I wonder why little Madeline died on the floor, instead of in a soft bed. I wonder if she thought that she wasn’t loved by God because she wasn’t getting better. I wonder if she ever knew other little children who went to doctors and wondered why her mother and father wouldn’t help her too. These people turn the Christian religion into a horror story, and well as the couple in Oregon.

“If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God…I am not believing what he said he would do.”
Funny thing about god: he’s very good with plagues and floods, but not so much with testifying in court.

The sentence for Worthington is totally outrageous! 2 months for allowing your child to die…or IMO, basicly killing her. Newmann is expected to get 25 or 26 years…better but when one considers a parent allowing their child to die without getting medical help, there really isn’t a sentence long enough. Perhaps both will die, eventually or sooner, of something really painful and horrible, and have no medical intervention, so they feel everything. Then they will experience what their children went through as they died…watching folks “pray” to their god. As Henrietta said, wonder if Madeline was alert enough to wonder where the god she was taught to believe was in her pain.

I have no sympathy with these people, who deliberately stifled their own rationality screaming at them to help their sick and dying children, and just kept praying.
Did it occur to them that the Bible–the very object of their idolatrous worship–says that we shall not put God to the test? What else were they doing but putting God to the test?
Not being a lawyer, I don’t know the answer to this question, but I wonder: I believe it is true that it is illegal to incite the murder of a specific individual, but I think I also read that some racist demagogues have been convicted of inciting racial murder in general, presumably on grounds that their exhortations to others to commit violence constituted a clear and present danger that superseded free-speech protections against racist rhetoric. If that is so, then could a case be made against churches that frighten or coerce their members into denying medical care for a sick child, by threats of hellfire? The child is helpless and depends on the parents. EITHER these parents are 100% responsible for the death of their children OR they share the blame with the pulpit-pounders who filled their heads with this disgusting perversion of true faith.

The Wisconsin jury was far better than than the Oregon jury, whose slap of the wrist punishments may cause several similar deaths by letting people think such behavior is ok.

The wild disparity in the sentences given in the 2 cases is, I guess, partly due to the fact that the Oregon jury found the father guilty only of a misdemeanor. But it reveals that the law has not figured out how to deal with crimes–yes, CRIMES–committed in the name of religion. To me, there is a simple answer: the law should pay absolutely no attention to the religious smokescreen that always surrounds these cases.
On other boards about these cases, I asked what the law should do with atheist parents who let their child die because “We don’t believe in doctors and medicine.” They are not habitual felons and their grief is genuine–but they let their child die, and it had nothing to do with religious beliefs. I argued that the law should treat ALL parents who let their child die the same, regardless of their religious beliefs, and I think that is the only rational answer. And such an approach does not violate first-amendment rights; people are free to worship God, Satan, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster–but they are NOT free to murder in the name of whatever being they worship. So let’s take another example: suppose the parents ARE religious and they DO let their child die, because they chose to pray instead of seeking medical help–except that their religion is Satanism. Are we more comfortable excusing Christians who pray while their sick children are dying for lack of medical care than we would be in excusing Satanists who do the same thing? If we cut some slack for Christians but not for Satanists, then we have taken a huge step toward the establishment of a state religion. If we cut ANY slack for religion in general, including Satanism, then we might as well throw out all of our laws, for then anyone except atheists could potentially walk away from any crime.
The absurdity is obvious, and the ONLY solution is to disallow any appeal to religion when the laws that apply to everyone are violated.
(Apologies to Satanists for these comments–so far as I know, all of these cases involve Christian fundamentalists only. I’m just trying to make a point about different attitudes toward different religions, and the chaos that must ensue when the law officially recognizes and upholds those attitudes.)

Good points indeed, HFChrist, regarding what could possibly be a difference of “opinion” in court when it comes to a persons faith.

Your examples were right on HfC. A crime is a crime no matter what reason you chose to hide behind.

Satanist accepting apologies from Heretic_for_Christ on the grounds of absolute truth.