iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Frank Schaeffer

Frank Schaeffer

Posted: September 22, 2009 04:27 PM

When Freedom Is a Dirty Word

What's Your Reaction?

On what had to be one of the most disheartening media appearances I've ever made -- in terms of my usual shtick as an author and commentator -- I was just on Court TV yesterday. Court TV was fine. The case we were talking about made me want to throw up.

I was commentating on Oregon v. Carl and Raylene Worthington, involving Christian fundamentalist parents who refused to give their child medical care on the basis of their trust in faith healing. (I was invited because as a former Religious Right leader -- long since departed from that shadow land -- they thought I'd bring an "inside" perspective.)

The Worthington's fifteen-month-old little girl died (of something easily treatable) surrounded by her parents and other members of their congregation praying for healing. No one called 911. As far as I'm concerned they used their daughter the way Islamic suicide bombers sometimes use children to carry their bombs.

When right-wing evangelical Christians say they fear government death panels and a "takeover of medicine" by the federal government it seems strange to me that what they fear the federal government might do would be to save people like this child's life. So much for the "pro-life" community.

I just wish the government really would take over health care, and for that matter remove children from any family that is crazy enough to deny care to a minor. And while they're at it they should curb the rights of redneck loons to carry loaded weapons into public meetings.

In fact it's time to roll back the extremes of freedom in freedom's name.

The religious right, the gun-carrying paranoids all have one thing in common: they are taking a libertarian/religious view to an extreme that will unhinge this country. It's time to make certain types of freedom a dirty word.

Here's the case as it was laid out for me by the folks at Court TV:

Carl and Raylene Worthington are lifelong members of Followers of Christ, a controversial religious group which doesn't believe in using medical doctors. (Children have died in this group before who needed medical care.) On March 2, 2008, their 15-month-old daughter Ava died at home after she developed pneumonia. The Worthingtons were indicted by a grand jury for not providing adequate medical care.

On Sunday, March 2, 2008, 15-month-old Ava Worthington took her last breath at approximately 7:15 p.m. as her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, along with a host of members of the Followers of Christ Church, prayed for her recovery.

The "healing," which took approximately 45 minutes, began sometime near 6:00 p.m. According to the Worthingtons and church members a short time later, (estimates range from 15-30 minutes), Ava died in the master bedroom of the family home. Following church practices, the infant was anointed and the county medical examiner's office was called to report the death.

In July of 2009, Clackamas County Circuit Judge Steven Maurer announced the verdicts in the trial of Carl and Raylene Worthington. They both faced manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges. Raylene Worthington was acquitted of both charges; Carl Worthington was convicted of a criminal mistreatment charge.

How can this happen in America?

Make no mistake about it, there is a scarily large subculture within our society that, in terms of its "life values," is utterly hypocritical. At the recent so-called Values Voter Summit (September 22, 2009) held by the top Republicans and their Religious Right supporters where were the protests against bad parenting where crimes are committed in the name of God?

Where were the speeches against gun-toting nuts?

Nowhere.

Because the Religious Right is not religious or conservative: they are nihilists. Call 911 for that child? No! Arrest someone for carrying a loaded weapon to a presidential meeting place? Don't tread on me! I have rights!

Every day the "family values" religious extremest chip away at actual family values, and not just when they're letting little children die of neglect in the name of God. The evangelical/fundamentalist America within the ordinary everyday decent caring America is largely responsible for banning, effectively curtailing or harassing and minimizing effective sex education in our schools. This leads directly to a far higher incidence of abortion. This same group has now turned its collective will against reforming our health care system in a way that would give women and children an opportunity to have access to family care that would not just reduce the incidence of abortion but the incidence of mortality in everything from childhood diabetes to lacking prenatal care.

If ever a case pointed to the fact that we need government intervention in the curtailing of our insane levels of "religious freedom" the Worthington case is a perfect example.

It's time that all American children "belonging" to fundamentalist extremists come under the care of the state. It's time that all children are guaranteed an education wherein they will be taught facts rather than religious mythology. It is time to look at child-hurting homeschoolers and demand a curriculum that is fact-based.

With the Republican Party in the grip of the Religious Right it did everything in its power to turn the case of Terri Schiavo into a circus fraught with political "family values" overtones. Where were they as baby Worthington died -- killed by faith in God?

Thousands of children in this country are raised in everything from polygamous child-abusing religious communes to homes where medical care is denied because of "religious freedom." Tens of thousands more are beaten according to the teachings of James Dobson and his pro-corporal punishment child-intimidation manuals. Where is the law?

Religious freedom means freedom to worship in the Church of your choosing and -- after your're 18 -- to believe anything you want. Before you're 18, society should protect you. Freedom in the hands of fools is becoming a dirty word. It is time to reconnect with reality and real family values, free from abusive religion.

em>Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back and the forthcoming Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism)

 
 

Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer

 
 
  • Comments
  • 144
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
02:55 PM on 09/26/2009
So I checked out this religion. Evidently membership is closed and the rate of children's death was 26% higher than those of the general population. I don't know what part of God also made doctors these people don't understand. May I suggest that this group be monitored closely to prevent further deaths?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fabucat
11:22 PM on 09/24/2009
I always take time to read your comments, Mr. Schaeffer, because you never disappoint. I would assume, however, that most people who developed the movement that created today's 'Religious Right' would have sought medical help for a sick child. C. Everett Coop, for example, is a medical doctor. Every leader of the religious right, past and present, would have sought treatment for their sick child in this situation. The defendant parents are the extreme of the extreme.

Legally, the case is trickier than you might think, because of the prominence of religious freedom in the First Amendment. When people's lives are at stake, however, especially the lives of children, then the state must step in.
10:51 PM on 09/24/2009
There are religious BILLBOARDS along Interstates in some southern states that read "Use the Rod on Your Children, Save Their Lives". Seems to promote physical violence. Our family does not HIT OUR 3 CHILDREN, ages 14, 12, 10 and they are all good students, intelligent, reasonable and well behaved. No good comes from hitting anyone!
12:25 PM on 09/24/2009
I know where Mr. Schaeffer's outrage is coming from. It is hard to reconcile the religious right's big hype on family and moral issues and turning a deaf ear to cases where this scenario is played out. Thousands of children are harmed and die every year in this country from lack of health care, gun violence, and violence in the name of discipline but that is somehow justified by these people. And although I believe that these parents are brainwashed by their religious cult that doesn't absolve them. It is absolutely sickening that the parents in this case were acquitted.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:20 PM on 09/24/2009
"It is absolutely sickening that the parents in this case were acquitted."

One was convicted ...criminal mistreatment charge. Before condemning the verdict, I always find it wise to look at the evidence presented to the Jury.
07:49 PM on 09/23/2009
"Religious freedom means freedom to worship in the Church of your choosing and -- after your're 18 -- to believe anything you want. Before you're 18, society should protect you. Freedom in the hands of fools is becoming a dirty word. It is time to reconnect with reality and real family values, free from abusive religion."

AMEN to that! I don't see how, though, without infringing on the religious rights of others, that measures can be taken to prevent such a tragedy happening again. Perhaps neighbors can get to know who lives next to them, so these deceived folks can perhaps be converted out of that type of religious thinking. I am a Christian, but I am not one that doesn't believe in medicine. God gave us the knowledge to have some of the most skilled doctors in the world.
09:51 PM on 09/24/2009
I think people should have a right to worship whatever beliefs they like, but children before 18 years old must be protected from abusive parents. Depriving an infant medical care because of religious beliefs should be treated the same as physical abuse and neglect are treated. I think both of these parents needed to be punished to send a message to religious cults that endangering the lives of children, because of religious beliefs, is a crime. I would have even advocated prosecuting all the adults in this case who participated in these prayers instead of calling 911: they were all accessories and contributed to the child's death.
05:14 PM on 10/05/2009
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They all should have been convicted of child neglect and if stupidity were a crime, then that also.
06:07 PM on 09/23/2009
As a Christian, as much as I want to protect the freedom of religion, I want to protect these precious innocent children even more. Government intervention is not the answer though. Private intervention might be the place to start. It sounds like this group doesn't really even know the Bible because Jesus made the comment about the sick having need of a doctor, so obviously he was not against the use of doctors. Government intervention should be the last resort.

The comment you made Mr. Schaeffer --"It's time that all American children belonging to fundamentalist extremists come under the care of the state." just shows all the more why the right is justified in their concerns and comments about the left. I do want to see children get medical care, but your comment has a much broader reach. You want the government to be in control of everything: healthcare, school, children. I believe you may be a closet "global governance" guy and of course the goal with those people is to control every single aspect of our lives, even to get rid of property rights eventually, otherwise a global leader can't control the world unless he has a tight rein on everything. Yeah you seem to have a definite direction you want to take this country--away from freedom.
03:42 PM on 09/23/2009
I'm not convinced that government intervention will solve the problem. At best, your prescriptions address specific symptoms but does not get at the root cause of the problem. To do that, you will have to go to the core of the belief. Calling these people hypocrites is not helpful because they do not and cannot see themselves as such. Rather, what needs to be questioned (publicly and privately) is their (and our) notion of the nature of God and one's relationship to God. So long as God is externalized as in our theological system, individuals (children in this case) will be abused in this manner. I think the externaliztion promotes delusions about the relationship between man and God including the conflating of man's laws with God's laws.
03:15 PM on 09/23/2009
Frank,

I agree with much of what you write. However, I would encourage you to rethink the following statement:

"In fact it's time to roll back the extremes of freedom in freedom's name."

People often use freedom thoughtlessly. Freedom means without limits. Freedom means people can do whatever they want. Given the clear, straightforward meaning of freedom, it is obvious that people are not free.

It is impossible for us to be free. Even without a functioning government, people are not free. Anarchy is not freedom because people always place limits on those around them. As a trivial example, we cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. More importantly, even without government, we want others to be honest, trustworthy, peaceful, etc. We favor people who treat us as we wish and seek to avoid or punish those who don't act the way we want. People are not free to act as they wish when they are in society.

We must live within limits. That fact is what makes democracy the best form of government. Since we must live within limits, at least we should be able to participate in deciding what those limits are. We hate rules that are imposed on us. However, if we at least have a chance to voice our opposition and, more importantly, an opportunity to collectively change the rules, then we are more likely to tolerate the rules that others favor. Democracy is a way of selecting limits. Democracy is not freedom.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:53 PM on 09/23/2009
So ... too much religion is bad ... but religion 'lite' (that encourages religious belief, that leads to too many of these tragedies) is different?

Have faith ... but not too much faith?

Belief in a supernatural being is only unreasonable ... if you really depend on it.

Believe the Buybull ... but not ALL of it.

Moderation in all things ... including sanity.

Yes, religion 'lite' ..... that's the way to go ..... unless you're one of the other kinds of extremists ..... who don't believe in myths at all!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
redkim
Wounded by beauty, I am one who struggles with God
03:36 PM on 09/23/2009
kwinter???? This is the same kwinter from another site?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:13 PM on 09/24/2009
Dunno ... to what other site are you referring?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Retrofuturistic
see things as they really are
01:27 PM on 09/23/2009
Great post, Mr. Schaeffer. I especially liked your observation that the people who would deny medical treatment to a dying child, for religious reasons, would also be "pro-life". Such a position creates an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance, which I suppose religious people have to accustom themselves to. Kind of like when you know that you have to have sex to create a baby, but then your religion teaches you about a "virgin" birth.

To quote a character from a book by Stieg Larsson, leading expert on antidemocratic right-wing extremist and Nazi organizations: "Isn't it fascinating that Nazis always manage to adopt the word 'freedom'?"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:37 PM on 09/23/2009
Continued...

As far as education is concerned, you fail to understand the requirements of home schooling.

Children who are home schooled are tested and must meet certain academic standards. This is sufficient. Telling a parent that they can only teach their children certain things and may not teach them other things is going too far. Again you seem to be proposing that the government take on additional duties of thought police.

Yes, freedom can be a dirty word. When that freedom is abused such that third parties are injured, especially children, the law can and should intervene. However, what you seem to be advocating is a preemptive strike, to control the beliefs of individuals... I hope that is not the case.

And what does guns have to do with this?
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
01:03 PM on 09/23/2009
"And what does guns have to do with this?"

Stereotyping. They see everyone who owns a firearm as a religious right wing tea-bagger birther nut case.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ladyfractal
Bioinformatician
03:32 PM on 09/23/2009
stereotyping. Not everyone who is a liberal is anti-firearm. In fact, my partner and I are planning on buying a firearm at some point soon---watching the tea bag protesters et. al. has given me a moment of pause. When someone starts saying that they want "their America back" or that those who are on the other side are "socialists" or are trying to destroy America or are in league with the terrorists, my first thought it to presume that, in fact, they believe *everything that they say* and to behave accordingly. So I presume that the tea baggers et. al. actually believe that liberals are socialists/fascist/Muslim terrorists and that, at some point, they will do--in some small scale--what one would expect one would do if they were confronted with fasicsts/terrorists--with very predictable results.

Since I happen to share certain phylogenetic traits with the President, and since I happen to be part of a group (gays and lesbians) who are blamed for all manner of things that have gone wrong in America, and since the people on the other side have made it very clear that they 'didn't bring their guns (this time)", I don't want to be the only person standing around without a firearm should they decide that D.C. is too far a trek and that the local liberals (who, remember, are fascist/terrorist) will have to do.

Cheers
LF
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DAVIDMORSE
Stoneham, MA - Age 46
02:46 PM on 09/23/2009
I am sure Frank is not suggesting that government should control our beliefs. What I believe he is saying is that parents can't substitute teaching their beliefs instead of facts or as if their beliefs were facts. While a parent has every right to say that creation is how their faith explains the begining of life. They don't have the right to teach that belief as if it were a scientific fact. Real education means exposing your children to differing views. You also don't have any right as a parent to refuse medical care while using your faith as reason to do so. As an adult, parents have every right to refuse treatment for themselves as a matter of faith. However, their children are too young to make an informed choice to refuse care or decide their faith. Parents have a duty to do what is in their childrens' best interests until they are adults. By refusing medical care parents are taking away their right to live. I'm not a person of faith, but I believe the Amish have it right. Their children are not baptised until they're of age and are allowed to spend time living as average teenagers before they decide how they wish to live. They have raised their kids as Amish growing up, but they give them the freedom to choose. Can the Religious Right make such a claim? We all could learn someting from the Amish.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
03:18 PM on 09/23/2009
so parents don't have a right to teach their kids beliefs as if they were science....how is that going to work out for the muslims in the u.s......and unless you are going to give children all the rights included in the bill of rights at birth there is no way you can tell a parent to treat their kid with medical services they don't believe in....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:19 PM on 09/23/2009
DAVIDMORSE wrote: "What I believe he is saying is that parents can't substitute teaching their beliefs instead of facts or as if their beliefs were facts."

Agree.

DAVIDMORSE wrote: "They don't have the right to teach that belief as if it were a scientific fact. "

Disagree. If they homeschool, they have an obligation to teach the required curriculam... Assuming of course a religiously neutral one which is required of all students. Beyond that, they have the perfect right to teach them whatever else they may wish to teach them and the government may not censor this.

DAVIDMORSE wrote: "We all could learn someting from the Amish."

Agree.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:35 PM on 09/23/2009
"It's time that all American children "belonging" to fundamentalist extremists come under the care of the state. It's time that all children are guaranteed an education wherein they will be taught facts rather than religious mythology. It is time to look at child-hurting homeschoolers and demand a curriculum that is fact-based. "

Wow... who decides whether a religious group is "fundamentalist extremists"? Do we establish a panel to determine what religious sects are ok and which are not? Perhaps approved religions can be licensed by the state based upon dogma and those that are not politically correct are banned? That is an extremely dangerous step because the government becomes arbiters of belief.

That is not to say what the law under which the Worthington's were tried is wrong. I whole heartedly endorse such laws. An adult has the right to believe what they wish to believe, but that right does not extend to placing their children at risk from physical harm. If a parent fails to obtain proper medical treatment for their children they should be punished and their children should be removed from their care.

Continued....
12:16 PM on 09/23/2009
"With the Republican Party in the grip of the Religious Right it did everything in its power to turn the case of Terri Schiavo into a circus fraught with political "family values" overtones. Where were they as baby Worthington died -- killed by faith in God?"

Indeed. With this single statement, Frank shines a harsh, bright light on the utter hypocrisy of the religious right. They will use anything and anyone, including their own children, in pursuit of their fundamentalist goals: to turn our government into a theocracy. This is EXACTLY the same goal of the Muslim extremists in the Middle East. Our Christian fundamentalists are EXACTLY the same as the jihad-fomenting terrorists. Let's stop fighting the ones over there and start fighting the ones HERE.
11:37 AM on 09/23/2009
Our Country practices double standards to criminally prosecute people who assault
others, one set of rules for citizens, different set of rules for school teachers,
professional atheletes, celebrities and politicians. The TRUTH is that school children
are treated differently in our great nation based on where they live. A middle school
student in Texas DIED by having his chest crushed when his teacher sat on him, a Texas high school student suffered deep bruising and welts to his lower back,
buttocks and back of his legs when he received 21 "licks" with a wooden canoe
paddle, which broke and had to be taped to continue the beating, a 9-
year-old Georgia 3rd grader suffered deep bruising injuries when he was paddled with a
wooden paddle 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY (Decatur Co. Schools, GA AFFIRMED Corporal Punishment Policy 9/17/09) and a Publicly Funded Charter School in Memphis, TN
physically punishes middle/high school boys/GIRLS weekly during a ceremony called
"Chapel" by hitting them with wooden paddles and/or whipping their hands with
leather straps IN FRONT OF ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS AS A DETERRENT! The school employees in the above actions have LEGAL
IMMUNITY and are STILL paid by our tax-dollars to be ENTRUSTED with the care and
education of our children!
U.S. Congress is holding hearings on Abusive and DEADLY practices in schools and MUST ABOLISH Physical/Corporal Punishment of All Children in All Schools NATIONWIDE, already ILLEGAL IN SCHOOLS IN 30 STATES!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Indedave
11:14 AM on 09/23/2009
When I was a young man, I read a science fiction story that depicted a future where governments globally were forced to unite to deal with literally warring religions. I dismissed it as too far-fetched. It appears I was wrong. I thought that the idea of nuclear-armed sects was absurd, but global government not too much of a stretch. I now consider the former a much likelier scenario than the latter.