I know a girl from high school (the 60s) whose mother suffered congestive heart failure, which apparently caused her brain to fail, too. (The mother was about 72 at the time.) While the mother was in the hospital, the daughter told me she had discussed the situation with her husband and her brothers; they decided they were going to “pull the plug.” The point was apparently: Better she should die sooner rather than her life be prolonged arftifically–and she would be no more than a vegetable. 
doug_monty, remember the story that hit the papers recently about the woman who woke up after sixteen years in a vegetative state? There are folks who are thought to be end-stage cancer patients, given treatment to control their pain only, who live for years; my mother knows such a person. Doctors are wonderful people who know a lot of things, but they can’t see the future. I want them to be VERY conservative about turning off my life-support. Hope it never comes to that, of course.
However, I do agree with you that there are worse things than dying. Those of us who believe that this world is not all there is will never see eye-to-eye with those who think that once you die, that’s it.
Whenever a religion teaches man to ignore his most basic human instinct (self-preservation), I’d have to say it’s on the way out.
dougie monty:
No. I stated that although I personally disagree with the JW doctrine, I would not try to force a JW adult to have a transfusion. I believe adults have the right to worship however they choose, whether that means refusing a transfusion or deciding to drink the Special KoolAid. I do NOT believe an adult should be permitted to serve his kids the Special KoolAid.
Unfortunately, the language in those verses is not so specific; the concept of “transfusion” isn’t in there. These passages were also used by the Watchtower society to forbid organ transplants but they reversed that position. Most Christians do not interpret the passages the way you do. You may, of course, believe anything you choose.
Again, you are free to do whatever you want with your own life. Your kid’s life is not your own life.
Would you care to address the Watchtower’s vacillating position on organ transplants?
What about immunizations? For many years, the Watchtower taught that immunizations were not only dangerous and ineffective- sound familiar?- but also in direct opposition to Biblical laws. JW parents would burn their children’s arms to make a scar resembling a smallpox vaccination; some went to great lengths to obtain forged vaccination records. Now immunizations are allowed.
That’s my definition of a freakoid religion, something that harms more than it helps. Call it quack religion if it makes you feel better. People who practice is deserve no more respect than people who douse themselves with gasoline and threaten to light themselves. People who subject their children to this should be charged with homicide and, if applicable, given the death penalty.
And I do think “Educated Christian Scientist” is an oxymoron. Considering that what they consider science is pathetically misguided, and mangled to fit their religion, they can’t be very educated, or they’d have noticed the contradictions and then they wouldn’t be very good little mindless drones, would they? And the cult leaders wouldn’t want that.
If I saw a JW parent in the ER refusing to let their kid get a transfusion, I’d treat it like a parent beating their child abusively. I’d step in and end it. Murder is murder, doing it because of you freaking stupid beliefs, or because of your bad temper, doesn’t change the end result. And I feel that if I had to watch this, I’d be condoning those abusive, deadly actions. You’d just better hope you never abuse your children around me.
You can be someone else’s Quadell, I really don’t want you.
White Night, unless you are a judge, a physician, a lawyer, or an authority on religion, I consider your appraisal worthless here. As for organ transplants…well, isn’t it better that a clearer understanding of the Bible is used? Remember, at least one passage in the New Testament was once used to bolster the “Divine Right of Kings.” This would not stand up, of course, to the two specific commandments Jesus mentioned (“on these the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets” [the Scripture commonly called the Old Testament]). As far as “interpretation” is concerned, a Scripture can really be “interpreted” only one way, lest it hit a snag–i.e., conflict with something else in the Bible. For my part, I don’t oppose organ transplants: hey, if I’m not using something, anyone else who wants it is welcome to it. But not blood.
Blood is, technically, an organ.
But the Watchtower Society used to forbid organ transplants. Why was it wrong then, but not now? What if the Watchtower reverted to its original mandate and once again forbid organ transplants: would you change your beliefs? What if the Watchtower Society reversed its position on blood (they have vacillated over the permissibility of receiving some blood components- some are allowed, some are not). Would you change your beliefs accordingly?
And why is it wrong to donate blood, but not wrong to donate other organs?
You know, if Isaac Asimov–not known for a positive attitude toward the Bible in any regard–were around, he might make the point that blood is tissue, not an “organ,” as you put it. Blood is made up of cells, as is every other part of the body–skin, bone, fat, muscle, vital organs. But one speaks of “liver tissue,” “lung tissue,” “bone tissue,” and I believe the analogy applies also to blood.
As far as the Watchtower Society “changing position,” keep in mind that at one point God Almighty specifically ordered the Israelites to abstain from certain foods–birds of prey, shellfish, non-ruminant land animals, for example. And in the Mosaic Law the Israelites were commanded to observe certain rituals, including the sacrifice of animals. Chrisatians don’t do this; in a sense God ‘killed two birds with one stone’ by superseding the kosher/non-kosher requirement and at the same time inviting Gentiles to join God’s congregation, while in the time of fleshly Israel Gentiles were specificially excluded from the Jewish nation. And one more thing: How much blood, if any, is contained within a transplanted organ?
Oh, no? Really? You don’t agree with my religious views. Damn, there goes my whole world view. Can you feel the sarcasm yet?
If not, try this?
You want me to be a judge or a lawyer before you’ll accept my judgement of what constitutes a freakoid religion? Is that because you disagree with the precise legal meaning of freakoid? Are you using the definition from T. Kazinski vs US Gov, or the older definition? Please, inform me of what freakoid means to you, so that my further messages might be tailored more to your reading pleasure.
Sheesh.
Freakoid is anything blatantly self destructive. When religion causes its members to act in a self destructive manner, it becomes freakoid. And I don’t have to be a doctor to be able to tell a dead JW who refused a transplant from a living athiest who didn’t. The diagnosis is pretty simple. You might be able to pick it up without years at med school. Hint - living people rarely have funerals.
Am I a religious authority? You bet. I’ve picked holes in the tissue-paper arguments of more fundamentalists than you could count. I’d argue that I’m as much of an authority on religion as anyone else, it being completely made up anyways. Sure, many people are scholars of a specific brand of religious insanity in a dead language, but what is there really to know, except that any religion that leads its followers to kill themselves, by action or inaction, is pretty stupid. And any practicioners of it deserve the ‘Darwin Award’.
Hmmm, I should print out a certificate for that and hand it out to people who offer the the Watchtower… I could explain how their self destructive religion removes them and their kin from the gene pool, thus freeing valuable resources for the non-freakishly stupid.
Thanks for the laugh… Religious authority! A judge or lawyer!?! rofl.
Just thought I’d log on here and get my head bit off. :rolleyes:
Can I feel the sarcasm? Yes–like whirling wire brushes on bare flesh!
Just who brought up the word “freakoid”? Until I read these postings I never saw the word before. Would you care to state clearly and plainly what you consider a ‘normal’ religion? It’s clear to me you don’t accept what the Bible says–in Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, or the 15th chapter of Acts–on the subject. You should already know that I do accept it and I resent immensley your implication that I am foolish or duped, or in any other way allegedly inferior to you, because I accept it. I think it is possible for you or anyone else to discuss the issue of blood transfusions, and still be objective and civil about it.
Here’s a quick reference I found on www.m-w.com of freak, the root word.
1 a : a sudden and odd or seemingly pointless idea or turn of the mind
3b mentions sexual deviate which isn’t quite what I’m getting at, but if you combine that with 3a, which is one who is markedly unusual or abnormal, but in a mental sense instead of a phsyical sense, then you’ve got the gist of what I mean by freak.
But, let’s use ‘irrational’ instead, it’s a bit better defined and sort of gets to the point.
I define suicide as irrational, the strongest instinct I have is that of preservation of my life and that of my loved ones. This is the way of all right-thinking people that I know.
To act suicidally by refusing transplants and even transfusions means that you are being irrational. To be directed to do so by a religion means that the religion is irrational.
I’m just going a step farther and making a personal judgement of the people who’d make up such a religion or practice it knowing its flaws. I used freakazoid because the circus freak image seems to fit.
If you were to compare two people, identical except for their religion, an athiest and a JW, the athiest would be worth more, from the point of view of everyone around them. The JW is admittedly irrational and has very little regard for their own life or that of their family. This makes me state that they would be inferior, in most ways.
Like it or not, suicidal behaviour doesn’t become rational just because it’s based on some hoaky translation of a book written thousands of years ago and poorly translated ever since.
I’d support laws removing children, immediately and irrevokably, from JW parents, as soon as the parents refused common medical treatment that was generally agreed to be effective. To me this is equivalent to Susan Smith strapping her children in the car, drowing them, and then disavowing all responsibility. I really don’t care why you’d act suicidally or homicidally, I don’t want you near children, your own or others. It doesn’t matter if you get the urge to kill via a musty old book, or voices you hear in your head, the end result is the same.
So yes, I do feel you, and until proven rational, all other JWs are inferior. They’re not the only ones, but they’re the ones being discussed here.
You can try to justify the murder of your loved ones by refusing life-saving treatment, but it had better be pretty good.
dougie_monty wrote:
---------------------------------------------And I reject the idea that the State must be allowed latitude in a controversy such as this.
What’s wrong with protecting children from negligent parents? Do you feel the same way about laws against child abuse?
It’s clear to me you don’t accept what the Bible says–in Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, or the 15th chapter of Acts–on the subject.
I accept what the Bible says on the subject of transfusions, which is absolutely nothing. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years before blood transfusions were even dreamed of.
And another thing: If we were talking about parents who had sacrificed their child to a pagan deity, would you think they had the right to do so, or does the right to kill one’s children in the name of God apply only to the one you worship?
If you would let yourself die because you believe in a creative reinterpretation of part of the Bible, that’s fine with me. But if you would force such beliefs on your children, you have no business breeding.
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
I believe the standard that has been applied - and I’m sure it’s somewhat open to conjecture - is that freedom of religion is paramount, but that when the religion starts to tread into illegal or otherwise threatening activity, the authorities have every right to step in and put a halt to it.
For example, Santaria, the religion of Haiti referred to as voodoo by some, asks it’s practitioners for animal sacrifices. In NYC, where Haitian immigrants make a sizable number of folks, you would always (when I lived there) see stories in the paper about how the police had to bust some practitioners who were raising chickens illegally and sacrificing them.
If we are interpreting the law so that we are proitecting a bunch of chickens, I don’t see how we are stepping over any lines by saying, “We respect your right to religion, but not if it means harm to a child.” If it’s good enough for a chicken…
Here’s something else interesting… Some folks feel that the Bible mandates racism, and in fact, supremist groups such as the KKK expound verses which they say shows as much.
What would we think if a KKK member let his kid die because he refused to allow medical attention be provided by “any niggers or kikes” and the only folk(s) who could have saved juniors life was black or Jewish?
That person is convinced that the Bible told him that his racism was justified as part of his religious code.
We can turn this around and say that the child of an Islamic extremist who follows Farrakhan makes the same choice because he doesn’t want “the white devil” to operate on his child. That person will feel that his religion mandates this as well, and it doesn’t matter that many more mainstream Muslims feel differently.
I am willing to bet that the folks here who feel that the freedom of religion circumvents the responsibilities one has as a parent would feel differently in the above scenerios.
Yer pal,
Satan
In other words, Acts 5:29–“We must obey God as ruler rather than men”–is just gibberish.
If you accept that, come around: I’ll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.
**
Why yes, it is. There is nothing in the Bible which says to do anything but treat your children well. If a few extremists think that God doesn’t dig modern medicine, then they shouldn’t breed. And if a few of the idiots die off as adults, all it will do is raise the average of the gene pool’s IQ.
According to your logic, the creeps who kill abortion doctors because they are following “God’s law” are perfectly justified. I happen to disagree.
How much you want for it? I just gave a tangible example of this put into practice. If you feel that you can find another country that has more religious freedom than the USA, feel free to move there.
Yer pal,
Satan
The most disturbing part about this whole issue is that in some states, parents who refuse medical treatment for religious reasons are protected from prosecution.
This is simply absurd. Nobody would dispute the fact that parents who refuse to seek medical treatment for their children for any other reason can be prosecuted, so why is this any different? Are they afraid of being accused of “persecuting” people, or do they honestly think that religion is a valid excuse to let one’s kids die?
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.
Satan said:
FYI, I believe when Farrakhan had some life-threatening situation a few years back, a while before he supposedly became kinder and gentler towards Jews (can’t recall what it was, I’m afraid), the doctor who saved him was Jewish (and white).
Dougie_monty said:
I would definitely say “yes.” But especially in this case – you are trying to defend your “right” to kill children by saying we should follow your interpretation of a deity. Sorry, charlie, but that ain’t gonna win you a whole lot of support around here, I suspect.
Yes, I heard this too. I wrote it for two reasons in spite of that. One, Malcolm X recanted most of his racist-speak a few years before he died, but many in the religion (such as his successor Farrakhan) chose to not listen to the rectifying words - so even though they changed, there are still likely people who haven’t.
The other reason is I simply wanted to make an example on the other side of the coin as well.
But thanks for the clear-up there…
Yer pal,
Satan
I wasn’t trying to show that you were wrong or anything – actually, I find it somewhat ironic that the man could spew so much hatred at whites and Jews, in particular, but then allow his life to be saved by one. Doesn’t show much courage of his convictions there. 
In other words, Acts 5:29–“We must obey God as ruler rather than men”–is just gibberish. If you accept that, come around: I’ll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.
So does that mean you think that it’s okay for religious terrorists to blow stuff up?
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.