Attrocities of 'Christianity', history of the Churches

rwanda: human rights watch.

Within the first twenty-four hours after the plane crash, it was clear that Tutsi clergy
would be killed like any other Tutsi and, a day after that, it was evident that the
churches would be desecrated by slaughter carried out at the very altar. Still, four
days later, the Catholic bishops promised their “support to the new government.”
They asked all Rwandans to “respond favorably to calls” from the new authorities
and to help them realize the goals they had set, including the return of peace and
security. The bishops balanced the statement with a denunciation of troublemakers
and a request to the armed forces to protect everyone, regardless of ethnic group,
party or region.71 The statement was issued from the Vatican, where the first
synod of African bishops was beginning. The Rwandan bishops had been scheduled
to attend, but did not leave Rwanda because of the onset of violence.

As the slaughter continued, the bishops reportedly felt the need to temper their
early support of the government with criticism but were not allowed to broadcast
such a firm statement.72 On April 17, the bishops spoke again, but only to call for
an end to bloodshed for which they held both the RPF and the government
responsible. It was only a month later that four Catholic bishops, the Anglican
archbishop and other Protestant clergy took a stronger position, urging an end to
the war, massacres and assassinations. They “condemned all scandalous acts”
and,without explicitly denouncing the genocide, asked all Christians to refuse to
kill.73 With the hierarchy slow to take a clear stand against the genocide, many
local clergy, both Catholic and Protestant, gave tacit approval to the slaughter by
participating in security committee meetings.

By not issuing a prompt, firm condemnation of the killing campaign, church
authorities left the way clear for officials, politicians, and propagandists to asser
that the slaughter actually met with God’s favor. Sindikubwabo finished a speech by
assuring his listeners that God would help them in confronting the “enemy.”74 RTLM
announcer Bemeriki maintained that the Virgin Mary, said to appear from time to
time at Kibeho church, had declared that “we will have the victory.” In the same
vein, the announcer Habimana said of the Tutsi, “Even God himself has dropped
them.”75

Far from condemning the attempt to exterminate the Tutsi, Archbishop Augustin
Nshamihigo and Bishop Jonathan Ruhumuliza of the Anglican Church acted as
spokemen for the genocidal government at a press conference in Nairobi. Like
many who tried to explain away the slaughter, they placed the blame for the
genocide on the RPF because it had attacked Rwanda. Foreign journalists were so
disgusted at this presentation that they left the conference.76

Some clergy who might have been able to save lives refused to even try to do so.
On April 15 Abbé Pierre Ngoga, who had fled the Kibeho church after soldiers and
local people had begun massacring thousands of Tutsi there, called the Bishop of
Gikongoro. Abbé Ngoga asked him to rescue the Tutsi who had survived and faced
renewed attack. The bishop reportedly refused to help, saying that he had no
soldiers to accompany him to Kibeho and that the Tutsi had been attacked because
they had arms with them.77

Some clergy, Rwandan and foreign, turned away Tutsi who sought their protection,
whether from fear, from misjudgment of the consequences of their action, or from
desire to see them killed.78 In other cases, the clergy protected most who sought
refuge with them, but nonetheless sacrificed others. At the large Catholic church
center at Kabgayi, some 30,000 refugees gathered under the protection of the
Archbishop of Kigali, two bishops, and many clergy. Of that number, about 25,000
were Tutsi, 1,500 of whom would be extracted in small groups from the camps and
killed during the course of the genocide. In some cases, burgomasters or militia
leaders arrived to collect individuals from their communes to take them home to be
killed. In other cases, militia, soldiers, and National Police passed through the
crowds and chose persons to execute because they looked like members of the
elite. They also took women to rape and sometimes to kill afterwards. Shortly
before the arrival of the RPF, four soldiers and five militia members presented the
archbishop with a list of names of clergy and lay people whom they were seeking
because they had links with the “enemy.” The archbishop stood aside and allowed
the squad to search the rooms. The killers departed several hours later with sixteen
persons, seven religious brothers, four priests, one religious sister, and four lay
persons. The nun, Sister Benigna, an older Hutu who was known throughout the
region for her work with single mothers and orphans, was apparently battered to
death with a hammer. Her body was found in the woods next to the church center.79

A century of Christendom’s missionary work in Africa has brought no better result, as
was well illustrated in Rwanda, a land reputedly 80-percent Catholic. The New York
Times of July 7, 1995, reported: “Golias, a liberal, lay Catholic magazine published in
Lyons France, plans to identify 27 more Rwandan priests and four nuns who it says
killed or encouraged the killings in Rwanda last year.” African Rights, a human rights
organization in London, had this comment: “Even more than its silence, the churches
must answer for the active complicity of some of its priests, pastors and nuns in the
genocide.”

http://www.ajwrb.org


Your Organization can't even get it right on blood. 1961 they say one thing then change later. These are JW's and they are pointing out the numerous changes in the Watch Towers policies about blood.

I'm Plastic and I'm very Nominal as far as being a Christian OK SO THERE!!! I'm planning on being being destroyed by your god I guess at least I will not have to burn forever.

Manny

BTW we have a friend who worked for the peace core in Rwanda and yes a lot of the clergy stood by and did nothing or aided in Rwanda.


Not trying to bash all Catholics in anyway but it is what it is.




Manny

In the June 15th 2004 issue of the Watchtower, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society featured two articles on the use of blood products by Jehovah's Witnesses. The first article is titled "Rightly value your gift of life" and reiterated the long-held tradition of the scriptural interpretation to support the religious doctrine to prohibit medical use of blood products. The second article is titled "Be guided by the living God", which details the rules regarding which blood products are "unacceptable" and which are a matter of personal decision. This issue of the magazine also included the reprint of the previous landmark article published on June 15th 2000 titled "Questions from readers: Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?", confirming the then new policy permitting any fraction of a "primary component" of the blood. The circumstances under which this new policy was promulgated in 2000 clearly showed that it was the preparation for allowing Jehovah's Witnesses to receive full benefit from the newly developed hemoglobin-based blood substitutes.

While the two articles of June 2004 showed no substantial changes in the policy promulgated in June 2000, there are several interesting points which are worth discussing. First, the second article now depicts a new chart showing a clear horizontal line dividing the "unacceptable" and the "Christian to decide".




The latter category include fractions from red cells, from white cells, from platelets, and from plasma. While there is nothing new in this chart compared to the "Questions from readers" article of June 2000, this chart now explicitly indicates the "fractions of red cells" as an acceptable fraction. This is an important emphasis, because until recently there have been no "fractions of red cells" which can be used medically. With the emerging technology of hemoglobin-based blood substitute in late 1990's, the Watchtower Society quickly paved the wide road for Jehovah's Witnesses to receive this "minor" fraction of the red cells, which in reality comprise 97% of the red blood cells.

The other interesting point is the explanation for the refusal of the "primary component". After the lengthy biblical discussion and meticulous justification for refusing to "take in" blood for medical reasons, the article quickly concludes this:

The 2001 textbook Emergency Care under "Composition of the Blood," stated: "The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets." Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components. (page 22)
In essence, the article states that the reason for refusing "four primary components" is that it is "in line with medical facts" which is stated in "Emergency Care." While everybody agrees that there is no biblical reason to define the "four primary components" that must be refused, most readers would have expected that such a classification is based on well-established and sound "medical facts." Very interestingly, the book this article cites here is not an authoritative medical textbook. It is a textbook used by the students of the emergency medical technician courses. Why did the Watchtower Society not cite a more authoritative medical textbook or scientific source to base this critically important classification? The simple reason is that such a classification is not at all scientific, but it is simply a tradition in medicine. To use a parallel analogy, our food is traditionally classified into "major components" such as protein, carbohydrate, fat, minerals, etc. Is this classification the only classification considered as a medical fact? Of course not. This is only one of many ways to classify our food. We can also use such a classification as grains, meat, vegetable, fish, etc. This is another way to classify our food, which is equally valid. These classifications are just traditional and convenient tools to understand the various components of our food. Depending on the method of classification, what is considered a "primary component" is different. The same is true for the classification of the blood components.

In case of the classification of the blood components, there are many different ways to classify. It is true that the classification that blood banks most frequently use is the four components this Watchtower article states. However, medical textbooks use many different classifications. Often times, the blood is separated into "two major components", red blood cells (45% and plasma (55%, because other smaller components such as platelets are usually taken as a fraction from one of those major fractions. Another classification which is frequently used in textbooks of anatomy and physiology is based on chemical composition. With this classification, the major and primary components of the blood are water (80%, hemoglobin (15%, albumin (2-3%, and globulin (1-2%.

While the Watchtower Society adopted the classification of red cells, white cells, platelet, and plasma, as the "primary components" and specified those to be refused, what would happen if the Society adopted a different classification which is equally valid with "medical facts"? For example what would happen if the classification of hemoglobin, albumin, globulin as the primary components were adopted? This classification would have prohibited the use of hemoglobin-based blood substitutes and albumin as a plasma expander, which are now permitted to be used for Witnesses. What does this difference tell us?

It tells us that what is "unacceptable" in the Watchtower doctrine has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine cited in the article. It only depends on what classification of the blood components the Watchtower Society adopted among several different classifications available in medical literature. Under one classification of the components (red, white cells, platelets and plasma), most of the currently available blood products in medical practice are in the category of "Christian to decide", or the matter of conscientious decision. This is because the current technology no longer uses those crude fractions in pharmaceutical products. On the other hand, under the other classification based on chemical components (hemoglobin, albumin, globulin, besides water), most of the currently available products become unacceptable, because this classification is more consistent with the current biochemical technology for producing blood-based pharmaceutical products. Under this alternative classification, however, the use of platelets may be acceptable because it is not considered a primary or major component under this classification. In other words, if the Watchtower Society had adopted the chemical classification of the primary components of the blood, which is more consistent with the current biotechnology, hemoglobin, albumin, and globulin, are all prohibited, but platelets and perhaps white blood cells may have been permitted.

Which classification of the blood components the Watchtower Society adopts makes such a huge difference in terms of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and thus who can survive and who must die from catastrophic blood loss. This difference has nothing to do with the biblical doctrine, or not even with the current medical science. It only hinges upon the Watchtower Society's decision regarding which classification of the blood components they adopt. The cold reality of Jehovah's Witnesses is that their life-and-death decisions are after all not directly based on any of the biblical arguments these articles discuss, because such biblical doctrines have no relevance to the classification of the blood components. And it is this classification that determines all the "unacceptable" components and thus the life-and-death decisions. It is ironical that the rules promulgated in this article titled "Be guided by the living God" are simply guided by the human decisions and old tradition. Should they adopt an alternative classification, which is more in line with the current medical technology, life and death of Jehovah's Witnesses would have been totally different.


References

Muramoto O. Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses. British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 37-39 [Full Text]
Muramoto O. Recent developments in medical care of Jehovah's Witnesses. Western Journal of Medicine 1999; 170: 297-301 [Full Text]

About the author

Dr. Muramoto is a staff neurologist, lead physician, and a member of the Regional Ethics Council, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon. His views and opinions are his own and do not reflect those of Kaiser Permanente and Northwest Permanente P.C.

taken from http://www.ajwrb.org

Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well what do you think, perhaps you know something of the history of the atrocity, who it was perpetrated by and why.

It was mostly perpetrated by one tribe because of tribalism. But I do not know much more than that.

After all, your in Africa are you not?
Yes, but some parts of Africa are closer to you than to me. Rwanda is about 3,000km from me and 6,000km from you.

As for conceding anything on the sicko meter , no i dont conclude that is the case unless of course you are willing to try to prove that a persons right to self determination and the exercise of conscience should be suspended.
But you did concede it already and tried to use your concession in a 'my atrocity ain't as bad as yours' argument. If you have not conceded it then you cannot use that argument as we have not yet agreed where on the sicko meter your atrocity appears.

I see you also concede that it is possible that the Rwanda genocide could eclipse your OP examples and that the crusades eclipse the Rwanda genocide by using your 'my atrocity ain't as bad as yours' argument. So all we need to do is find the worlds worst atrocity ever and everything else is null and void. I'm guessing that one of Gods actions in the OT will be the eventual winner. For general genocide, the flood can't be beat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was mostly perpetrated by one tribe because of tribalism. But I do not know much more than that.

After all, your in Africa are you not?
Yes, but some parts of Africa are closer to you than to me. Rwanda is about 3,000km from me and 6,000km from you.

As for conceding anything on the sicko meter , no i dont conclude that is the case unl ns in the OT will be the eventual winner. For general genocide, the flood can't be beat.

i do not think it an atrocity to claim the right of self determination and the exercise of
conscience and as you have not demonstrated that such is an atrocity your claims and
any arguments you wish to base on the premise are completely unfounded. what is
more your argument simply has nothing to actually do with this thread, does it? its
simply an argument for arguments sake. If you have of course anything to contribute
to the actual content then that would be welcome otherwise, well you can always start
your own thread.

Originally posted by menace71
In the June 15th 2004 issue of the Watchtower, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society featured two articles on the use of blood products by Jehovah's Witnesses. The first article is titled "Rightly value your gift of life" and reiterated the long-held tradition of the scriptural interpretation to support the religious doctrine to prohibit medical use of blo ttp://www.ajwrb.org

Manny

start your own thread spanky, this is for atrocities committed by Christians, as for us
we shall continue to exercise or right of self determination and our right to exercise
the human conscience, you may want to show that article to the tens of thousands who
have been killed by blood products, which i notice you fail to mention, but then again,
objectivity was never your strong point, whereas you do seem to excel in the areas of
prejudice and ignorance.

Please tell the forum how many persons have been killed when given blood
products? Here ill start you off,

Blood transfusion scandal: 4,670 British haemophiliacs were left infected with
Hepatitis C, of whom 1,243 were also infected with HIV

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah and you are like a light shining in a dark place. As for dead means bones, the
American Christians have slaughtered how many innocent and defenceless persons?
You people are seriously deluded and look at your lamebo excuses, one man decide
s to exercise self determination and its an atrocity while you have cold bloodedly
murdered little ...[text shortened]... re the full extent of your iniquity is exposed. By their fruits
you will recognise those men.

How exactly is Manny responsible for something that happened in 1864?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How exactly is Manny responsible for something that happened in 1864?

Guilt through association. He inherits the legacy. He could of course have chosen to
condemn the atrocities but he has not. He could of course have chosen to make
reparation by apologising, by stating that yes indeed, American Christians have been
guilty of the most horrendous of crimes. He is unaffected by what has transpired
seeking to justify the actions of American Christians by his silence upon the matter.
Let him publicly condemn the actions and then let him explain why they happened.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i do not think it an atrocity to claim the right of self determination and the exercise of
conscience and as you have not demonstrated that such is an atrocity your claims and
any arguments you wish to base on the premise are completely unfounded.

But it was you that tried to base an argument on the premise not I. By doing so, you conceded it was an atrocity that registered on the sickometer.

If you do not recognize that it is an atrocity that registers on the sickometer, how could you possibly have claimed that it registered at a lower point on the scale than the Rwanda genocide?

what is more your argument simply has nothing to actually do with this thread, does it? its
simply an argument for arguments sake.
I was just pointing out the errors in your own argument:
1. You simultaneously claim that something does not register on the sickometer and that it registers on the meter lower than the Rwanda genocide. (a contradiction).
2. You claim that the existence of items higher up the sickometer causes items lower down the sickometer to "pall into insignificance". Thus the natural conclusion of such an argument is that for any given atrocity, if we can find another atrocity sufficiently high on the sickometer, we can cause it to "pall into insignificance".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Guilt through association. He inherits the legacy. He could of course have chosen to
condemn the atrocities but he has not. He could of course have chosen to make
reparation by apologising, by stating that yes indeed, American Christians have been
guilty of the most horrendous of crimes. He is unaffected by what has transpired
seeking to j ...[text shortened]... the matter.
Let him publicly condemn the actions and then let him explain why they happened.

So he's responsible simply because he's American and a Christian?! Does he have to condemn every single atrocity carried out by American Christians or Christians worldwide since the birth of Christianity to be exempt in your eyes?

Using your logic, does every German alive today 'inherit the legacy' of the holocaust by 'guilt through association' until you hear them condemn the atrocity in your eyes?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So he's responsible simply because he's American and a Christian?! Does he have to condemn every single atrocity carried out by American Christians or Christians worldwide since the birth of Christianity to be exempt in your eyes?

Using your logic, does every German alive today 'inherit the legacy' of the holocaust by 'guilt through association' until you hear them condemn the atrocity in your eyes?!

He is not responsible for the actually atrocities themselves, his failure is in failing to condemn and recognise that Christianity is responsible for outrages and instead he seeks to attack those who have committed none. Its an utterly hypocritical stance and deserves to be exposed. Its not my logic it yours and yes every person whether they are German or not should condemn the holocaust. Are you saying that they shouldn't? well then!

Originally posted by twhitehead
But it was you that tried to base an argument on the premise not I. By doing so, you conceded it was an atrocity that registered on the sickometer.

If you do not recognize that it is an atrocity that registers on the sickometer, how could you possibly have claimed that it registered at a lower point on the scale than the Rwanda genocide?

what is atrocity sufficiently high on the sickometer, we can cause it to "pall into insignificance"

thankyou for once again contributing almost zero! there was a glimmer of hope when
you recognised that there had been an atrocity committed in Rawanda, but its all but
dissipated now. I wont get involved in an petty arguments with you, if you have any
particular atrocity to mention let it be heard, otherwise, spare me the trivialities or
take it to general.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]soooo killing little native American girls with white flags and defenceless squaws is
justified,

How did you ever come to this conclusion? I might as well be talking to FMF with these kind of accusations.