Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

In May 2009, Scott Roeder shot dead Dr George Tiller in the vestibule of a church. It was a deliberate killing. But according to some people, including Roeder’s defence attorney, it wasn’t murder. Why? Because Roeder considered Tiller’s death a ‘necessity’.

The killing took place in Kansas. Dr Tiller died because he had performed (perfectly legal) abortions. And Roeder’s religious convictions led him to believe he had the right – even a duty – to end the doctor’s life.

As I write, the judge has yet to rule on whether Roeder will be convicted of murder or the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. The latter is normally reserved for cases where the killer believes his or her actions to be necessary – the so-called ‘necessity defence’.

I have to admit that I was under the impression that ‘thou shalt not kill’ was a non-negotiable proposition. Apparently not.

You see, the thing is that the definition of ‘necessary’ here is Roeder’s own. This is not a definition most of society would share. It is the twisted logic of an extremist and should find no support in law.

By the same logic, the 9/11 terrorists were not murderers (even though every sane and reasonable person would conclude that they were). There is no doubt that they considered their actions ‘necessary’. They too were driven and endorsed by faith. So necessary were these attacks, in fact, that the terrorists were willing to give their lives – a price Roeder wasn’t willing to pay. In fact, he’s not even willing to pay the price of a murder conviction. So one can’t say he has the courage of his convictions: there was no courage involved in his actions, when he pulled the trigger or since.

Psychopaths have often claimed that their actions were ‘necessary’ – to rid the world of trash, say, or because the voices in their heads demanded that they kill. And what is god except a voice in the head?

The fact that certain religious people and organisations believe that the necessity defence can apply here simply highlights the profound hypocrisy and moral corruption at the heart of extreme faiths. It also underlines that they believe their warped and archaic beliefs – held only by a tiny minority of Christians, let alone the population in general – take precedence over the laws of the land and the consensual moral standpoints they enshrine.

Religious extremists in the US are praying for a voluntary manslaughter conviction. It would endorse their radical viewpoints and set them apart from the population at large. It would be another example of the privileging of religion. It would say that being driven to kill by faith is different to being driven to kill by a warped psychopathology, even though, in fact, there is no demonstrable difference.

This being Kansas, one’s hopes aren’t high. It’s a state heavily infested with creationists. We can only hope that Judge Wilbert, who is trying this case, returns a decision that identifies Roeder as what he is – a common murderer.

The next time someone tells you that religion is a “force for good”, remind them of the Oregon fundamentalist Christian couple currently under indictment for the death of their 15-month old daughter. And, sadly, this looks like it’s not an isolated case. It’s time people were held fully responsible for their strange, and sometimes dangerous, beliefs.

According to press reports, Carl and Raylene Worthington have been indicted by a grand jury in Oregon’s Clackamas county following the death of their daughter Ava. She succumbed to bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection – conditions that could have been treated easily and effectively with antibiotics. The parents chose faith healing.

At the very least, entrusting the wellbeing of your child to supernatural forces is criminal neglect – child abuse of an extreme form. In this case it led to death, so the charge – quite rightly – is manslaughter.

If this were an isolated case, it would be easy to dismiss it as another instance of poor parenting. It is a sad fact that too many children suffer from the stupidity, ignorance, mental illness or inadequacy of their parents. Religion does not have a monopoly when it comes to dumb ideas that lead to bad parenting. Certainly, it doesn’t make the parents any the less culpable, but we would have no need to worry about a larger issue.

But that’s not quite the case here.

The Followers of Christ fundamentalist church, which boasts 1,500 members, has a worrying record. Back in the 1990s, the deaths of several children prompted the Oregon authorities to enact a 1999 law that removes a ‘religious defence’ in cases of murder, manslaughter and child abuse.

Some of us might see it as bizarre that it took that long. Why should we have ever considered strange and insupportable beliefs in supernatural forces to be a reasonable excuse for child neglect or worse? Would courts have ever considered belief in UFOs, CIA mind control or vampires as valid defences (other than proof of possible insanity)?

While this fundamentalist community has had an apparently clean record since the law was passed (an investigation into the 2001 death of the same couple’s son was dropped), there are now some concerns about an allegedly high infant mortality rate among families belonging to the church.

If you choose to turn your back on the immeasurable benefits given to mankind by science and rational progress and put your life in the hands of some imagined superbeing – well, that’s your funeral. When you make that decision on behalf of those in your care, innocent children dependent on your ability to make decisions critical to their wellbeing, then you carry a great responsibility. Rejecting life-saving treatment in favour of medieval superstition is a gross dereliction of that duty. At the very least, it makes you an incompetent parent. At worst, it makes you a child killer.

Humanity, law and democracy are poor protection against religiously inspired murder. But they are the only means available to us that offer some measure of safety while allowing us to call ourselves civilised.

(more…)