'I don't consider them a church'
OREGON CITY, Ore. - Members of the Followers of Christ Church may not be talking publicly about the guilty verdict handed down on Tuesday but a former member is.
Myrna Cunningham hopes the message that came from the jury speaks loudly to those who remain devoted to the church and its teachings.
Jeff and Marci Beagley, members of the Followers of Christ Church, were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for praying over their ill son instead of seeking medical help.
The couple, who remain free on bail, is scheduled for sentencing on Feb. 18. Because neither has a prior conviction, state sentencing guidelines call for 16 to 18 months in prison.
Cunningham said her parents got out of the church when she was 12 years old and she couldn't feel more blessed that they made the decision they did.
"I said 'that could have been me,' but luckily my parents left and I've had a completely different life," she said.
Cunningham said she hopes the guilty verdict brings change that protects other children from a belief structure that she believes imprisons its members.
"I don't consider them a church," she said. "I think it's a cult. It truly is."
Cunningham said she knows the only reason she is alive today is from the medical treatment her family had to be shunned to receive.
"My mother and I have been so glad that we left when we did," she said.
Comments
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 13:58.
So what differentiates a church and a cult? Can all religious groups that don't conform to societal thinking be a cult?? I truly believe that this is the beginning of religious persecution in this country, and that really bothers me!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 16:41.
What differentiates a church and a cult?
I'd say the popularity of the aforementioned institution. This is not to say that religion is bad (or good), but just to say that any of them can behave that way.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 16:54.
Websters defines the 'Cult' as follows:
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
Therefore, religions are, by definition, cults. All of them that I know of atleast.
Submitted by Anna (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 14:14.
So hard to legitimize what they are "preaching". I cannot. I just cannot.
Not in the name of our loving God. Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is blasphemy to even try.
In the name of homicide victim Neil Beagley we all need to stop and pause during this day - and pray for a closing of its doors.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 14:39.
Anyone who has lived in Oregon City for any length of time knows that this "church" is a cult. It's sad that it has taken this long for them to be found out and to have justice come to the children of these "followers."
God gave us brains and the capability of learning. God gaves us doctors for a reason. Using them should never be considered a weakness or a sin.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 15:19.
I'll begin by stating that I do occasionally (but rarely)use the services of medical professionals and do not belong to this particular church. I am confused. I did not attend this trial, but have read and heard about it on the news. This is what I understand to be the case:
This teenage child got sick. His parents tended to him and asked him several times if he wanted to go to the doctor. He said he did not want to go to the doctor, but requested their, and his fellow church members, prayers on his behalf. He died from this illness.
If he had gone to the doctor, and had died anyway, would people be calling for the disbanding and criminalization of the medical profession? People go to the doctor all the time and die anyway... Doctors are not infallible or Godlike. They are people who are trained to diagnose disease and assist people in regaining health.
There are a lot of medications that do as much harm as good, and in my experience most doctor's diagnosis is simply: "If you don't feel better in a couple of weeks, come back and see me again." That typical diagnosis would not affect this boy's end result any differently.
Would I have taken my child to the doctor? Possibly, depending on the degree or severity of the symptoms. Since I don't have a religous conviction that prohibits me from seeking medical assistance, would I be found criminally negligent if I didn't seek it because I didn't think it was neccessary? Or because my child wanted to 'wait and see'?
Is this about mandating that everyone seek medical attention for every ailment, or about prosecuting (or persecuting) a particular belief system?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 16:59.
The thing is, the parents have a legal obligation to seek medical help for their minor children. It doesnt matter if the kid said that he wanted to not go to the doctor, it is the parents legal responsibility to make sure that he does.
I dont care what the defense said about the ailment looking 'like the common cold or the flu,' if it was bad enough that the child died from it, it would have looked nothing like the cold or the flu.
Submitted by webfoot (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 19:57.
What you are missing is that this was not a sudden illness. This child had been sick for may years and should have had medical attention years ago.
With a life time of parental influence to "suck it up" and depend upon fiath to heal; coupled with years of chronic pain this boy could not make a rational decision. For all he knew his pain was normal.
Had is parrents gotten him to a doctor when he first felt in pain he would have received relative simple treatment and would still be alive. This decision should have been made long befor he was olde enought to decide for him self
Submitted by rider237 (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 15:59.
so what happens the next time a JW decides to pass on a life saving blood transfusion? religion aside, what happens then next time a kid gets the flu and the parents don't realize how serious it is in time?
i think they have gone down a dangerous path with this.
remember when they passed the patriot act and people said it was better to risk attack than to infringe on personal freedom? does this not fall into the same category?
when we allow the state to interfere in parenting, in the absence of malice on that part of the parent, we will regret it in the end.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 16:57.
A JW would NEVER take a blood transfusion. whoever told you they have, is either lying, or they were unconcious and the doctors didn't know they were JW's.
Regarding the "Absence of Malice" they were convicted for negelience.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 17:32.
One of the Mandatory Reporter Guidelines state, "Neglect including, but not limited to, failure to provide food, shelter, MEDICINE, to such a degree that a child's health and safety are endangered."
This isn't about religion or anything else. This is a simple clear cut case of Child Neglect and Abuse. Period. End of story.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 19:49.
I don't agree that this is a clear cut case. Looking at this case according to the reporting guidelines to which you refer - It appears that the family providing food, shelter, etc. was not in question. As to whether or not they provided MEDICINE (are the capital letters yours?) was there any mention of whether or not they provided over-the-counter medications, herbs, or traditional remedies for cold or flu (which I believe it what they thought he was suffering from)?
Also, even with MEDICINE people often die. As was mentioned in a previous post -
"People go the the doctor all the time and die anyway...Doctors are not infallible or Godlike. They are people who are trained to diagnose disease and assist people in regaining health."
I think the assumption that doctors or MEDICINE can remedy any situation is part of the reason we have such an enormous number of malpractice cases clogging our courts. While some medical professionals are negligent or incompetent, most try to do their job - to diagnose disease and assist people in regaining health. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. Period.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2010-02-03 19:46.
The HIPPA legislation states that a 15 year old is totally in charge of his own medical care. As a nurse in a pediatric clinic that was NOT appropriate but it was a law. Parents would have the insurance and would have to pay for whatever is done even though they are not entitled to know what went on. I don't agree with that churches' beliefs BUT the law states that he would be in charge of his own medical care-not his parents. I disagree with the guilty decision.
Submitted by mammajiggs (not verified) on Fri, 2010-02-05 13:16.
what I wonder if who is telling the memebers of the the Church what to do since they have not had a Pastor since the late sixties. Do they just keep on doing what their Elders tell them? Maybe we should hold them responible for the deaths of all these Children.
Keep us, and your neighbors, in the know.
- News tips
- Community events
- Submit a story
Become a community reporter
Featured Businesses
Your Expert Bookkeeping Service for the Willamette Valley & Portland Metro Area
Latest Discussions
-
0 replies
-
18 replies
-
0 replies
-
0 replies
-
0 replies
Local Real Estate Listings
Local Real Estate Agents
Featured agent
I am an experienced buyers agent for bank owned homes.
I am committed to guiding you through an exceptional selling experience.
Local Service Providers
Featured Lawyer
Providing effective legal strategies for over 25 years