|
| Thread: Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 08, 2009 01:14 PM |
|
|
*Sigh again*
I'm talking about this here:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions[/url]
I'm quoting from it:
Quote:
In cases of certain medical emergencies when bloodless medicine is not available, blood transfusions may seem to be the only available way to save a life. In such instances, Jehovah’s Witnesses request that doctors provide the best alternative care possible under the circumstances, with respect for their personal conviction. If asked, “Would you deliberately allow your child to die if blood would save it?” the Watchtower organization suggests that Jehovah’s Witness parents answer, “I would demand that medical science do everything possible to save my child’s life short of giving it blood.” This has led to the death of members, as stated in the May 22, 1994 issue of Awake, p. 2: "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 01:26 PM |
|
|
We were having a pleasant debate I thought, even with disagreeing. (This regarding your *sighs*).
Yes, I am aware of the Jehova's Witnesses belief regarding transfusions. Yes, I am aware that it has cost some of them their lives. While I personally do not agree with it, it only harms themselves and I just see no reason to interfere. If that child had chosen to undergo a very dangerous operation, for any reason, would you have supported that decision even if others were opposed?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 01:48 PM |
|
|
We were talking past each other it seems, that's why I'm sighing.
Let me make sure of this:
You agree, it's okay for parents to let their children rather die instead of agreeing to a blood transfusion because they THINK (it's their interpretation) that a very old script is forbidding that practise?
You further agree, it's okay for parents to force-feed this nonsense to their children, so that - in case said children would be asked about THEIR opinion about this - they would busily nod, agreeing with their parents and signing their death warrant?
If a child has leprosy - would you agree with the parents if they would abandon it, since their god would demand from them to abandon the lepers?
Would you agree, it's ok for parents to force-feed the child with this nonsense, so that the child would itself demand to be abandoneded because of its uncleanness?
What's worse, actually? If parents DO decide this for their children, or if parents brainwash their children into deciding themselves that way. I think THE SECOND is worse.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 01:56 PM |
|
|
I don't think they're only harming themselves. They're harming their children too, in quite a direct way.
That reminds me of that scienlology chick which was taken away by their lawyers from a mental institution and put to some kind of "healing" and "cleansing" under their terms. On the grounds of her religious beliefs or something (scientology forbids its members to visit psychiatrists... Afraid of followers waking up, I guess). Anyone remembers that story? The chick ended up starved and diseased with cockroach bites across her entire body. Then when they finally decided to take her to a hospital, they disregarded 3 or 4 closer hospitals and drove over to one in another town where a scientologist doctor worked. She was dead by the time they arrived.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 02:13 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 14:16, 08 Jul 2009.
|
Do I think it is right or ok for parents to let children die in any way? Absolutely not. However, I also realise that it is my opinion, and forcing my opinion on somebody is no better then what you claim they are doing. Two wrongs do not make a right. It seems that you are advocating force feeding your ideas down their throat, just because you disagree. How is one different from the other? Just because it is your belief?
What you don't seem to understand is, I don't agree with their way of doing things. Again though, if we make everything everybody disagrees with illegal, there would be nothing left. My beliefs are not superior or greater then any others. There is a double standard here. "You can not force your child to believe anything, but I can force your child to believe what I believe by forcing you not to teach it your ways."
Also, my view of what is happening here is different then yours. Which is why we are discussing the matter. I don't agree that it is force-feeding, or not in ALL cases, and it is impossible to tell motive...
____________
Message received.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 02:29 PM |
|
|
We are force feeding prison down the throats of murderers because we believe murder is wrong.
I would hence force feed a life sentence on a fanatic who allowed his child to die because he believed that there's a higher power that wants him to refuse to help his dying child. Or at the very least, I'd send that person to a mental institution.
It's as simple as that.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
|
@ Mytical
You are wrong. Objectively and provable:
Children are not the exclusive property of their parents. Not even PETS are. For example, a dog-owner is NOT allowed to dress a dog to jump any person by command, at least not in Germany. You are not allowed, in other words, to dress your dog to become a killing machine.
For parents there is due diligence for children - the duty to take care of them. Parents are OBLIGED by law to take care of life and health of their children. They would violate their duty if they wouldn't bring a child into doctor's care in case of serious illness, for example. So there ARE rules and regulation that FORCE parents to take care of their children, simply because their children cannot do it for themselves and are not supposed to do it for themselves.
You cannot undermine this law by making exceptions JUST because parents claim to belong to a religious grouping. If THAT is reason enough to let a child die - where's the limit? Can I sacrifice my child on an altar then, if my religion says so or allows it? No.
Of course that doesn't change, if suddenly the child itself starts demanding things that will have negative consequences for health and life. If you teach a child disregard of their own health and life due to religious demands, then you are simply violating your duty to take care of that child.
It IS that simple.
Again, you are creating a problem where no problem is. It has nothing to do with someone doing to the parents what they are not allowed to do and force-feeding them. It's not about the parents and THEIR rights and health and whatever, it's about a THIRD party's health and life and whatever they do to THAT PARTY. Quite obviously, society makes a big difference in what you do to yourself and what you do to others, and regulations for what you can do to others look a lot different than regulations of what you can do for and with yourself - as an adult.
Example: If you are cutting yourself regularly for whatever the reason, fine. Now you could tell your child how great it is to have scars, they show braveness and the ability to suffer pain without twitching a muscle, which will help in life and be something to be proud of. The child would see you doing it, and before long would probably either ask for scars or just do it himself - or you might cut him yourself without him asking for it, telling him that it was necessary to make him stronger and afterwards how brave he was and that it wasn't so bad, wasn't it...
See the REAL problem? The REAL problem is that the ADULTS have power and the children do not, and that's why society has to protect them.
Edit:
@ Baklava
Exactly - and exactly that would happen if it happened for another reason than RELIGIOUS ones. Strangely enough, religious madness is excused, even if it hurts others.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 03:49 PM |
|
|
While I agree with you on many points JJ, saying that is "nonsense" is no more objectively correct than saying "valuing life and health" is nonsense too. Actually this can get even more hot if we get into abortion (of course I'm NOT going to). Not all people value life the same way.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:15 PM |
|
|
|
If you feed a child things that will make it throw away its life willingly and deliberately where it could be saved then it's MOST CERTAINLY nonsense, seen from that child's pov.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:21 PM |
|
|
Objectable and provable..guess I will wait for that.
One person's belief does not trump another. If somebody would come up to me and say "Jollyjoker can not think that way!" I would argue with them that you absolutely have the right to think the way you do, even if I disagree that you have the right to force your ideas onto others.
I won't argue if it is abuse or not...as anything I say on the matter can be twisted around. I will ask you this, however. You do agree that parents should have the right to teach their kids?
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 04:21 PM |
|
|
Many teens suicide. And almost half of those do it because they were somewhat depressed when they were younger (or so I read); it's just that the teenage age "ends it" with something (e.g: a breakup) and finally seals the deal.
Now for someone who doesn't even want to suicide directly (but simply refuses blood transfusion) are you saying it's more nonsense than the above?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
It's like talking to a wall.
Parents have the RIGHT to teach their kids, but they have the DUTY to take care of them as well. Second one supercedes the first. Should I repeat my last post? What is there you don't understand?
ANY religion who teaches that parents must let a child rather die then give it a blood tranfusion, is teaching that their lord and master god wants the parents to sacrifice their children under certain circumstances.
Obviously either that god has pretty strange ideas or his interpreters have pretty strange ideas, and if parents are not seeing that, they cannot be trusted to act in the best of interests of their child.
@ Death
I kinda have trouble to understand your last post. Can you rephrase it?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:16, 08 Jul 2009.
|
@ JJ
Oh yes, Lenin ans Stalin were believers in the idea of atheism, made it the state religion and harshly persecuted other religions.
The idea that "all men are created equal" is not a dangerous idea. It is a universal truth that leads to a freedom, liberties, and justice for all if it is applied. It is an enlightened concept.
The idea of universal truths is not dangerous. What is dangerous is saying morals are relative. That it might be moral to rape a baby in Cuba but immoral to rape a baby in the US. That it could by immoral for Tom to rape a baby but [edit k] for Bill to rape a baby. Raping a baby is alwaya wrong. That is a universal truth. It is an ellightened concept.
Oh, yes, preahing truth can be dangerous to the person preaching truth. Those who don't like the truth that is preached often try to silence the truth. The bearers of truth are often persectuted and sometimes imprisoned and killed.
But truth is liberating to society, not dangerous. Transformative.
Oh, who are to say that someone who does not want a blood transfusion is wrong? You are claiming you know a universal truth that not taking a blood transfusion is wrong? I thought you said there are no universal truths. I thought you condemned those who said there is only one true religion. Yet you condemn somoene for not living by your belief that blood tranfusions are ok.
"The worst thing is, that I would call all this superstition, not belief." Lol. Your beliefs are the one true Way now, eh?
No, a parent teaching his religion to a child is not a crime. What is a crime is trying to force your religion on anohter person's child. In fact in view of your statement that there is no one true religion it is alos hypocritical of you to want to force your religion on others.
No, I am not putting words in your mouth. You said "intolerance against other religions is a commandment" to the Jews and it is not. Lots of Jews lived in Germany during the time of Hitler for instance? Were the Jews showing intolerance to the beliefs of other Germans? No. The atheist Hitler though showed much intolerance for their beliefs, didn't he. I've never had adverse dealings with a Jew where he insulted me for being a Christian or treated me badly.
Pleas stop saying the Jewish religion teaches intolerance because it is simply untrue.
Of course other religions were not allowed in Israel. Israel was a theocracy. Every person in Israel took a vow to obey God and obey the Law. Israel was to be a holy nation totally dedicated to the service of God. A nation of priests. You can't be both an unbeliever and a priest. Unbelievers were allowed to vist there, for example foreign dignitaries or whatever, but not to live there.
For example, whern the Queen of Sheba came to visit Solomon nobody killed her. She was treated with dignity and went away saying what a wise man he was. That sounds like tolerance to me.
Stop making stuff up. When I said God used Israel to judge other nations and other nations to judge Israel (judge, not "smash") it means to judge them for their sins.
For example, God had had enough of all the child sacrifice and other things going on in Canaan and so kicked out the Caananites and gave the land to Israel. Israel was used to judge them.
No, if someone recruits someont to rape little boys the person doing the recruiting is guilty too.
Both the Israelites and the pagans who engaged in the chapters in question were judged. The pagans actually had the greater sin because they had plotted to get Israel to sin. Their sin was premeditated and they premeditated to get others to sin.
I object to your racist statement that Jews are elitists. The Jews were chosen TO SERVE God and to serve mankind in a sense by bringing the knowledge of God to the world.
THE JEWS DO NOT THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHERS. Please retrct that statement.
"Anyway, I disagree that Love Thy Neighbour is a good idea because it's a COMMAND and therefore it's a paradox."
Oh, so no laws are good ideas? It is a bad idea for the state to say "Don't rape," "Don't kill", ect?
Quote:
It's no accident that you have no problems imagining the missionaries with their escorts, putting people their swords to the neck, saying: "Will you now accept to love thy neighbour and that god loves you?"
That is absolutely moronic.
Jesus taught to love, pray for, and do good to everyone. Not to use a sword to spread his Word.
Quote:
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
So loving, praying for, and doing good to others is a bad idea eh?
Calling people up to a higher way of living is not a bad idea.
It is not impossible for one to love their enemies JJ. Jesus loved the people who were slapping him around and torturing him to death.
Oh, and God helps us do the right thing if we pray for help in doing so JJ.
Oh, human behavior and emotions are linked. If you act like you love someone (I don't mean pretend as in hypocricy) you will grow to love them. Seek their good. Be nice to them. Do things for them. Pray for them. So put love "in practice" and love will show up. DO love.
Jesus showed us how to "do love." "Do love" works for all of our relationships. Doing is loving and loving is doing. 
Don't try love. DO LOVE.
@ Mystical
I'm not sure what question you are talking about me answering. Are you talking about who is a Christian ans who is not when both claim to act in the Name of Christ? The Bible defines who a Christian is.
For instance I quoted ther verse before where Jesus says (paraphrase) "I am not your Lord if you are not doing what I have said to do." Or the Apostle John saying (paraphrase) "Anybody who says he knows God but hates others is a liar." Jesus also said (paraphrase) "You'll know them by their fruit."
Oh, Jesus was a zealot. He lived a radial life and taught radial things. He was willing to die for his beliefs. He was a zealot for good things. Zeal is a good thing if one is zealous for good things.
@JJ
Yes, a child should be allowed to reject a blood transfusion due to his religious belief.
Teaching a child that one religion is true is no more "force feeding" a child then to say all religions could be true or all relions are wrong.
TEACHING one religion is true IS NOT FORCE-FEEDING.
It is a very good idea to teach a child to love others. I not only taught that to my children but showed them how to do it. Just like Jesus did. His life is a lesson in love.
The doctors are not supposed to make our medical decisions for us. The doctors are supposed to ADVISE us on the medical condition and the optioins available. Then the patient (or the guardian) makes the medical decision.
It is amazing how you condemn others for saying they are right but yet you say it is right to take a blood tranfusion and that their religion is wrong for saying don't take a blood transfusion.
So it is ok for you to say your religion is right and theirs is wrong but it is not ok for them to say their religion is right and yours is wrong? You can call their religion dumb but they can't call yours dumb? That's not very tolerant.
You say that children should be taught to think for themselves and yet you reject it when their decision is not what you want it to be. If the child has a belief that taking a blood transfusion will damn his soul it is immoral to force him to take the blood transfusion. Don't force your religion on the child.
Again, a parent is not force feeding a child by teaching one religion is right. If he is, you would be force feeding a child to teach no religion is right or all religions could be right/equal.
Oh, who are you to say that a child should not be concerned about his soul? According to YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF a child should not be concerned about his soul and only be concerned with this life. Don't impose your religious views on the child.
Quote:
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
It is amazing that you think every child who does not agree with you was "force-fed" a religious belief. You say they were force fed "religious rules and taboos and superstititious nonsense instead of teaching it something useful." Yes, you ae quite tolerant indeed.
It is you who want to force your will and your beliefs on the child. To indoctrinate the child to think your thought and be your clone.
I personally have no problem with blood transfusions. But I would never try to force someone who didn't want a blood transfusion (for any reason) to accept a blood transfusion.
You disagree with the Jehovah's Witness. So what? I do to. But unlike you I don't demand that their parents teach their children my religions and unlike you I don't want to control their medical decisions either.
@Baklava
So people who don't have your religious views are fanatics.
@JJ
JJ, children are not property of the State. The State has no right to force-feed a religion to them.
The US founding fathers said the right to freedom of relision was the most sacred of all rights. You don't believe in that right. Everone must believe in what you believe or they have been "force fed" superstition.
It is amazing that the same people who will say a 13 year old girl must have the "right to an abortion" without parental consent witll say that a 13 year old boy can't control his own body.
Chiildren have no rights if they make the decision you don't want them to make it seems.
"See the REAL problem? The REAL problem is that the ADULTS have power and the children do not, and that's why society has to protect them."
Yes, they must be "protected" into believing what you believe.
Quote:
If you feed a child things that will make it throw away its life willingly and deliberately where it could be saved then it's MOST CERTAINLY nonsense, seen from that child's pov.
You condemn others for saying their beliefs are right but call their beliefs nonsense.
Oh, a person chosing to die for his belief is not throwing away his life. Some things are worth dying for. If our brave soldiers had not died for their belieffs we would have not have freedom.
Sorry I broke your "quote" rule a couple of times but your statements are just strange for someone who condemns others for saying their beliefs are right and others are wrong.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I kinda have trouble to understand your last post. Can you rephrase it?
sorry for the quote but I had to do it else you didn't know what I was replying to.
My point was that parents can very well abuse their children and I agree with you. However, deliberately and obliging a kid to stay alive is also an "abuse" if he/she doesn't want it -- mind you, many change their views when they grow up later, but not all (look at suicide rates for instance). They have a depressed childhood (not always because of parents), and then in their teen days something "seals the deal" (i.e the unbearable just crossed the line into "that's it, I'm done with this life").
The "problem" is distinguishing between a "genuine" choice and a "brainwashed" choice... And I don't see any objective solution to that soon. Many claim children are not capable of making choices for themselves, but then what are they? Slaves?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
Good job ignoring my post.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 05:33 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:35, 08 Jul 2009.
|
@ mvassilev
I did not ignore your question. I have answered it several times but you have ignored the answer.
Go back and read the quoted material I included. The goal was to totally eliminate [other] religions. (Lenin/Stalin didn't consider atheism to be a religion.)
Your view is that atheism is not a religion. I view it as a religion. The Supreme Court said it is a religion. Atheists accept as fact things they can't prove. That is faith.
If you wan't to discuss whether or not atheism is a religion please use the "what is a religion" thread.
Also, see below:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/State_atheism
Quote:
State atheism has been implemented in communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, [2] China, Cuba, Communist Albania, and Communist Mongolia under communist rule also promoted state atheism and attempted to suppress religion. [3] [4] State atheism in these countries may include active opposition to religion, and persecution of religious institutions, leaders and believers. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism, [5] in which social success largely required individuals to proclaim atheism and stay away from churches; this attitude was especially militant under Stalin. [6] [7] [8] The Soviet Union attempted to impose atheism over wide areas of its influence, including places like central Asia. [9] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:31, 08 Jul 2009.
|
|
Well by my count, Hitler has now been mentioned three times in this thread. Is that enough to invoke Godwin's Law, or is four times the new charm??
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 06:36 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
A religion is an organised belief in things beyond the material world. Atheism is not a religion by that definition. Also, the Supreme Court views atheism as a religion from the point of view of the First Amendment - simply meaning that lack of religion is protected the same way religion is.
As for the rest of what you said, none of it contradicts what I said. State atheism is not a state religion - it's more accurately described as a state anti-theist policy.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 07:56 PM |
|
|
To what U.S. Supreme Court case are you guys referring?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:21 PM |
|
|
@mvass: why do you constantly use the term "anti-theist" when everywhere on the net it is called "atheism" or "state atheism" instead? Can't you just speak our language? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
