Jesus and The Worthingtons

Tomorrow begins the trial of the Worthington Family, religious zealots who allowed their daughter to die instead of healing her through medicine. I actually side with the Worthingtons on the broadest scale—specifically, that a majority of the hyper-religious are actually just self-serving detriments to society who hide behind religion because of its impenetrable veil, that they are exactly the people who are called out in the first commandment specifying that man is not the word of God.

The Worthingtons, on the other hand, are true faithful, those who stand by their beliefs whether it befits or punishes them. The question at hand, then, is whether it is the role of law to protect people like them who are victimized by dogmatic brainwashing, and more importantly, if they have the right to allow their daughter (who may not have grown up to share their beliefs) to die. It's a really difficult question, because if their daughter did grow up to share their beliefs (never mind whether the beliefs are valid), upon knowing that human medicine saved her life when she was young, she would spend her entire life believing that she was irreperably damned to Hell for something that she had no control over when she was only a year old.

Another interesting question with this case is how it relates to the pro-life movement. Under the religious pretense, it can be argued that the Worthington's actions are consistent with the pro-life dogma: mankind is not to intervene in God's Work by killing an unborn child, so similarly they are not to intervene with a born child that God intends to kill. However, the pro-life movement is increasingly set in a political framework, where it more closely pertains to our lives, and they have gone against the political mindset around kin. The political logic for outlawing abortions is straightforward—parents should not be allowed to abort a fetus, as it is a living, breathing thing, and they are no longer in a position to make the decision of whether another living human is to live or die. It is then to be inferred that The Worthingtons should not have been allowed to make a life-or-death decision with their child; rather, it is our societal responsibility to preserve the life of those who are not yet able to preserve themselves, and anyone who gets in the way (including the parents) are committing negligent homicide.

But what I'm most interested in is the metaphysical aspect of this case. Jesus was known to cure the sick. As an agnostic, I am inclined to believe that Jesus was just a man with great PR skills, not an actual divine being. Many religious historians (particularly on the humanist side) are quick to point out that through modern living, we are capable of carrying out all of the miracles that Jesus was credited for. Jesus himself said that it wasn't he who was responsible for the miracles, it was God. "God," as in "that which we are not capable of understanding." Which in Jesus's time included antibiotics. An argument can be made (which I may make someday) that Jesus himself had an advanced knowledge of antibiotic medicine, which he used to cure the sick.

Chew on that, Followers of Christ.