pointblank:
Commentary and opinion by Chris Stevenson www.voiceoffreedom.com
Drowning in Hemoglobin:
Can New blood Article narrow gap between religious doctrine and doctors.
"We've had long and distasteful contact with many cults-Christian, Hindu, Jewish, and others.
They hold wildly different beliefs, but all seem to share several common characteristics...
1-Love bombing,
bombard him/her with love
2-Separation from family,
get target to sever connection to their families... target must be made to believe family is evil
3-Brainwashing,
loss of critical thinking
4-Exploitation."
The God Squad-Monsignor Tom Hartman & Rabbi Marc Gellman
In this era of purging religion and references to God and prayer from the classrooms, government buildings, and even that most famous holiday, Christmas, questions are now surfacing as to just how far some faiths have gone in order to establish and maintain control over their followers.
Many churches have enjoyed a judicial free pass over the decades due to the First Amendment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well, in hindsight, perhaps Congress should have made a law, but it errantly viewed the church to be under the control of someone higher than man, and in so doing, allowed religion to be essentially controlled by select groups of men. The world in general has too much potential to be hindered by religion, how much more-so a civilized society?
In spite of such seeming governmental immunity, ways have been found to take some churches to task through the very courts these churches no-doubt prayed they'd avoid. Through the misuse of they're own guidelines, you can actually grab confident, smirking, church leaders by the proverbial collar, and nail them to the cross examination.
A new article may-in the long run-result in a good day for God, and a bad day for fundamentalist religions, especially one religion in particular with a 60-year-hold on it's members due in part to it's well-known principle on blood transfusions.
The essay; "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation, (JW/BT)," by Kerry Louderback-Wood is featured in the latest edition of the Journal of Church and State (vol.47-no. 4), a 1,000 page quarterly magazine published in paperback textbook format out of Baylor University. If indeed blood is thicker than water, then the JWs are the jealous waters endlessly hoping to seep into all aspects of human life as much as possible, watering down relationships people commonly enjoy primarily between family members, individuals and doctors. They're the driver going 55 while on the fast lane that refuses to move to the right lane, they insist you go slow also.
The "American Heritage Dictionary" defines tort as: "Any wrongful act that does not involve a breach of contract and for which a civil suit can be brought." In other words, personal injury due to misrepresentation. JW/BT invokes another legal breakdown on torts called "Prosser and Keeton on Torts," Their take on this in part is: "(1)ambiguous statements [that are] made with the intent that the listener reach a false conclusion
(2) literally true statements that create a false impression
(3) words or acts which create a false impression covering up the truth; or
(4) nondisclosure when 'the parties stand in some confidential or fiduciary relation to each other such as... old friends,... where special trust and confidence is reposed (brackets mine).'" Louderback-Wood cites examples where "freedom of religion" itself was breached by government in a case where the Supreme Court upheld a law against polygamy because it was seen as a threat to the traditional family unit (Reynold's v. US).
JW/BT concludes by citing another religious/judicial hot potato, and drawing comparison to the government's duty to represent what is in the best interest of the American citizen if it is proven the religion they belong to isn't willing to do so: "...courts historically have been unwilling to meddle in religious affairs, and rightly so because the state should not dictate religious matters. But that tide is turning with the recent church sex scandals. Should a court allow victims (children and adults whose lives are at stake) to sue their religion when it has misrepresented either
(1) its own policies or (2) secular writers to bolster its doctrinal position?" Louderback-Wood makes no attempt to prove whether or not said religion is true, or should be shut down, nor is she a blood advocate.
What she does, is track the array of JW articles on the blood rule by their timeline, and finds some stunning intellectual misappropriations, small enough to go unnoticed over time if you are a practicing JW, yet significant enough to cost lives.
Having grown up in a Witness family, and seeing her mother encounter the blood issue twice over, her interest on the subject motivated her to stop
attending the JW meetings when she grew up, and pursue higher education (another no-no in that church, although fortunately-unlike the blood restriction-they are unable to make it an official rule outside the realm of power of suggestion. But that's a subject for another essay) at Georgia State University, and Florida State.
The administrative arm of the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) is its Watchtower Bible and Tract Society located in Brooklyn New York. They base their whole blood or whole blood cell transfusion prohibition on three scriptures, Genesis 9: 3-6, Leviticus 17: 13, 14 and Acts 15: 22-29. Of course several Bible passages have been fair game for various religions to enforce their chosen abstinence, even though many a given verse or verses had more relevance during the period it was written, or it was a small part under a completely different set of laws.
The article cites the JW pamphlet "How Can Blood Save Your Life?"a strange title for a people who don't want blood to save your life. The seeming misrepresentation doesn't stop there, Louderback-Wood sees unnecessary attempts by the Watchtower to give the blood restriction credibility through the quotes of several authorities on blood that could prove costly to them and their followers. The quotes are crucial as the Watchtower advertises these doctored statements as "medical evidence" to prospective converts. Thus ancient biblical historians, scientists, and doctors such as Joseph Priestley, Eusebius, Tertullian, and Dr. John S. Spratt, had statements used in the pamphlet or their flagship magazine The Watchtower that were taken out of context, spinning isolated quotes as if they were advocates of the Watchtower's cause, exaggerating the medical risks of taking blood, and risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS, with the intent of leaving the JWs and their potential members with an immediate fear of dying, in addition to losing out on any hope of being a part of that faith's prime carrot; living forever in a peaceful new world (formerly called the "new order" and "new world order") through excommunication.
The JW blood pamphlet quotes Priestley at it's conclusion, from a book he wrote during the 18th century: "if we interpret [the] blood prohibition of the Apostles by the practice of the primitive Christians, who can hardly be supposed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries." To most Witness followers this is enough of a quote to give the impression that Mr. Priestley was against "eating blood" and therefore blood transfusions must fall under his "perpetual" list. After all, if a non-JW like Priestley rejects taking in blood, then it must be wrong. Louderback-Wood however, read further into Priestley's work, and found a striking discrepancy: "Priestley argued elsewhere that Christians could indeed eat blood because nothing that goes into the mouth defiles a man... It is a misrepresentation for the Society to quote Priestley as an adherent to an absolute prohibition, when in fact he was not committed to either eating or not eating blood and did not think the argument was important enough to include in his main text."
This end-justifies-the-means approach may surprise some regarding the JWs, what stands to be more surprising is their apparent about-face regarding blood components, fractions and hemoglobin. In the same pamphlet (31 pages) the Watchtower states that Jehovah's Witnesses may accept blood components.
Strange but true, for what are blood components such as hemoglobin, but blood itself? Will the Watchtower continue to prohibit adultery, but allow married men to go to strip clubs and get a lap-dance? Well this controversy runs deeper, according to JW/BT: "From 1954 to 1974, the Society banned most blood fractions. In 1958 the Society carved out the first exception, which provided that antibodies (such as tetanus, rabies, and snakebites) derived from blood could be accepted by individual judgment. In 1961 and 1964, the Society carved out another exception, permitting vaccinations and inoculations derived from blood to be accepted by personal judgment... In 1980, the Society began allowing any fractions of plasma,... and in 2000 purportedly began allowing any components of whole blood cells and plasma."
Louderback-Wood goes on to state that it was a 1975 (again that dreaded year) mixup that eventually left a few members' blood boiling: "Indeed prior to 1975, followers with hemophilia were permitted to receive one infusion of Factor VIII, as it was considered medicine and not a feeding on blood. On February 1975, however, hemophiliac followers were directed they could no longer receive any clotting factors, including Factor VIII." What few knew, was that on 6/75 the Society reversed their ban on multiple infusions of clotting factors for their hemophiliacs (make up your minds will you), only they didn't publish it in their journals, particularly the Watchtower and Awake, or release it in any outside printed medium as the New York Times. Nope, reportedly the decision was to notify individual hemophiliac members, this became too much of a case load and there was a fear of upsetting the various congregation elders (their equivalent to Pastors etc.), so by and large, the JWs were kept in the dark about the reversal until an article in the 6/15/78 Watchtower.
In 1981 avid JW readers of the Journal of the American Medical Association (virtually none) witnessed the official announcement of the change to the world at large. Things could be worse, that organization is more decisive with its hemoglobins than its homo-globins (child molesters). This is just the tip of the iceberg of Louderback-Wood's essay, implications get deeper once you read it.
Imagine people suffering because a few religious officials wanted to needlessly add some secular-sauce to their blood edict, only to try to avoid embarrassment by covering up a time sensitive reversal. Followers of the strict faiths-like the JWs, Mormons, Christian Scientists etc.-do a better job defending their sect than their Organizational heads, unfortunately the JWs can't defend the Society in court as official legal representatives. The Watchtower wings it on researching the blood issue, and then hire real lawyers.
Stevenson is a columnist for the
Buffalo Criterion
, his column Pointblank can be read at
email comments to Stevenson at
[email protected]
----------
Danny Haszard's comment:squirm watchower hacks
