Some beliefs are beneficial and benign. Others are outright stupid and damaging.
We are used to donate to causes we believe in. Whether it is buying a poppy for the british legion in support of those who sacrified their lives and/or health up untill the act of self sacrifice so others may live. We may even boycot a product to enforce a change in company or even state behavior not compliant with acceped standards of human rights.
In cases of black and white it is easy to see the benefit and damage. The believe in the afterlife not neccessarily leads to a suicide bombing. But it helps tremendously in overcoming the fear that accompanies such an act of atrocity. Concerns about a position in the afterlife of which no one knows one proven jota about, prevails over concerns in this live.
Like the example mentioned of ms Cough who has died as a consequence of her refusal to accept a bloodtransfusion and left a husband bereft of his wife, 2 newly born childeren bereft of their mother. She did not die over a principle to the benefit of others.
She has died over a principle damaging to herself, her entire family and not to forget medical personel.
In this case not only her beliefs about the afterlife probably have been into play. She was told she could only please God when she would refuse a bloodtransfusion. She has not reached such a conclusion all by herself! It is the entire structure, the organised structure that comes into play.
By accepting that the bible is the only word of God and by accepting that certain people carry the ultimate words of God, by believing these claims without a sound body of evidence, she died. Was she free to believe whatever she wants? Is het husband free to respect her wishes, though foolish they may seem? Should these tpyes of believes be respected?
I am inclined to say no.
Cheers
Borgia
