Dying For Nothing At 14
The belief, sans evidence, in god, and all the trimmings, is often anything but harmless. The is one of those cases. A 14-year-old boy, a Jehovah's witness refuses a blood transfusion and dies; his death sentence being his indoctrination in primitive, irrational beliefs:
Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew “he’s basically giving himself a death sentence.”“I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision,” the judge said during the hearing. “I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.”
Doctors had given Dennis a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five years with the transfusions and other treatment, the judge added.
Doctors diagnosed the boy’s leukemia in early November. They began chemotherapy at Children’s Hospital, but stopped a week ago because his blood count was too low, the Skagit Valley Herald reported. The boy refused the transfusion on religious grounds.
However, his birth parents, Lindberg and Rachel Wherry, who do not have custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be at the hearing, believed their son should have had the transfusion and suggested he had been unduly influenced by his aunt, who is also a Jehovah’s Witness.
The aunt has declined to talk about the case.
I bet she has. Hmm, wonder why the parents didn't have custody, don't you?
Cancer surgeon/researcher blogger Orac writes:
In this case, the court in essence allowed a 14-year-old boy to commit suicide for his religion, about which representatives of his religion could only say:After the judge's ruling, Jim Nelson, chairman of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Seattle Hospital Liaison Committee, said Lindberg was a "very responsible young man who knows his mind and was very clear. He's a very brave young man, and he's standing firm for what he believes in." Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible prohibits transfusions of blood, in part because blood is sacred, Nelson said.And it doesn't mean the faith is "antimedicine," he added. "Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a death wish. We're not arguing a right to die."
What a crock. That's exactly what they are arguing, and their defense of how Nelson's religion indoctrinated Dennis to the point where he threw away his life away for no good reason sickens me. They're arguing in essence to allow minors to commit suicide unnecessarily for their religion. I've discussed the specific Biblical passages that Jehovah's Witnesses use to justify their irrational refusal of life-saving transfusions. For adults, I support that right as part and parcel of freedom of religion. I may consider refusing transfusions based on a tortured interpretation of a few lines of scripture to be the height of irrationality, but adults have the right to be irrational in making their health care choices. When it comes to children, I'm much less tolerant.
This is like the Abraham Cherrix case, that both Orac and I blogged on. As I wrote about the tough question in that case -- tough, because I believe in self-determination: "How far should self-determination go for a teen? Should you be sentenced to death because you're stupid, or just not rigorous enough a thinker (how many kids are at 16?) to understand that you're probably going to die if you drink some herbal tonic instead of doing chemo for your cancer?"
thanks, Gretchen!
Knew you'd like that one!
Gretchen at November 30, 2007 7:38 AM
And we wonder about a suicide bomber's mentality? Willing to die for your god? Check! Yes, yes, didn't take anyone else with him. Give our fundies time...
moreta at November 30, 2007 7:42 AM
These bombers are little robots controlled by adults and/or a belief systems that's right out of the Middle Ages.
Moreta, I read about where terrorists are now trying to come up with devices where they can blow up others without blowing up themselves. But, I think there's still a romance to them in dying for their "cause" -- the fact that other people don't believe in or share their primitive belief system.
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2007 7:45 AM
If this story is correct, the judge who decreed it will be in trouble, I predict. Fourteen is not the age of consent to medical treatment, and it is also not the age of non-consent. That consent or refusal must come from the parent or guardian, and even then life-saving medical treatment of children has been ordered over the objection of parent or guardian.
The idea is that you can do whatever you want with your body when you are old enough to make your own decisions but the law should protect you from yourself, or from your wacko parents, until that time.
Flash Gordon at November 30, 2007 7:51 AM
The aunt has declined to talk about the case.
I bet she has. Hmm, wonder why the parents didn't have custody, don't you?
Heh. There's way more to this than meets the eye. o_O
Flynne at November 30, 2007 8:01 AM
"These bombers are little robots controlled by adults and/or a belief systems that's right out of the Middle Ages.
Exactly, just like christian fundies. You just said it better...must remember not to comment until after my morning tea!
Reading about this story elsewhere, I saw a comment suggesting the reason this kid was with his aunt is because his parents were addicts. Not sure if there's any basis to that, but I'm looking.
moreta at November 30, 2007 8:22 AM
I can't find anything but commenters to back that claim up, so I'd discount it unless someone else finds more factual evidence.
moreta at November 30, 2007 8:59 AM
It is not belief in God per se that leads to these kinds of distortions, but rather the belief that God demands we be "pure", in this case pure in blood.
"Purity" is variously defined by different religions and denominations, and the procedure for becoming "pure" is also variously conceived, but the underlying mandate that requires individual purity is the common denominator of nearly all of them.
I believe the idea that a person must be "pure" in order to be acceptable to God is wrong and is responsible for a great deal -- perhaps most -- of the harm we humans perpetrate on one another. This is especially true among those who come to believe their mission is to make other people "pure".
The irony in this is that -- whatever else you may believe about him -- Jesus of Nazareth was strongly opposed to and fought against the purity system in effect in his day.
Kirk at November 30, 2007 9:04 AM
It is not belief in God per se that leads to these kinds of distortions, but rather the belief that God demands we be "pure", in this case pure in blood.
In order to believe in god, you have to forego rational thought. Religion is best served by telling people to just "take it on faith," to not think rationally. That is what religion does that is very damaging -- it makes people robots, to one degree or another, to serve it$ cause. It's really all about money. Why do you think the priests can't marry...why really? Well, then their earnings would be passed onto their children, instead of back to the beast, the church. So much of what religions do is all about controlling the minds, and in turn, the money. Like telling people lies about condoms so they won't use them. Some sick shit.
The flaw is in believing in a big Imaginary Friend at all. There's no evidence there's a god, so to talk about what god does or doesn't want or what some guy who may or may not have existed, and maybe or maybe not in the way it was written in some big book of fairytales, is the height of ridiculousness.
If you're gullible to one claim from religion, sans evidence, you're going to be gullible to others. This guy's believe in the impurity of blood is no crazier than the idea that homosexuality is a "sin."
Amy Alkon at November 30, 2007 9:19 AM
Jehovah's Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion,to say the issue is a 'personal conscience matter' is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah's Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.
FYI
1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?
2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.
3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.
Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won't vindicate the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.
The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.
In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.
None of these changes will absolve the Watchtower leaders or vindicate their twisted doctrines
Are there dangers from blood?There are over 500 aspirin deaths in USA yearly.
---
Danny Haszard born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness
Danny Haszard at November 30, 2007 11:32 AM
REG: Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
Brian at November 30, 2007 11:50 AM
Misinterpreting the Old Testament prohibition against eating animal blood as a routine food item, in 1945, the WatchTower Society began teaching that receiving a blood transfusion was "eating human blood". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that receiving an infusion of human blood into their body's circulatory system is scientifically the exact same thing as eating or ingesting blood into their body's digestive system:
"A patient in the hospital maybe fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating through his veins." -- The WATCHTOWER magazine, July 1, 1951.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.
The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED
In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible treats exactly the same as eating animal blood itself. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.
In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with Murderers.
This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.
The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
Jerry Jones at November 30, 2007 4:39 PM
Ha ha Brian. Is that your real name?
Gourd follower at November 30, 2007 5:36 PM
I don't know why any of you are making any noise about this at all.
This is natural selection at its best.
And one factor is that this poor boy will not grow up and produce offspring with the tendency to leukemia. Nature wins.
This is a cold, heartless way of looking at things - but the universe is indeed cold and heartless. It will take the lunch money from a crippled girl, kill the dad who makes a wrong turn into the wrong neighborhood and trap Muffy under the car when she gets too eager to cross the street. Yes, this kid had potential. Another kid will now come along and fulfill it.
Radwaste at November 30, 2007 5:40 PM
I have a sign in my yard, it reads
NO TRESSPASSING: Proselytizers will be persecuted
Here is what I dont get, jehovah's witness belive only 144,000 people get into hevean.
Now according to the bible god created more worlds than the sand on the beach(millions if not more) and more than enough people to populate all those worlds.
Statistically that would mean, on average, less than one person from each world. And somthing tells me that jesus gets the slot from earth.
Now if any of these morons were to think thru their faith logically that would mean no one else from earth is going to heaven. ANd every one who doest get into heaven itself just lives eternally in the mortal world
So to recap jehovah's witness practice a religion that gaurentees no one will EVER get to heaven
That even more fucked up than most religions
PS I had this argument printed on cards and hand them out to all the jehovah's witness who knock on my door at 7 in the morning - oddly enough they finnally stopped coming around - hypocrites cant even take their oath the spread the faith seriously
lujlp at November 30, 2007 9:46 PM
Bigots and intolarent fools. Thats what you here who would condem a child to live under your law of right and wrong. The person who had apparently raised the child, the child himself, and the judge all lived this case and saw made their descions knowing full well all the cosequences that are invovled in the matter, yet you arm chair haters judge them the monsters.
I am an ex-JW and I can tell you, the descions not to take blood is one of the most crucial of their beliefs and if you had, had your way, and the boy had been forcibly infused, he would have viewed it akin to being raped for the last four or five years of his life. Yes, at that age they already feel so strongly about their beliefs that they can make that descion. I know I had. Even know, no longer believing in any of it, I still feel that any person who would force their view of right and wrong on a group of people who never force their view of right and wrong on an outsider is a monster and a rapist of peoples right of self determination. PIGS!!!
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 2, 2007 7:47 PM
If he views it as "akin to being raped" it's because he's brought up to believe in primitive fairy tales, based in zero evidence. There's zero evidence there's a god, yet all these people follow like sheep when they're told one exists - to the point where 14-year-olds believe they're doing something pure by throwing their lives away. Sick, sick, primitive shit. The pigs and monsters are those who promote these beliefs, causing the needless death of children. The boy was allowed self-determination -- the question is, was he brainwashed into it.
jehovah's witness belive only 144,000 people get into hevean.
Based on zero evidence, of course. And no, being told it will happen by a guy in a funny religious outfit doesn't count as evidence. Gullibility = death.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2007 7:53 PM
I still feel that any person who would force their view of right and wrong on a group of people who never force their view of right and wrong on an outsider is a monster and a rapist of peoples right of self determination.
That's exactly what adults did to this child. No-one is born a JW: everyone is an outsider to begin with. But children will accept as gospel (sic) what ever their parents tell them - for a while, at least.
Norman at December 3, 2007 12:14 AM
Exactly the point, Norman. Thanks for sweeping up.
Amy Alkon at December 3, 2007 1:57 AM
Being Brainwashed is the what everyone claims happens when they speak of someone who would willingly do what the caller feels is wrong or stupid. Communists say that workers who choose to living in capitalist societies over communist societies are just brainwashed and must be made to think right by force of the gun.
It doesn't matter in the least weather god exists or not. What matters is that you never have the power to hold a gun to someones head and tell them they must do what you think is right. PIG.
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 3, 2007 11:39 PM
Being Brainwashed is the what everyone claims happens when they speak of someone who would willingly do what the caller feels is wrong or stupid
Uh, there's no evidence there's a god, so in what way does it make sense to die for the equally evidence-free god-based notion that transfused blood will cause one to be rejected from the place there's no evidence exists, called heaven?
What you're engaging in is called sophistry if you want to get fancy; moronism if you don't.
I haven't held a gun to anyone's head; moreover, I don't believe in coercion by force -- whether violent or the coopting of a gullible minor.
PIG? No, I have the ability to reason. You, like pigs, apparently don't.
Amy Alkon at December 3, 2007 11:49 PM
P.S. Communism is an irrationality-based system. People work out of self-interest, not to have the fruits of their labor spread around to people who haven't worked. And you see a whole lot of commies around these days?
Amy Alkon at December 3, 2007 11:51 PM
Tomre - This blog is not threatening anyone with anything. Check back: The only threats in this case are:
So get your ideas about who is threatening whom into order.
You still have not addressed the earlier point: how exactly did this child become a JW, since he was not a JW at birth? Was he given the chance to make an informed choice about it?
Norman at December 4, 2007 12:25 AM
First, the judge and the Aunt were damned by people here as being murders. Second, it don't matter a thing weather god exists or not. Not a flipping bit. The kid died because he had something he believed in. And that is everybody’s right. Three, yes, I see plenty of Commies. Radical Fem's (claim that sex between m/f is rape and the only reason they don't know is they are brainwashed/capitalism/logic are all sexist constructs of society), Democrats, and plenty o' others. Fourth, yes, by that point, he had been given a choice in the matter. Basically, by the time a child is 12 a significant portion of a JW child's religious choices are his own. And you are actually right, a child is not a JW at birth. A child is not a JW till he takes the steps all JW's must take to become one. The decision to not take blood, is one of those decisions. Finally, Amy, you might not have been willing to hold a gun to someone’s head (which is what having the government do something for you is) but one person did say the law should have protected the child from himself and his legal guardian (Flash Gordon) and the rest of you left comments that feel like a feeding frenzy of hate towards a group of people who will NEVER do anything to you more then proselytize.
Finally, if your going to argue about a religion (Norman) get ur crap right. JW's don't believe in Hellfire. And while they do believe that not everyone gets to goto heaven, they do believe in a resurrection to paradise earth.
PIGS!
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 4, 2007 6:27 PM
Tomre - Posters to a blog calling someone a murderer is a statement of opinion. Just like calling someone a pig. It doesn't have any actual effect. It's not in the poster's power to damn anyone.
The kid died because he believed in something. That is his right. But, having been brought up to age 12 as JW means he was not able to make a free informed decision. Heck, the Jesuits only take seven years to brainwash their kids. Have you noticed that most people have the same faith as their parents? That if this kid has been brought up by muslims, hindus, or pagans, he would most likely have been a muslim, hindu or pagan? How do you explain that? I explain it (following Richard Dawkins line) by saying that children accept whatever their parents tell them, as gospel truth. So it was this kid's misfortune to be born to JW parents. He did not choose to be JW. His parents effectively killed him with religion.
Perhaps you can explain why "having something to believe in" is so important. Does it matter what you believe? If I really honestly believe in Santa Claus and refuse to let the vet treat my reindeer's broken leg, because Santa is coming real soon with a new leg, is that OK? Or should I be charged with animal cruelty?
And what have you got against pigs?
Norman at December 5, 2007 2:15 AM
Pigs from 'Animal Farm', yes, if you believed in Santa Claus then you should be allowed refuse treatment for your reindeer (but then, u should be allowed to do so regardless of ur beliefs.)
By age twelve most of those kids have made up their mind enough to go one way or the other. They generally still aren't allowed to do what they want, but they don't do anything their parents don't require of them. I was fairly able to pick out who among my age group was living the life and who was keeping the rental units off their back. So, you are wrong, being raised in the religion does not mean you are unable to think for yourself. You are surprisingly dismissive of young adults ability to make decisions for themselves or of parents (or in this case the woman who took care of him) rights to raise their children as they see fit.
Most JW's are not children of JW's. When you say most kids have the same religion of their parents you are generally talking about religions that have lower standards of conduct for its members. Being a JW requires faith or you stop being one.
You have the same problem that all anti-religious nuts do, you believe that people who follow religion are in need of saving. You need to get over it. People will always make decisions that you don't think are smart, but it is their right to make them, and if you advocate them not having that right, then you are advocating the destruction of your rights as well. (As an aside, I personally think that the real reason liberals hate religion is that people who have faith are also happier (comparing to similar people.)) So basically, take your fat nose out of their flipping business.
I don't recall saying having something to believe in is important. I said that being allowed to follow what you believe in is important (whithin the limits that it doesn't force others to conform to your belief.) I will say that I feel the person who said something to the tune of, A person who doesn't believe in god will believe in anything. Hence the reason why so many leftists are atheists’.
Again, I maintain that anyone here who said that the law should not have allowed this to happen is a statist thug aka a PIG!!
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 5, 2007 6:25 PM
you believe that people who follow religion are in need of saving.
I believe they're irrational. Which they are. If they're adults who believe in idiotic crap, and it leads to their death, that's one thing. Pretty tragic that a 14-year-old is brainwashed to death. Furthermore, your claims about kids and independence of thought are not borne out by either studies or experience.
Amy Alkon at December 5, 2007 11:38 PM
Tomre - Thanks for a more readable reply.
I get the point about pigs.
Re Santa - if I understand what you are saying, I can be as cruel to an animal as I want, so long as I claim my actions are based on my beliefs? I find that hard to accept, and it is not the law in the UK. Here, if you mistreat an animal, you can be prosecuted and forbidden to own animals in the future. Though some religious exceptions are made (wrongly in my opinion) for halal meat etc.
I didn't say being raised in a religion makes you unable to think for yourself. But on the whole, people stick with what they were brought up with. Relatively few people change. This leads to whole communities and then whole countries being predominantly of one religion, and it is why it is possible for one set of believers to out-breed another. It has happened before and it will happen again. It's why churches have rules about what religion children are brought up in.
I don't know in particular about JWs - true. I can't say I'm that interested to find out, as the points I'm making here are about religion in general. But I'm open to being educated by you.
As for denying people the right to make their own decisions, or believe in whatever nonsense they want, well actually I am in favour of that right. I never said otherwise. I am also in favour of the right to speak one's mind, even when it causes offense.
But this is all a bit off-topic. Here we have a young person who chose to die rather than take medical treatment, because of his religious faith. Suppose he had been six years old, and his faith had been that after death Santa would take him to be an elf at the north pole. Do you think then that he should be allowed to make his own decision? I suspect not: we would (I hope) agree that he is too young and doesn't know what he is talking about. So at some point in life, you reach a stage where you can make these decisions. We are disagreeing about where that point is. We also disagree about the faith, because his JW faith is, in my opinion, as daft as the Santa faith.
I don't think that parents, just because they are parents, should be allowed to do whatever they want to their children. Bringing children up in a particular faith is, because they are so impressionable, taking advantage of them. But of course most parents were brought up in the same way and see it differently. That's exactly how faith perpetuates itself. Independently of the truth or any social value of the faith, it replicates like a computer virus that spreads from parents to children. On this occasion, it resulted in the death of the child. Whether the religion is true or not is therefore paramount. If his faith was correct, then he is better off dead. If not, he was the victim of a monstrous swindle.
Norman at December 6, 2007 4:30 AM
Amy, I was speaking from experience.
Norman. On the animal cruelty thing, I feel that animals are property and being a capitalist, I don't believe in the right of the government to supersede property rights. If the child is still to young to make a decision then I feel it is the sole right and responsibility of the parent(s) to make even life and death decisions regarding their children. I reject the right of society to decide what is good or bad parenting. I admit reservations regarding outright murder and torture. But, I haven't personally explored the concepts and realities behind that subject enough to say definitively where I stand on that. But, I fully and absolutely stand for the rights of the parents to raise their children by whatever religious beliefs they follow and in no way condone the states right to circumscribe those rights. (Even for that bastard religion Islam which I wish I could condone the destruction of, I still feel that their right to raise their children as they see fit to be higher then any right of society.)
As it goes, I agree, religious views are daft as they go. Even the ones that don't stop their practitioners from living secular lives (seems they are just social clubs as opposed to religions.) But, if you feel that letting the government control parenting (any amount of government control leads to full control) then I feel that the Pig must stand. To be exact, that who last paragraph was about you feeling that it is right and ok for the government to control how parents raise their children so that some future generation can be free from the pestilence of religion. And that is what the pig was all about. Marxism called for the radical reeducation of society for the purpose of realigning it to a better future.
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 6, 2007 5:54 PM
Tomre - wow. You follow a much harder line than I do. In your terms I'm definitely a pig. (Is "pig" meant to be an insult?) At least you have "reservations regarding outright murder and torture." General ill-treatment and abuse are OK, though?
The UK government already controls how parents raise their children. Some parents just don't have a clue; some are actively abusive. My friend works for a child care charity so I get some of her stories. I don't know how she sleeps at night sometimes. At the gentlest level, the government requires that every child up to a certain age receives an education that meets certain national standards, whether at home or at school. If you don't parent properly, your children are taken into care. Sometimes the system goes wrong, and children are wrongly taken away from their parents, or wrongly left with abusive parents, who murder them in horrific and heart-wrenching ways. These cases make the national news every few years.
But I am not as extreme as you make me out to be with regard to religion. I'd be happy to see religion wither and die, but legislation against it would be ineffective and actively counter-productive. It's also a sledgehammer to a nut. Religion is part of human life, like it or not. It may be bad for you, but so is breaking a leg while learning to ski, or catching a disease from a school classmate. If parents must not do anything which may harm their children, they aren't parents any more. Life is full of risk, and parenting involves exposing children to risk.
This particular case, however, seems to me to have a case to answer about child abuse; and the fact that it went to law shows that other people thought so too. There is no indisputable answer, so a judgement is called for, and that's what we got. On the whole, I'm not in favour of criticising judgements from the sidelines, because the judge has lots more information and experience than I do. So I'd let this one pass.
Norman at December 7, 2007 1:46 AM
I consider abuse to be torture and ill-treatment to be bad luck (I have some personal knowledge of that life too, sadly.) What your social worker doesn’t tell you is the inhuman abuses her system (and considering the high number cases of such, that she likely her self) perpetuates. Family courts may be the most evil sect of the government religion of all. But, to get into that argument is to get into a discussion that goes far and wide outside the scope of our topic.
The problem with your answer, even in this case, is that it gives the government the right to determine what right and wrong is, and that is a recipie for abuse. There is a saying that I like to tell the liberals and the conservatives here, 'Imagine the power you are about to confer in the hands of your worst political nightmare of a politician.' If you accept the governments right to insert itself into the lives of particularly fringe groups then you must accept that eventually, the government will pervert its power into control over your life. The way that the US's government today got to be so out of control spending wise, is way back a hundred years ago, the created an insurance to stop bank runs. Seems so innocent. But one can follow that to its role in creating the great depression (I feel the US's role in that affair was considerable.) One can follow the expansion of the Feds powers that came after (and the other fascist policies FDR was implementing) to today’s inflationary policies. I bring all that up, because, it all started with the idea that we could solve the small social ill of bank runs. Every power you allow the government will be used to control as much as unimaginable possible.
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 7, 2007 5:56 PM
It slipped my mind but, PIG! :p
Tomre Utsu Zo at December 7, 2007 6:06 PM
They did ban blood transfusions in the 40s or 50s. If we adhere to that criteria, then they should ban breastfeeding as well, as major components of blood comprise breast milk, including live cells. But they didn't know that in 1950...they haven't a leg to stand on.
crella at December 8, 2007 3:16 AM
First off I came across this by mistake....there are so misunderstanding and wrong statements to mention.
couple this though;
144,000 will be angel not the only in heaven...they've been "picked" since the beginning of this religion.
Next, the mention of 3000 years of text or ideas whatever that person said makes no sense. You wanna know everything about JW's? Read the old testament with an open "peppy" outlook, don't forget the part that mentions 144,000....Old testament=Hebrew bible coming from the origin of religion and not to mention one of the very first languages.
Next and final comment,
JW's are the biggest cult unsupervised by anti terrorist forces, CULT....yes it is.
JW's don't come to my house because they know coming here means answering various questions and getting intimidated by a 22 year old college stupid who actually has a brain.
Bottom line;
when family would rather disown you than be "de-fucking-fellowshipped" (that was necessary) I believe they are disgusting heartless fools.
Religion sucks no matter what you believe...here and now is what u have just have your heart in the right place all the time.
Whats worse:
being an individual with ideas and independence (yet a good or great guy/girl)
or,
Disowning family or neighbors because you honestly believe they aren't worth a damn simply because they aren't just like you.
screw that screw helpless sad scared people.
when the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
religion is the highest power here learn to use it correctly.
melissa singer at April 20, 2008 4:21 AM
Leave a comment