« Takin' Wyden's plan viral | Main | In search of the "truth". Will Novick step up? »

April 17, 2008

Church & State. Where does one end and the other begin?

Carl and Raylene Worthington of Oregon City have been charged with 2nd degree Manslaughter and 2nd degree Criminal Mistreatment following the faith-healing death of their young daughter in March.

15 month old Ava Worthington died March 2 from bacterial pneumonia and a blood infection. Her parents chose to try to heal her with prayer and faith rather than accept medical help in the form of common antibiotics.

The Worthingtons have, with the help of their attorneys, set up a website to defend themselves with. The premises of their legal defense appear to rest on the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and three sections of the Oregon constitution:

Section 1 — Natural rights inherent in people We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

Section 2 — Freedom of worship
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Section 3 — Freedom of religious opinion
No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

At first glance this case seems pretty simple. Parents like myself likely consider the raw facts and conclude that the parents were highly irresponsible and that the poor little girl died needlessly and pointlessly. Those who aren't religious or are anti-religious probably react even more strongly. But is it really as simple as it seems to be at first blush?

If we side with the government and conclude that this couple crossed a line which requires a legal consequence, are we safe as long as we don't reject modern medical science in favor of a deistic belief system?

Might the legal precedent laid by the state's case here represent a slippery slope which could conceivably ensnare you or me some day in some currently unintended way?

If this couple is acquitted then doesn't that lay a foundation for child abuse as long as it's done in the name of a belief system? If convicted then couldn't that precedent eventually reach into your life or mine?

Is the only safe position one of simply not adhering to any religious belief system?

I honestly don't know what the correct answers to those questions are. My gut feeling right now is that there are potential slippery slopes in all directions regardless of how this particular case is resolved.

(hat tip: oregonlive.com)

Posted by Kevin at April 17, 2008 02:48 PM