christina, was acquitted. They were the first people in Oregon to be prosecuted for following their religion rather than taking a sick child for medical care ...
Lawyers seek to bar religion evidence in manslaughter case
By Kyle Odegard, Albany Democrat-Herald
April 18, 2014 6:29 pm

... Court records list Christina Hays as a grand jury witness in the case involving the Rossiters ...
Police: Parents withheld medical care leading to daughter's death
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:56 PM EDT
By FOX 12 Staff

Grand jury indictments against Travis and Wenona Rossiter

... Albany detectives arrested Travis Rossiter, 39, and Wenona Rossiter, 37, at 8 a.m. Thursday on charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter ...
Police: Parents withheld medical care leading to daughter's death
Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM EDT
Updated: Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:56 PM EDT
By FOX 12 Staff

... Travis Rossiter, 39, and Wenona Rossiter, 37, of Albany turned themselves in ... after police told them they would be arrested in the connection of Syble Rossiter’s death ...
Albany Parents Arrested for Manslaughter
Published August 29, 2013
by Rhoda Krause

... The couple .. will be tried together, rather than separately ...
Couple accused in death of daughter, 12, seek to exclude mention of faith healing
By Kyle Odegard, Albany Democrat-Herald
April 18, 2014 11:28 pm

... Syble Rossiter such had dramatic weight loss in the month before she died that a teacher confronted Wenona Rossiter about the issue ...
Lawyers seek to bar religion evidence in manslaughter case
By Kyle Odegard, Albany Democrat-Herald
April 18, 2014 6:29 pm

... Syble Rossiter died of Diabetic Ketoacidosis after she went into a "diabetic crisis." Carter told KGW that Albany police based its case solely on the Rossiters not seeking medical attention for a condition that police deemed "treatable" ...
Albany couple pleads not guilty in death of daughter, 12
by Evan Sernoffsky, kgw.com staff
Posted on August 30, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Updated Friday, Aug 30 at 7:58 PM

... The Rossiters were arraigned at the Linn County Courthouse ... Members of the church the couple attend were also present in the courtroom ... Albany police say the Rossiters are members at Church of the First Born, a group that says on its website that it believes in healing through prayer ... Captain Eric Carter with Albany Police says he does not know if the church’s beliefs had anything to do with the Rossiters not providing medical care for their daughter. “The investigation clearly showed that this was a condition any reasonable parent should have been aware of; should have provided medical care and treatment, and they chose not to,” Carter said. “I don’t know what the financial situation was at the time of the family, and I don’t know what factors did or didn’t play into that other than they didn’t provide care for their child” ...
Couple Says Not Guilty for Manslaughter
Published August 30, 2013
by Rhoda Krause

... Carter said the manslaughter charges regarding a child’s death from a medical condition was very rare in Albany. “I don’t recall us having one in the recent past. I would have to ask to see if we have even had one,” he said ...
Albany couple accused in daughter's death
By Kyle Odegard, Albany Democrat-Herald
August 29, 2013 7:00 pm


... The Rossiters .. have two other children ...
Albany parents held in daughter’s death
By Sally Showman
Updated: Thursday, August 29, 2013, 6:21 pm
Published: Thursday, August 29, 2013, 11:25 am

[rug]

75. What are you complaing about now, the legal strategy or their religious belief?

If you had taken the time to follow the links contained in the article instead of posting a puking smiley, you'd have found this:

“They knew she was in great peril. ... They didn’t seek out medical care, and the reason they didn’t do it was their religious beliefs,” Prosecutor Keith Stein said. “This is what the case is about, and in truth, this is what happened.”

Mark Heslinga, defense attorney for Wenona Rossiter, said evidence of religious beliefs would be prejudicial.

“My client is requesting he be tried for the actions of that day, not for his religious beliefs,” said Tim Felling, Travis Rossiter’s attorney.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/couple-accused-in-death-of-daughter-seek-to-exclude-mention/article_c9fcbe4c-c78b-11e3-b96c-001a4bcf887a.html

It's a proper motion.

If you posted this as a clumsy indictment of religion in toto, all you've done is demonstrate your misunderstanding of religion is as great as your misunderstanding of the law.

[Brettongarcia]

86. Possibly a proper motion in some sense; but it seeks to deny probable motive, and history of accused

And their social setting. Which in turn uniquely make sense of their actions.

Suggesting that the motion should be denied?

[rug]

146. Motive and past criminal history have no place in any criminal trial, with rare, specific exceptions

Whether the motion is denied depends on the defense they're making and whether it's an affirmative defense. They are walking a very thin line.

[Brettongarcia]

164. Here some legal sources seem to consider motive indirectly, in Murder cases:

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2014, 09:54 AM - Edit history (1)

"Homicide -- First Degree Murder -- Aggravating Circumstance -- Murders of Sisters --
Common Motive and Modus Operandi
State v. Cummings, 332 N.C. 487 (1992) 422 S.E.2d 692 Page 490
The trial court did not err in submitting the course of conduct aggravating
circumstance to the jury in a first degree murder prosecution based on defendant's
murder of the victim's sister some twenty-six months after the victim's murder
where the evidence showed that the motive and modus operandi were similar in
both murders."

http://www.ncdistrictattorney.org/caselawbank/MOTIVE-final.pdf


It would presumably be easy to show that since our faith-healing defendants' church often killed people through faith-healing, a consistent pattern or method of operation could be located. This would also be relevant to showing that the defendants should have known better; and were therefore exhibiting reckless endangerment, or a "depraved indifference to human life," also part of Murder 2.

"Intent" to harm is important in criminal cases. By many it is said that that "motive" is not considered, but only in the sense that it seemingly does not play a direct role in proving the "intent" to murder, say. Yet motive is often considered by judges, to explain the background of intention. In one English survey:

"To conclude, it can be said that with regard to the cases examined above we can say that motive is part of the elements examined by judges and jury to reach a decision since it allows them to have a complete picture of the events. However, it can be argued that motive is really synonymous with intention since intention seems to be opened to many interpretations. William Wilson in particular refers to the problem raised by the definition of intention ‘"


http://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/motive-is-synonymous-with-intention.php

http://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/motive-is-synonymous-with-intention.php

[3catwoman3]

78. The information about...

...a belief system that led to the child's death would be prejudicial. Well, isn't that just too damn bad. Seems completely relevant to me.

[okasha]

80. There is nothing unique in the motion in question.

Defense attorneys routinely move for exclusion of evidence unfavorable to their clients. It's standard procedure. When this couple are found guilty, it won't--and shouldn't--be because their attorney was incompetent.

[struggle4progress]

81. It's not clear to me that the granting of their motion helps them much. Belief in faith-healing

is no longer a defense in Oregon, but if they do not want their religious beliefs taken into account, at least with respect to their intent, then in what other direction can their defense go? It seems the child's illness was evident to outsiders who contacted the parents with concern about the child -- so "we had no idea she was so deathly sick" may not have a very bright future at trial. And if they don't argue absolute ignorance, what can they argue? "My pal Billy Bob told me she just had the flu and that his old family remedy, skunk fat boiled in turpentine, was sure to curer"? Or "We really didn't fuggin care how sick she got"?

[el_bryanto]

82. So what's the insult count up to? Brettongarcia predicted 1,000 insults from believers like myself?

How many are we at?

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

84. A cautionary word forestalled them. But cumulatively, over time? : )

[el_bryanto]

85. Yes - there were a lot of cautionary words I noticed

I guess you need to keep believers in line.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

87. Particularly when they are killing children

[el_bryanto]

89. Yep - I think all of the child killing believers who post at DU should watch their step. nt

[Brettongarcia]

91. Easy to do; when all that involves is going to the doctor a little too late

Or say, opposing universal health care.

[el_bryanto]

92. Yep - I don't have any kids to kill myself, thank goodness, but please DU Believers

Don't kill your kids by denying them medical care.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

93. Or denying OTHER kids health care; vs. Obamacare say. Or denying foreign aid. Or ..

Or denying it to minorities. Or...

Mere neglect kills plenty of people. Young and adult.

[el_bryanto]

94. Ah - So you are saying we DU Believers should support liberal policies?

I'm wondering why we would be posting at DU if we were selfish Republicans? While reasonable DUers might disagree on the best way to approach our medical crisis, I'm pretty sure we all agree that more needs to be done.

And there are plenty of "I've got mine" folks who aren't particularly religious.

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

95. If you are not personally guilty, then how about talking to other Christians who might be?

[el_bryanto]

96. How do you know that I'm not? nt

[Brettongarcia]

100. For those who are, then great. Our present discussion might help with talking points

Including documented cases of physical fatalities from too much religion

[el_bryanto]

102. Well yes, I agree that your talking points about how religion kills kid is very beneficial

if your goal is to denigrate religion.

But do you really expect DU Believers to get on board with that?

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

103. Many liberal believers agree that there are at least bad ASPECTS to SOME religion

Many liberal believers here will agree that Fundamentalists at least, often make serious mistakes. Especially those who neglect medical care, and cause other people to die.

[el_bryanto]

104. Why are you pretending that you are ok with liberal / DU believers

so long as they condemn the excesses? I can read down just a few posts in which you make it clear that this story isn't just about the extremists who let these kids die, it's also about the beliefs held by Mainstream and even Liberal Believers.

You don't want DU believers to condemn this particular family or this particular church - most, if not all, would be willing to do so. What you want is for DU Believers to condemn the practice of religion - of accepting things on authority without proof as I think you put it down below (there's more to religion than that in my opinion).

Bryant

[Brettongarcia]

145. My reading of the Bible finds it ordering believers to embrace science, over faith & "religion"

So ironically, by leaving their religion and faith, they are fulfilling it.

Oddly, religion and atheism end up in the same place, and are reconciled.

[Brettongarcia]

88. Faith kills another child: this is an extremely important case, pointing to the key sin in religion

This case is important not just in itself; but also it can become an important introduction to THE core systematic failure in conventional Christianity.

The particular case involves a couple of faith-based, faith-healing parents. Who decided that their religion, their faith, requires them to ask God to heal their child, rather than pursuing medical treatment. The problem that resulted was that God did not faith heal their children; instead, their child got worse ... and then died. From medical problems that doctors could have fixed.

Here traditional Christians are eager to distance themselves from all this; to assert that "mainstream" or "modern" Christianity does not have this problem. And yet the stress on “faith healing” is widespread in much of Christianity. While the related stress on “faith” in general of course is absolutely central to all of Christianity.

So the emphasis in faith healing, on faith, gets to the core problem of Christianity. This very stress on “faith” is what turns out to be the problem. Which is this: when we encourage people to ignore physical evidence, and to just follow religious or other authority just on the basis of blind confidence or faith, people are often fatally mislead. When people ignore all the many “signs” that say their faith-healing is not working, often their children will suffer for instance; and even die.

These individual cases of fatalities from faith, therefore, are just the tip of the fatal iceberg of all of Christianity; including "modern" and "liberal" Christianity. Looking into many such cases, we can begin to see what the general problem is: too much blind confidence or “faith” in unreliable authority. Finally, looking into deaths and poverty figures in the religious communities, we can soon come up with not just dozens or even hundreds, but millions of examples of how too much faith in bad ideas, bad religious leaders, has historically weakened the lives of millions of people. Often even literally, fatally. (Some recent free books by Dr. Woodbridge Goodman online, show how too much religion, too much faith, weakened or destroyed their ability to engage in reason, or critical thinking, or science. With often physically crippling and even fatal results. See particularly Vol. 6, “The Harm Done.”)

Beginning to see the really terrible and fatal side of traditional Christianity - even modern liberal, spiritual Christianity- is a devastating, even heaven-shatteringly disillusioning moment for Christians. However? Some of us are beginning to show that even the Bible itself told us that one “day” or another, even “good” modern Christians are supposed to discover that the whole “world” - including they themselves – were “deceived” by a false idea of Christ. (See Dr. Goodman, Vol. ? “The Day”).

And their false idea of God moreover, was not just false in some harmless way; their false ideas actually weakened and killed many people. Including in many of the present cases, their own children.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. "And their false idea of God moreover"

I love it when one religious person applies the word 'false' to another religious person.


Based on?....

[Leontius]

141. You really got the wrong guy.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. It wasn't meant as a direct reference to that poster, just the concept of a 'false god'.

[Leontius]

143. But isn't your POV that all gods are essentially false?

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Just one more than any other monotheist.

[elleng]

126. They think 'negligence' is a better defense???

[Prophet 451]

130. I'm sure every criminal would like evidence against them disallowed

Faith is a supplement to reason, not a substitute.

[SevenSixtyTwo]

135. Makes me think of the hundreds

Of people who will pray for safe travels before putting their kids on the church bus but not the first one will check the tire pressure, capacity or age of the tires.

[Prophet 451]

136. Indeed

If your faith requires you to reject reason, the problem is with your faith.

[struggle4progress]

159. Determination of guilt or innocence here will turn on whether the facts presented show

that the elements of the crime (defined by the statute) exist

For this particular crime with victim a minor, the statutory language, taken at facial value, does not suggest that the defendants' religion can have any role in determining whether or not a crime occurred

While the defendants' religious beliefs might have some bearing on intent in some cases, intent may not be an element of crimes involving negligence or recklessness

[Brettongarcia]

162. What about intentional neglect?

[nil desperandum]

134. The couple’s attorneys argued that evidence of their religious beliefs were irrelevant..

How would their beliefs be irrelevant when the practice of those beliefs required the parents to deny medical care? Those beliefs are at the core of this 12 year old's death. Those beliefs led these people to pray that some miracle would happen and suddenly start their daughter's body processing blood sugar normally without medical assistance. Those beliefs led these people to ignore a scientific, medical fact and believe that magic might save their child. Those beliefs allowed these people to sit by chatting while their child died, that would indicate those beliefs are directly indicated as relevant causal effects in this case. The evidence of their beliefs being prejudicial are no more so than showing a weapon at a wrongful death inquiry.

They directly contributed to their daughter's death because of their beliefs, if they were so concerned their beliefs would be perceived as prejudicial to their case maybe they should have seen a doctor in spite of whatever idiocy they believe in for themselves. With luck they will spend the rest of their lives in jail for killing their child through willful neglect.

[struggle4progress]

152. The charges are first and second degree manslaughter

You can view the full text of the statutes here and here. Some portions seem irrelevant for the case at hand. Possibly relevant portions seem to me to be:

163.118 Manslaughter in the first degree
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the first degree when:
(a) It is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life ..
(c) A person recklessly causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
(A) The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
(B) The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder) ...
(3) Manslaughter in the first degree is a Class A felony ...

163.125 Manslaughter in the second degree
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
(a) It is committed recklessly; .. or
(c) A person, with criminal negligence, causes the death of a child under 14 years of age or a dependent person, as defined in ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), and:
(A) The person has previously engaged in a pattern or practice of assault or torture of the victim or another child under 14 years of age or a dependent person; or
(B) The person causes the death by neglect or maltreatment, as defined in ORS 163.115 (Murder).
(2) Manslaughter in the second degree is a Class B felony.

Intent may not be relevant in manslaughter cases. Nor, for this case, does religious belief appear to matter in the statutory definition of the crime

[Brettongarcia]

163. The charge is manslaughter. But future prosecutors might consider Murder 2?

The defendants here knew from past experience with faith-healing in their church, that faith-healing can be fatal. And yet they proceeded anyway. Therefore they might be convicted of an act characterized by "depraved indifference to human life"; one type of Murder 2.

[struggle4progress]

165. The grand jury indicted for manslaughter. On Wednesday I posted a link to the indictment

in #69 upthread

[Brettongarcia]

166. Manslaughter seems best, and easy to do. But I'm suggesting future cases consider Murder 2.