The Power of the State v.s. the Power of Prayer

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/faith.healer.deaths.ap/index.html

Since I'm going to be writing about religious topics in the Reveille next semester, it seems logical that I should start doing it here one of these days.

Apparently a family in Oregon has had two children die from curable diseases, because they are firm believers in the power of prayer. The most recent one is an older child of 16 years, who, in theory, was old enough to make the decision for himself. The case is so tragic because the boy died from complications of a urinary tract infection that a simple catheter could have resolved.

Apparently this same extended family had a child of 15 months, the recent casualties' cousin, die from bronchial pneumonia. This case is being brought before a judge, because a child barely over a year old cannot decide for themselves wether or not to seek treatment.

The reason that the two children died from preventable diseases is that their parents are members of the Followers of Christ Church, which advocates using prayer for "faith-healing", a practice that some fundamentalist Christians endorse.

This brings up two main conundrums. The first, and more theological one, regards the practice itself. Now, as a Christian, I'm definately not ready to say that prayer doesn't work or even say that God can't heal you of illness. But it seems to me that refusing medical treatment is a bit foolhardy.

It can be argued, and I have been told before, that, if we really believe that God can heal us, why is it foolhardy? If you seek medical attention instead of relying on God, isn't that a sign that you don't fully trust him?

In response, I would argue that God provides means of healing more subtle than a beam of light and a miraculous, inexplicable miracle. Isn't it possible that God has provided mankind with the ingenuity to develop a practical solution? It's the old story of the man sitting on the roof of his flooded house, refusing the aid of a boat and a helicopter, saying that God will save him, only to die and have God ask him why he didn't use the boat and helicopter he sent him. Refusing practical aid seems not only mule-headed, but also remarkably like throwing yourself from the roof of the temple as a test of God's faithfulness.

The second, more practical issue rasied by this debacle is wether or not the mother and father should be prosecuted. A very valid argument can be made that, if the parents are brought to court, the state would effectively be limiting their religious freedom, i.e. restricting their right to believe in faith-healing. The problem, however, is that they aren't the ones who died because of those religious principles. Instead, a 15 month-old infant, who did not have the time in life to determine wether he believed in faith-healing, died. This is where the parents are guilty; when it comes to religious matters, a 15 month-old child should receive medical attention, regardless of his parents religious views.