Petition To Make Refusal of Blood on Religious Grounds Illegal

by Kenneson 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  skeeter1

  I think adult individuals have a right to believe in anything they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt another person (such as child pornography would hurt another person). Each adult person has a right to determine his/her own medical decisions. If I want to die wearing purple slippers, that is my wish. If I do not want chemotherapy, that is my wish. Respect it.

  That being said, I think a religion should also be held accountable for how it teaches. If it lies about secular facts in order to bolster a beleif that is life-threatening, then it should be held accountable for the lies. If the religion uses "this world" type fear (i.e. not hell-fire which is "next world") to hold people onto a beleif (I'm talking about shunning by family & business associates, tattletelling, etc), then the religion is, actually, thwarting the freedom of followers to leave the religion. The religion should be held accountable for interfering with the followers freedom to worship, and to leave.

  Skeeter
• 

  Navigator

  Very dangerous ground to make the refusal of blood illegal. What comes next? Shall we make the refusal of chemo illegal for folks that have cancer? What if the person forced to take a blood transfusion gets a blood borne disease as a result of that transfusion? Who will be responsible for that? Whose body is it anyway? Do you really want to give some doctor who doesn't want to be bothered to practice careful surgery the control over your body? I can see the Pharmaceutical companies licking their chops over this one. Perhaps we can make it illegal to refuse medications for various diseases. Never mind the side effects.
• 

  jinjam

  they would probably take it as an opportunity,that they are indeed living in the so called "last days" and are being persecuted "again"
  <br><br> i mean seriously, those who were born in the "truth" really didn't have a choice , the rest chose and joined "willingly" So what does that say to me, if these men want to die believing in what they believe, its their "choice" to make. I suppose thats one of the reasons god gave us free will, to decide for ourselves as adults.
  <br><br>
• 

  Morocco

  I have to agree with Junction-Guy on this one. If people have the right to believe ANYTHING, then I have the religious right to teach my kids that they need to drink this kool-aid filled with poison and they can go to heaven on a comet -- once they die of course. That, most would agree, is taking it too far. But people, in their "religious right" to believe anything, can breed hatred, violence, and teach people to kill themslves and others. So if people deny SOME things, like polygamy, there is a reason for it. I think religions should be taxed, they should be held responsible financialy for damages, and I think they should be by law restricted from teaching anything that fosters behavior that would lead to phyiscal or emotional damage of any kind. I say sign the petition, stop this backwards religion from teaching suicidal behavior, and if you have to step on the toes of believers to do it, then step away. Why aren't we trying to help these people live? Because it's what they believe? Bullcrap. Why should anyone have the right to believe whatever they want, when what they believe causes people to loose their families and sometimes their lives. Think about all the religious warfare that is happeneing today and throughout time. Countless lives have been taken in the name of belief. People should not be allowed to belive whatever the heck they want. It must adhere to some sort of moral guideline. To say people have the right to believe ANYTHING is turning a blind eye to the piles of corpses that belief has created, it is plugging your ears to the screaming of the little children whos homes are being ripped apart by swords and bombs over religion. Belief isn't entirely bad -- but belief in anything you want is.
• 

  jinjam

  Morroco said:
  
  "Why should anyone have the right to believe whatever they want, when what they believe causes people to loose their families and sometimes their lives." and
  
  "People should not be allowed to belive whatever the heck they want"
  
  and why not? are you going to make me believe that what you telling me here is the voice of reason.
  
  You are entitled to your opinion, no problem you cannot make them do something that they don't want to, neither can I tell you what to think nor do!
  
  Keep that in mind!
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Well the way I see it, it is hypocritical of the government to deny the rights to mormons to practice polygamy, to deny serpent handlers their religious rights, and then allow JW's the right to die by refusing blood. The polygamy practice does not cause death, while the 2 others can. The courts pick and choose which religions to favor and which not. If you're gonna allow complete religious freeom then allow. I believe in religious freedom, I dont believe religions have the right t trample other people's freedom, and then expect the constitution to upold them. As for snake handling, yes it is dangerous, however it is in the bible in Mark, and these people in Appalachia do sincerely believe it. As long as chidren arent allowed to handle snakes, why should the government tell adults not to? Appalachia is a poor impoverished area and these people dont have the money and big lawyers that the WT Society does.
• 

  proplog2

  It is good to see rationality overide peoples feelings.

  People do stupid life endangering things all the time. You can't save people from stupidity by making laws. People need the opportunity to make an informed choice.

  To maintain tax exempt status I think JW's should be required to watch a half hour government issued video challenging their beliefs before they sign their blood papers.

  Such an important decision requires both sides to be heard while there is no emergency. The objective would be to avoid confusion in traumatic situations.
• 

  Morocco

  jinjam said:
  
  "and why not? are you going to make me believe that what you telling me here is the voice of reason.
  
  You are entitled to your opinion, no problem you cannot make them do something that they don't want to, neither can I tell you what to think nor do!
  
  Keep that in mind!"
  
  I know that I can't force people to believe in anything, unless you treat people like the ancient hebrews did. Purge with fire and swords those groups of people that disobey. You can force, most people to believe, with military power. But I don't believe in that. I believe in reason. The voice of reason does not say that it is safe to allow peoples' belief to run rampant. You can believe that you are a prophet, you can believe that people need to drink poison and die for a better world, you can even believe that your children need to be killed or sacrificed for god, but when you start taking actions on those misguided beliefs then that idea that "anyone can believe anything" has allowed atrocities to happen. There has to be an enforcable guideline, one which upholds freedom of religion to an extent. To the degree it does not damage other humans.
• 

  jinjam

  "one which upholds freedom of religion to an extent."
  
  but that would not be freedom of religion, we FORGET so easily how we felt when we were still "in", ready to fight and stand up for the so called "truth", even though the dubs are brainwashed,we were too once apon a time!
  
  Fighting THE EXTREME (meaning them) with an extreme law is not going to solve anything.IMO we would make them more motivated and they would just probably end up saying "yes the end is very near"
• 

  Morocco

  This is actually an interesting conversation because I use this same argument with religious people. If God doesn't allow evil then no one is truly free, hence in a paradisaic world where evil is restricted no one has freewill anymore. Because freewill and free-choice includes evil.
  
  I agree that if the blood issue were to be banned that the Witnesses would just use it for their advantage, seeing as how they have before so many times. But you, jinjam, are basically saying (if I'm understanding correctly)that if one can't have total religious freedom then it isn't religious freedom. I believe, that what people should base their belief system on, is evidence. It is evident that some groups of people can not have complete religious freedom without doing each other great harm. So, the best thing for everyone, is to get rid of the parts of religous freedom that hurt. No, that isn't "freedom of religon" since it is bound by laws.
  
  It's interesting to me that it does in fact become so polarized. If you remove one thing, you remove them all. If you take away the ability to believe in one thing, it isn't freedom of religion anymore. On the other hand, in order to marginalize peoples' abuse of religon, you must set certain laws, as the government has. So in order to remove harmful effects you have to remove freedom.
  
  What is the solution? I believe religon should be completely done away with. It's old, unscientific, and we should find new, up-to-date, humane ways of satisfying our desire to be "spiritual" creatures. Is that a real solution? Probably not. But I think it's better than all the deaths peoples' abuse of religion has caused.
  
  The government has to force people not to abuse things. They force us not to speed or we get tickets, they force us not to physically fight or we go to jail, they force us to take care of our kids and if we don't they take them away. They can take away some mother's child because of neglect -- but don't say anything about religon?!
  
  I think the government should force religion to be a certain way, in order to reduce the damage done. Or should the government stay out of your right to drink and drive? Should they stay out of my right to pee on your lawn? Just because something is religious doesn't mean it is above the law.