1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    09 Jun '14 05:331 edit
    Despite the Jehovah's Witness alleged position (repeatedly stated in this forum by robbie carrobie) of blood transfusions being "a matter of personal conscience", the real experience of life inside the cult is somewhat different as the religious pressure by the governing body to conform to its pernicious doctrines continues to endanger lives. In this South African incident a young girl's life was saved by legal intervention to force a blood transfusion against the parents wishes. Clearly, being "a matter of conscience" is not sufficient.

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Jun '14 12:17
    Good for her.

    Religion kills.
  3. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110786
    09 Jun '14 15:41
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Good for her.

    Religion kills.
    Except when it doesn't; when it puts a blanket in the hand of a homeless person, or inspires someone to care for the mentally handicapped.

    I am an atheist as you are, but this one-dimensional view of religion does not reflect reality. Religion does both awful things and kind things, depending on who is practicing it.

    Get some perspective, please.
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    09 Jun '14 17:37
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    Except when it doesn't; when it puts a blanket in the hand of a homeless person, or inspires someone to care for the mentally handicapped.

    I am an atheist as you are, but this one-dimensional view of religion does not reflect reality. Religion does both awful things and kind things, depending on who is practicing it.

    Get some perspective, please.
    This thread is not generally against religion. But a particular case.

    If the parents of the girl would have the doctors to not treat the girl, then she would have died. Because of their rieligion. Hence 'religion kills' in this particular case.

    Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that. And if I meant that it's worth a thread of its own.

    The doctor saved the girl, not religion, not Jesus. The doctors.
    Or else the girl would have died. Because of religion. Religion would kill her.
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148452
    09 Jun '14 17:57
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Despite the Jehovah's Witness alleged position (repeatedly stated in this forum by robbie carrobie) of blood transfusions being "a matter of personal conscience", the real experience of life inside the cult is somewhat different as the religious pressure by the governing body to conform to its pernicious doctrines continues to endanger lives. In this Sou ...[text shortened]... ://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022
    Just so I know why do you act like personal conscience isn't something to
    be thought of as important enough to take very seriously? I would not force
    anyone to do anything they were so against it would harm their conscience.

    I have friends that are Muslim that do not eat pork, I would not even if I
    knew they were coming over to eat serve them food cooked on a pan that
    ever had pork in it. I do not follow the Muslim faith, but I respect them as
    people who do.

    Life and death choices people do make all the time, and I don't have to
    agree with them to acknowledge how important those views are to them.
    If beliefs can be over ruled because another doesn't agree with them, than
    all views are not safe from being over ruled. You either respect them or
    you do not, so which is it?
    Kelly
  6. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110786
    09 Jun '14 18:53
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    This thread is not generally against religion. But a particular case.

    If the parents of the girl would have the doctors to not treat the girl, then she would have died. Because of their rieligion. Hence 'religion kills' in this particular case.

    Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that. And if I meant that it's worth a ...[text shortened]... s. The doctors.
    Or else the girl would have died. Because of religion. Religion would kill her.
    Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that.

    Yes, you did.

    I appreciate that English is probably not your first language, so perhaps you didn't mean to say it. But when you say something like "religion kills" with no qualifier at all, it will be taken by most English speakers to be a general statement, even when you are responding to a specific topic, such as the case presented in this thread.
  7. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    09 Jun '14 18:531 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Just so I know why do you act like personal conscience isn't something to
    be thought of as important enough to take very seriously? I would not force
    anyone to do anything they were so against it would harm their conscience.

    I have friends that are Muslim that do not eat pork, I would not even if I
    knew they were coming over to eat serve them food coo ...[text shortened]... e not safe from being over ruled. You either respect them or
    you do not, so which is it?
    Kelly
    You strike me as being a sincere Christian and a nice bloke, but I have to point out that your ability to miss the point is astonishing. Do you do it on purpose?

    Not only that but you are making assumptions about what I think, confusing what Paul said about observing moons and sabbaths with what robbie carrobie said about JWs being able to decide (implicitly) without duress on matters such as receiving blood and as for your last paragraph - say what?! Who makes life and death choices "all the time"? And -seriously - (I had to read your last sentence three times to believe it) are you saying the JW parents belief should not have been overruled and let the child die?
  8. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148452
    09 Jun '14 19:091 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    You strike me as being a sincere Christian and a nice bloke, but I have to point out that your ability to miss the point is astonishing. Do you do it on purpose?

    Not only that but you are making assumptions about what I think, confusing what Paul said about observing moons and sabbaths with what robbie carrobie said about JWs being able to decide (imp ...[text shortened]... e it) are you saying the JW parents belief should not have been overruled and let the child die?
    I don't care why he feels the way he does, I disagree with almost every
    thing that I see that has to do with the JW. That said, it changes nothing
    about what I wrote. I can argue against what he believes, but must if I
    want to be respected, respect his heart felt belief even if I think they are
    amiss.

    Paul said it best, if my brother is offended by my eating meat, I will not
    eat meat.

    Who gets to say when a parent's wishes no longer matter? The state, and
    if you say yes to that, where do you draw the line on how much the state
    can say when it comes to your beliefs? Maybe the state dislikes the way
    you cook your food, or wear your cloths, or your TV habits, maybe they
    want to promote sex to your kids and abortion without your consent! You
    either have rights or you do not. It could be life and death to pull the plug
    or not to, they may say its life and death to accept fetal tissue or not too.
    Kelly
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    09 Jun '14 19:261 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I don't care why he feels the way he does, I disagree with almost every
    thing that I see that has to do with the JW. That said, it changes nothing
    about what I wrote. I can argue against what he believes, but must if I
    want to be respected, respect his heart felt belief even if I think they are
    amiss.

    Paul said it best, if my brother is offended by m ...[text shortened]... the plug
    or not to, they may say its life and death to accept fetal tissue or not too.
    Kelly
    Let me understand you clearly:

    - You disagree with almost every JW doctrine - does this include the one on refusing blood?

    - However, you "respect" what he [arbitrary JW person] believes about refusing blood, even though you disagree with it.

    - You think that JWs are your [spiritual] "brother" as Paul referenced and you don't want to offend that "brother" by telling them they shouldn't refuse blood even if their child dies.

    - You believe that the state intervening to save a child's life by ensuring a blood transfusion was given even though it was against the child's parents wishes, is inappropriate state intervention akin to and likely to lead to enforced sex education and subsequent abortions on children. You also feel that having rights is black and white issue I.e. "You either have them or you don't"

    Did I miss anything?
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148452
    09 Jun '14 23:19
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Let me understand you clearly:

    - You disagree with almost every JW doctrine - does this include the one on refusing blood?

    - However, you "respect" what he [arbitrary JW person] believes about refusing blood, even though you disagree with it.

    - You think that JWs are your [spiritual] "brother" as Paul referenced and you don't want to offend that ...[text shortened]... rights is black and white issue I.e. "You either have them or you don't"

    Did I miss anything?
    Yes I disagree with most JW doctrine, including refusing blood.
    Yes I agree that if you feel you would be sinning if you did something, I
    should not force you do to it.
    No, I can debate areas where I disagree, but I would not want to force
    someone to sin.
    Yes, I agree that parent rights should trump most other things, I do not
    want the state to control all things in my life over my views of right and wrong.
    Kelly
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78560
    09 Jun '14 23:46
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I don't care why he feels the way he does, I disagree with almost every
    thing that I see that has to do with the JW. That said, it changes nothing
    about what I wrote. I can argue against what he believes, but must if I
    want to be respected, respect his heart felt belief even if I think they are
    amiss.

    Paul said it best, if my brother is offended by m ...[text shortened]... the plug
    or not to, they may say its life and death to accept fetal tissue or not too.
    Kelly
    Maybe the state dislikes the way you cook your food, or wear your cloths, or your TV habits, maybe they want to promote sex to your kids and abortion without your consent!
    In the U.K. rights tend to be negative, in the sense that you can do what you want unless it's specifically prohibited.

    There are cases where the child has to be taken from the parent for the child's safety. In the U.K. and I imagine the U.S., the courts put the best interests of the child first, and if the parents are non-neglectful and non-abusive the state will not intervene. I think in practical terms your point is flawed, and reflects paranoia about the state rather than any real problems with its actions.

    I can think of reasons to for the state to intervene in the way people cook their food. Suppose someone in a block of flats insisted on cooking their food in a fire on the floor in the middle of the room. More realistically they may ban some ingredients on health and safety grounds. There are public decency laws in the U.K., I imagine they exist in the U.S. as well, so no clothes isn't an option. Pornography (at least of the hard core variety) cannot be shown by terrestrial or satellite broadcasters, without a state to stop it it would be - do you really think it should?

    By promoting sex I assume that you mean sex education? The intention there is to reduce teenage pregnancies and remove the motivation for abortions.
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148452
    09 Jun '14 23:58
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Maybe the state dislikes the way you cook your food, or wear your cloths, or your TV habits, maybe they want to promote sex to your kids and abortion without your consent!
    In the U.K. rights tend to be negative, in the sense that you can do what you want unless it's specifically prohibited.

    There are cases where the child has to be take ...[text shortened]... ? The intention there is to reduce teenage pregnancies and remove the motivation for abortions.
    I agree you can take what I said, and come up with several things that I
    would agree with you on. I am quite serious though that I think if people
    truly have the best interest of their family at heart and they feel something
    the state is pushing is a sin, they should not be forced into it. With respect
    to paranoia, it isn't my fault they are out to get me. 🙂 [kidding]
    Kelly
  13. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86381
    10 Jun '14 05:412 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yes I disagree with most JW doctrine, including refusing blood.
    Yes I agree that if you feel you would be sinning if you did something, I
    should not force you do to it.
    No, I can debate areas where I disagree, but I would not want to force
    someone to sin.
    Yes, I agree that parent rights should trump most other things, I do not
    want the state to control all things in my life over my views of right and wrong.
    Kelly
    You're missing the point again (and now I'm pretty sure you do it deliberately) by talking in generalities rather than addressing the specific topic.

    You are making all these grandstanding sweeping statements, but answer this specific point: Do you think the state should have let the girl (mentioned on the OP) die by not intervening? Yes or no?
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    10 Jun '14 06:31
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I would not want to force someone to sin.
    In terms of this OP, what "sin" are you referring to?
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Jun '14 06:45
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    [b]Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that.

    Yes, you did.

    I appreciate that English is probably not your first language, so perhaps you didn't mean to say it. But when you say something like "religion kills" with no qualifier at all, it will be taken by most English speakers to be a general statement, even when you are responding to a specific topic, such as the case presented in this thread.[/b]
    If you take it out of context, yes. But what I write here is on-topic. And that's about the girl. This girl would have been dead by now if her parents religion was honoured. Hence "religion (their) killes (by this example)".

    There are many more examples where religion kills, but that would be off-topic.
    There are also many examples where religion saves lives, that that would also be off-topic.

    (But I must say [no irony] that I'm happy that my friends here at RHP read what I *mean* and not what my sometimes (often?) lack of English grammar and vocabulary shows. Thank you for this! 🙂 )
Back to Top