Yes, it was directed at dougie-monty. Sorry.
I did not reply on this until now. I don’t have a computer at home and with my work I had not had access to one.
I don’t know, Flymaster…why don’t you see what it gets you? I’d be interested to hear what you tell the judge.
It’s also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive–the eradication of religion: The Bible is an ancient work and we need something modern as guidance. I would no more rely on any of these opponents to guide me than I would think of driving at 110 mph with my hands off the wheel. Your facade is as opaque as fresh air.
Hey, look what eradication of religion did in the Soviet Union and China; ask the Dalai Lama and Josef Cardinal Mindszenty.
I don’t know, Flymaster…why don’t you see what it gets you? I’d be interested to hear what you tell the judge.
He wasn’t asking what the government would think, he was asking what you think. Do you think it would be justifiable to slaughter brown-eyed kids if Flymaster found an old religious text that said God wants you to?
It’s also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive–the eradication of religion
When did anybody say anything about eradicating religion? All we want is for parents to not kill their kids in the name of religion, yours or anybody’s. Is that so wrong?
dougie_monty:
And those who oppose my position (that society has a duty to protect children) clearly have an ulterior motive: to slaughter as many children as possible. (sarcasm)
It may be clear to you, but not to everyone else. I disagree with your stance, but I have no agenda to eradicate religion. Many Christians disagree with your view, but they certainly don’t want to see religion eradicated.
I don’t believe the Bible is divine, but many who do still do not see in it what you’ve been taught to see. You point it out to us, but we still don’t believe it says what you’ve been taught to believe.
Whoa! I haven’t seen someone jump that far to reach a conclusion since… well, since someone brought up the idea that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions come to think of it. At least you are consistent in your beliefs Dougie.
If all we want is to eradicate religion, then how come all the other Christians out there aren’t on your side?
[QUOTE]
It’s also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive–the eradication of religion.[/quuote]
AHHH! I’m slipping!! Down a slope!!
Hell, it ain’t even true! Get over your persecution complex, please. Religion is fine. Killing your kids is not.
While I did not necessarily think that the challenge you got was very relevant to the issue (odd hypotheticals always are a bit extreme), I fail to see any argument stated here which says we should “eradicate religion.”
Either debate the issue without fallacies or pack your stuff and go home. Your call…
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, one day, 21 hours, 45 minutes and 17 seconds.
1556 cigarettes not smoked, saving $194.53.
Life saved: 5 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes.
Ah, well, I see that Dougie_Monty has moved on from his repeated false accusations about us supposedly wanting to control adults to a new false accusation:
It must be nice to live in such a fantasy world. A world where medicine is evil. Where everybody who disagrees it out to get you. A world where only you are right and everybody else is wrong. A world where there is no need to actually think.
And he is welcome to live in that world, as scary as I think it is.
But he is not welcome to murder children just because he lives in that world. And I wonder if we will ever get that point through to him…
First, I know this is a lie. I’ve seen you post since my reply.
Time out, time out, time out. Go right ahead…kill yourself if you have brown eyes. That doesn’t bother me in the least. You’re free to beleive whatever you want. But you CANNOT force those beliefs on someone else, whether that someone else is related to you or not. And by denying children a transfusion, you are forcing your beliefs on them.
And as for the “tell it to the judge” argument, that’s exactly what I’m saying. YOU (in the general hypothetical if you denied a transfusion to a kid and he died sense of “you”, not “you” as in D_M) should be forced to answer to a judge for your actions, as well.
My call, eh?
Let me put it this way: Either you accept the Bible as dispensation from God Almighty or you don’t. You seem to have made it clear to me that you don’t. I do.
Furthermore, you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept. Accept it all or reject it all. And Remember what Jesus said about ‘the two greatest commandments.’
And if you reject it all, what do you have? Emmanual Kant or Thomas Hobbes, perhaps?
As for children, I seem no acceptable reason to entrust the care–including discretion as to medical treatment–to anyone other than the parents. In Ashley Montagu’s Prevalence of Nonsense, he says there are cultures in which the people “would rather die than eat pig.” Any objections to that mode of martyrdom?
In one meeting at a Kingdom Hall a 5-year-old kid–in a skit written for a specific message about following the Bible, was on stage and there was this exchange:
ADULT: Do you salute the flag?
KID: No.
ADULT: Why not?
KID: Because it breaks God’s law.
Would you care to furnish statistics on the outcome of cases in which Witnesses’ children did or did not survive after getting a transfusion–or not getting one? Remember, the last sentence in the Jerusalem governing body’s statement was “Good health to you!”
Your call.
Dougie_monty, still defending his right to murder children, said:
No. You accept what somebody else has told you the Bible says. As others have already explained to you (and you have conveniently ignored), eating blood has nothing to do with getting a transfusion.
All of it? So you follow kosher laws? You believe the Earth is flat? Etc.
Other than those times when the parents are going to murder their children, I would tend to agree.
If pig is the only available food, and somebody refuses to let their child eat it, and their child will die of hunger otherwise, hell yes I object! But that’s a lot less likely than the need for a blood transfusion.
What do you say to the vast, vast majority of Christians out there who do accept the Bible as dispensation from God, but interpret this passage differently than you do?
I would say that by allowing your child to die rather than having a transfusion, you are rejecting “Thou shalt not kill” in favor of your interpretation of a passage about eating blood. It just isn’t as cut and dried as you seem to think it is.
Also, I can’t remember where it is (Numbers, I think), but there is a verse that some people interpret as a command from God to kill doctors who perform abortions. (I have interacted with such people over at the LBMB.) As you say, you can accept it all or reject it all.
And what’s more, since I don’t accept the Bible as the literal, inerrant, uncensored and uncut word of God, I can too pick and choose which parts I accept. I sure as hell don’t have to accept your interpretation.
How about common sense?
I agree, as long as those parents are acting in the best interests of the child.
Of course, we disagree on what the best interests of the child are. You say that the child should be kept pleasing in the eyes of God. I say that the child should be allowed to live, grow up, and come to his own conclusions about God. Tell me this–what kind of God would punish a child for a sound medical decision made by his parents? Not one that I would want to be associated with.
Also, let’s say that the doctors tell the parents, “If the child gets this treatment, there is a 99.9% chance he will be just fine, but a 0.1% chance he will die of an adverse reaction. On the other hand, if we don’t give it to him, there is a 90% chance he will die.” If there is no religious objection to the treatment, are the parents justified in not allowing it? What if the treatment costs $50, and the parents have $50, but would rather let the kid die and spend the money on beer?
None whatsoever. I would object, though, to “I will allow my child to die before I will allow him to eat pig.” It’s a silly analogy, since it would rarely come down to a choice between bacon or death. It can, however, come down to transfusion or death.
What’s your point? That kids are able to spout the religious views they’ve been taught?
“Unless, of course, you’re bleeding out–in that case, see ya in the Great Beyond.”
Dr. J
DoctorJ asked of dougie_monty:
“They’re wrong” would be my guess. But don’t you understand, Doc, it’s not an “interpretation” – it’s 100% correct. His masters told him so!
We’ve already been over the “interpretation” bit with DM. He claims it “sickens” him when people interpret the Bible. Apparently he is of the opinion that his cult receives the meaning directly and inerrantly, while “interpretation” is left to everyone else. (Read: interpretation=twisting meaning)
Actually, every Jewish person I’ve spoken to about this told me that if you would die unless you broke some tenent that you should follow - say, starvation or have a BLT, or freeze to death unless you put on this garment mixing wool and polyester - that God totally understands you choosing to live.
I would ask cmkeller if the othodox view mirrors this, but I do know that all of the remormers I’ve met have taken this view.
It’s a darn shame that the sects that have a problem with blood transfusions can’t look at it this way.
Reminds me of the joke about the guy in a flood who refused help from the sherrif, a boat and a hellacopter, constantly saying “The Lord will save me,” before he finally drowned. He asks God why He didn’t save him, and God says, “What? I sent the sheriff, the boat, the hellacopter…”
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, six days, 5 hours, 12 minutes and 34 seconds.
1728 cigarettes not smoked, saving $216.08.
Life saved: 6 days, 0 minutes.
Satan said:
I always was taught that, for example, if you were sick and needed to take medicine or eat to maintain strength on a day of fasting, you should do so. Like you said, any reasonable God would understand.
throwing in my $.02
I am not a subscriber to anything resembling a “treatment through prayer not science” approach. However, I do believe in a parent’s rights to raise a child in the manner of their choice. I do recognize there is a grey area here…where do we draw the line. Say a parent believes in incest or prostituting their child (and believe it or not there are actually organized groups that advocate such things) are they still within their rights? Obviously not. But then again, these sorts of things (incest) clearly lead to negative psychological outcomes, so the victimization is pretty clear. Christian Science, or other such religions so not have such negative outcomes (unless the kid actually dies from their illness of course)but you know what I mean.
Probably the issue is the child’s inability to choose for themselves…but again I defer to the parents on such issues. Ultimately I would not want someone coming into my home because someone felt the way I raised my children inteferred with their sensibilities.
avalongod:
Kids do actually die because their parents’ religious beliefs do not allow them to receive treatment. Others are merely damaged and disabled as a result.
You have every right to practice whatever religion you choose, as long as you’re not damaging other people in the process. Just because the people you harm are your own children does not make the crime any less repugnant.
If you belong to a cult that sincerely believes that eating dead babies is the only way to salvation, fine. Believe it, preach it, whatever. But you can’t actually kill babies; your religious freedom ends when you attempt to cause another person harm.
So what do you guys think is a good course of action, particularly for Christian Scientist or J.W. parents? I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately-- I’ll be getting married in September to a man who isn’t a Christan Scientist, and we’ve been talking about things like vaccinations and check-ups for our hypothetical children. Although the idea of both makes me very uncomfortable, I’ve agreed for my fiance to handle getting the imaginary kid (we call it Baby Magic) vaccinated and so on, as long as I don’t have to participate. After that, Baby Magic gets to go to the same Sunday School that I did. Eventually, when the kid is old enough, s/he can choose what course to follow.
We reached this decision only after months and months of debate and talking, with some rather high emotions on both sides. While I do not like the idea of the state interfering with Christian Science parents, I don’t know where to draw the line. Certainly I don’t think it’s fair to ban the practice of Christian Science (maybe because I have only had and seen good experiences), but I can also respect those of you who are adamantly against it because of the deaths that have occurred. So what do you honestly see as a fair approach to this?
No religious waivers for vaccinations? Mandatory physicals? An age of consent? How do parents who believe in prayer as the only moral alternative raise their children without sending a hypocritical message?
What will become of Baby Magic?
Beadalin said:
I think that is a very wise decision.
I would say no waivers for vaccinations, but those vaccinations are only required if you attend a public school (as far as I recall, anyway). So if you don’t want to vaccinate, don’t send your kid to a public school. I still don’t like the idea, but it’s not as bad as refusing a blood transfusion.
Mandatory physicals is definitely going too far. I’d say that the line is drawn at about the same place it’s drawn for non-religious abuse – endangerment of the child.
So, if you want to pray for your child instead of giving him something for his stuffy nose, fine. The cold will last 7 days with prayer and a week without. But if you want to pray over your child while his appendix bursts, then we have a serious problem.
I have to jump in here.
I am a Christian, though not a Jehovah’s Witness or a Christian Scientist. Here is my situation:
My son is 6 months old. He has terrible food and environmental allergies. I breastfeed him and he is allergic to the “hypoallergenic” formulas. One thing that he is allergic to is milk protein, casein. This allergy includes cow milk protein and goat milk protein that I know of.
I recently started taking him to a woman who keeps her two children and three other children (including my son). He just goes 1-2 days a week, but not every week. The caregiver wants his vaccination schedule. My son has not been vaccinated (since his 2 month shots; we discovered his allergies at 2.5 months).
We live in Texas. Texas does not have a philosphical exemption for vaccinations. Texas does allow for medical and religious exemptions. I talked to my son’s pediatrician about a medical exemption. Though he supports my decision to postpone my son’s vaccinations, he didn’t want to write a medical exemption for such a “healthy-looking boy”. The whole vaccination issue is a hot one here in Texas. The pediatrician said that if he “[had] to” he would write the exemption.
I have researched the vaccinations that are administered to babies my son’s age. The DTP (or DPaT) shot has casein in it. It is swine casein, but if my son is allergic to cow and goat casein, he would very likely be allergic to swine casein as well. I also have known allergies to some of the ingredients in these vaccinations as well.
I feel that I should have to right to postpone these vaccinations in the interest of my son’s health and safety. To do so, I have to provide my son’s caretaker with a religious exemption. Otherwise, I have to vacinate and hope that my son doesn’t have an adverse reaction from the shot and possibly become crippled or die. (I knew a child that did die from a vaccination.)
I have researched the subject fully, and I feel that as a parent, I can make the best decision for my son. I have talked to several pediatricians who are unaware of ingredients in vaccinations and also have no clue that the MMR shot is supposed to be administered after 15 months of age, according to the vaccine insert unless there is an epidemic. The vaccination schedule in my state calls for this vaccination at 12 months, regardless of what the vaccination package insert reads. Many pediatricians give shots when children are ill or soon after they have had a fever, runny nose, or infection. The package inserts clearly state that the vaccinations should not be administered to sick children or within a specified amount of time after the child has recovered (I don’t have the info in front of me here) from the illness. Given that many pediatricians in my area don’t know that much about vaccinations other than that if they don’t push them or (heaven forbid) provide a medical exemption, they may be liable or may take some heat from the State, I think the decision to vaccinate/not vaccinate and when to do it, should be mine.
My take on the vaccination spin.