by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends
I like what hawkaw said on that old thread...
The Essay provides an excellent legal start to bring out what is corrupt with the WTS's so-called blood therapy ban. And it is all out there in the public eye and yes the media is taking notice. The Essay provides a legal theory that may work in certain circumstances. It not only takes apart the references relied upon by the WTS in a phamplet but also goes after other aspects of the doctrine that are corrupt.
Well I say we treat all irrational beliefs equally.
Yes Yes Yes - all irrational beliefs are treated equally - its called freedom of religion - even Scientology benefits from the vast leeway given to freedom for stupidity here.
However, when that religion intersperses its 'irrational beliefs' with twisted medical facts and supports its 'irrational beliefs' with life-threatening medical misinformation then we have to agree whether that is behaviour the State will continue to allow.
You really think Bible interpretation has any place in a scientific/legal argument? So what if every Bible commentator who ever lived thinks they are wrong? Are they not entitled to have a different view?
I think there is a place for context to inform the reader of such a paper, but clearly the core point here is of misrepresentation of established medical fact by a religious group to the detriment of its followers who are under other pressures <DF/DA> to conform and are genereally regarded as laypersons, members of the public, non-experts, deserving of protection.
To help people be able to maintain their religious stance
The religious stance is very simple - reject blood. End of story. The problem is that whole blood is rarely offered and the WTS has relatively recently adopted a complex fraction policy. The HLC are there to intepret the acceptability of blood therapies that aren't mentioned in Scripture - if it was purely a religious stance there would be no requirement for such a complex Blood Card disclaimer or fraction policy or HLC.
However, when that religion intersperses its 'irrational beliefs' with twisted medical facts and supports its 'irrational beliefs' with life-threatening medical misinformation then we have to agree whether that is behaviour the State will continue to allow.
Scientologists say drugs for depression don't work. Is that an irrational belief or a potentially dangerous twisted medical fact?
It is not the place of the state to allow or disallow beliefs no matter how ill-conceived.
I think there is a place for context to inform the reader of such a paper, but clearly the core point here is of misrepresentation of established medical fact by a religious group to the detriment of its followers who are under other pressures <DF/DA> to conform and are genereally regarded as laypersons, members of the public, non-experts, deserving of protection.
Where does this sort of intervention stop? Are we going to force Catholics refusing medically advised abortions to read treatises on how the Pope is not infallible too? People need to be trusted to take responsibility for having informed themselves. If someone has chosen not to seek out opposing viewpoints then that is an informed choice too. To force them to consider your view of their stance as misguided is in no way an enhansement of the person's liberty.
The religious stance is very simple - reject blood. End of story. The problem is that whole blood is rarely offered and the WTS has relatively recently adopted a complex fraction policy. The HLC are there to intepret the acceptability of blood therapies that aren't mentioned in Scripture - if it was purely a religious stance there would be no requirement for such a complex Blood Card disclaimer or fraction policy or HLC.
There is no bar on religious views being complex in their irrationality.
Scientologists say drugs for depression don't work. Is that an irrational belief or a potentially dangerous twisted medical fact?
It could be neither, both, or there may be other options you haven't presented here. I haven't studied the evidence around this claim and am not otherwise familiar with it, so would be unfair for me to comment. As mentioned earlier I feel the JW stance on blood should stand or fall on it own merit without recourse to comparative issues, especially so given their extravagant claims to divine guidance...but I accept there is a general principle in the role of State in balancing personal freedoms with rights to protection...
It is not the place of the state to allow or disallow beliefs no matter how ill-conceived.
And for those that believe in pederasty - should the State intervene?
Are we going to force Catholics refusing medically advised abortions to read treatises on how the Pope is not infallible too?
No - we should address the problem at source. If a religion is promoting medical lunacy then their right to charitable status should be revoked in view of their denial of responsibility.
There is no bar on religious views being complex in their irrationality.
I asked the purpose of the HLC - you replied to the effect of 'helping people to maintain their religious stance'. I countered that the core religious stance is simple - rejecting all blood therapy doesn't require much help.
To now say that the so-called religious stance is in fact medically complex argues for the KLW position of misrepresentation.
It is not the place of the state to allow or disallow beliefs no matter how ill-conceived.
Says who?
Freedom of religion is not absolute. It is regulated, here.
It could be your belief that Polygamy is commanded by God. The state prevents you from practicing this lifestyle.
You've mentioned Liberty. Children dying because of their parents' religion are being deprived of liberty. This is why courts step in.
Yet, in spite of all the "morality" and "conscience" issues, this baby is largely the work of Gene Smalley folks!
Don't miss the forest for the trees.
Play head games all you want, but one good ol' boy has ruined the lives of thousands and continues to do so. He's mean, lean, and on a roll.
How many thousands risk their lives because of one despot?
Randy
Speculation about potential legal liabilities is just that: Speculation. If the learned author of the article ago was articulating an actual, legally tested area of organizational liability, then her paper would be a powerful addition to the exhaustive literature on the religious individual's right to refuse medical treatment. Two years have passed since its initial dissemination: has anything resulted since then? A big fat NO.
Her paper is at best an interesting - but hardly compelling - view on the issue of the religious individual's right to refuse blood transfusions for any reason, medically accurate or not.
At worst, her paper is a empty-exercise in creatively imagined legal wonderings, argued nicely, nonetheless. Show me one case in US or another contry's law that has even merely tested her legal arguments in court. Then, depending on the outcome, I might listen.
And for those that believe in pederasty - should the State intervene?
The key is whether the belief or its exercise harms others. People have a right to refuse blood, surely, for religious (or other) reasons whether it harms them or not. Whether they should be allowed to refuse blood for their children of course is a different matter; yet still not necessarily an easy question to settle in my view.
No - we should address the problem at source. If a religion is promoting medical lunacy then their right to charitable status should be revoked in view of their denial of responsibility.
But their objection is at its core religious. That God disapproves the use of blood (or certain arbitrary parts thereof) is not a medical opinion it is a religious one.
Handling of Snakes is/was a religious practice that sometimes people got bitten and killed doing, it is now outlawed.
I just don't get it, some things people want to do as their religious belief, it is found to be against the law.
How is it that refusal of blood transfusions can still be tolerated.
purps
