Jehoavh Witness's Idiocy

[Karellen]

In 100 years time hopefully society will look back on these people in the same way we look at the witch burnings of Salem and the Spanish Inquisition (no - not the comfy chair) and wonder how backward and ignorant they must be to hold belief in such extreme superstitions.

[Lonan3]

After reading that the 'Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Britain' (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses) is a registered charity, I decided to have a look to see whether that was also the case in the IoM and was pleased to see that it doesn't appear to be. IoM Charities Index

 

Especially when the Charitable purposes are usually defined as:

 

1.Relief of poverty (now defined more broadly as relief of financial hardship);

2. Advancement of education;

3.Advancement of religion;

4.Certain other purposes beneficial to the community,

None of which, I would suggest could be applied.

 

Interestingly, however, The Advancement of Religion section carries the following conditions:

 

1.The religion must be founded in a belief in a supreme being or beings. However, Buddhism is also regarded as a religion, even though there is no belief in a supreme being.

2.The belief must be expressed through worship of the supreme being or beings.

3.There must be a benefit to the public. Thus, enclosed orders may not be registered as charities, unless their activities include practical benefits to the community, for example, where members are involved in good works and/or advancement of religion in the community; parts of the building in which they live are open to the public for religious and other charitable purposes.

4.It must not undermine accepted bases of religion and morality, and must not be in any other way against the public interest. Thus, for example, organisations involved in Satanism or black magic could not obtain charitable status.

 

Naturally, it is the 4th condition that I'd question, especially if someone, for example, wished to register The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a charity.

[The Voice of Reason]

. But I should not be grateful for their service which in reality has nothing to do with good people killing bad people and, in fact, does not benefit me. Iraq is a wonderful example. It is simply about carrying out the wishes of the government, which is certainly not the same as some greater good. .

 

Then what sort of example is WWII? Was it not for the greater good that Hitler was opposed? I'd have a re-think about that if I were you particularly at this time of year.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

. But I should not be grateful for their service which in reality has nothing to do with good people killing bad people and, in fact, does not benefit me. Iraq is a wonderful example. It is simply about carrying out the wishes of the government, which is certainly not the same as some greater good. .

 

Then what sort of example is WWII? Was it not for the greater good that Hitler was opposed? I'd have a re-think about that if I were you particularly at this time of year.

 

No, not a re-think at all. In fact, I think WW2 is the only conflict I can think of where the sacrifice was for a greater good, i.e. of preventing us from living in a state where our freedom is even more curbed than it is. In respect of this time of year WW1 is a very apt example of where the conflict was nothing about good and bad and wrongly involved the deaths of millions. They should be remembered but not for me as heroes.

[Bananaman]

Newspapers Bibles have a tendency to over simplify and to dramatise something to sell biblespapers.

Fixed your post.

 

@ Albert

 

There are British 'heroes' who have died serving their country, and there are Arab 'heroes' who have died as suicide bombers

 

 

How to be a hero

 

1. Do something silly

 

2. Survive

 

 

 

 

I bloody well hate all Abrahamist religions, I really do.

[The Voice of Reason]

. But I should not be grateful for their service which in reality has nothing to do with good people killing bad people and, in fact, does not benefit me. Iraq is a wonderful example. It is simply about carrying out the wishes of the government, which is certainly not the same as some greater good. .

 

Then what sort of example is WWII? Was it not for the greater good that Hitler was opposed? I'd have a re-think about that if I were you particularly at this time of year.

 

No, not a re-think at all. In fact, I think WW2 is the only conflict I can think of where the sacrifice was for a greater good, i.e. of preventing us from living in a state where our freedom is even more curbed than it is. In respect of this time of year WW1 is a very apt example of where the conflict was nothing about good and bad and wrongly involved the deaths of millions. They should be remembered but not for me as heroes.

 

OK fair comment.

[P.K.]

No, I should definitely not be grateful. If people want to go and join the armed forces under the misguided impression that wherever they go and wherever they fight they will be doing so for some greater good and that it is somehow for my benefit then fair enough (although I do recognise that for many it is the best paid job they can find). But I should not be grateful for their service which in reality has nothing to do with good people killing bad people and, in fact, does not benefit me. Iraq is a wonderful example. It is simply about carrying out the wishes of the government, which is certainly not the same as some greater good. British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the good guys, they should be sent back home.

Though I am not having a pop at those who are or were in the armed forces, I don't think they are bad people, as I said for a lot of people it is the best paid job they can get, millions were conscripted in the past, and ultimately it is the government where responsibility lies. They begin these wars, almost always wrongly.

So go do your own killing. Oh, and don't forget to refuse to pay all of your tax as some of it funds the MOD.

 

Sorry LDV but I'm all in favour of the Iraq bit and the Afghanistan bit as well. So you're not. Fine by me but don't you see the irony? Like the JW's who should be given blood to save themselves from their own misguided, short-sighted, stupid, ignorant beliefs there are also those who the nods fight for even though they refuse to see that it has to be done. Oh, and you don't join up because it's the best paid job you can get. That went out with conscription.

 

But what is a "sound mind"?

Who cares.... Like the idiots who think if you give peace a chance all the bad guys will suddenly want to live in harmony anyone who thinks a modern scientifically proven blood transfusion somehow goes against their God clearly needs to be protected from themselves.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

No, I should definitely not be grateful. If people want to go and join the armed forces under the misguided impression that wherever they go and wherever they fight they will be doing so for some greater good and that it is somehow for my benefit then fair enough (although I do recognise that for many it is the best paid job they can find). But I should not be grateful for their service which in reality has nothing to do with good people killing bad people and, in fact, does not benefit me. Iraq is a wonderful example. It is simply about carrying out the wishes of the government, which is certainly not the same as some greater good. British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the good guys, they should be sent back home.

Though I am not having a pop at those who are or were in the armed forces, I don't think they are bad people, as I said for a lot of people it is the best paid job they can get, millions were conscripted in the past, and ultimately it is the government where responsibility lies. They begin these wars, almost always wrongly.

So go do your own killing. Oh, and don't forget to refuse to pay all of your tax as some of it funds the MOD.

 

Sorry LDV but I'm all in favour of the Iraq bit and the Afghanistan bit as well. So you're not. Fine by me but don't you see the irony? Like the JW's who should be given blood to save themselves from their own misguided, short-sighted, stupid, ignorant beliefs there are also those who the nods fight for even though they refuse to see that it has to be done. Oh, and you don't join up because it's the best paid job you can get. That went out with conscription.

 

But what is a "sound mind"?

Who cares.... Like the idiots who think if you give peace a chance all the bad guys will suddenly want to live in harmony anyone who thinks a modern scientifically proven blood transfusion somehow goes against their God clearly needs to be protected from themselves.

 

I am aware of how national defence is paid for, and given the national and international structures in places (which I don't particularly like) I do think there is a requirement for national defence. However, that does not mean that any actions taken by the armed forces of the country should be supported and that we should think of the soldiers involved as heroes, because they are not. They are doing what they are told by the government, which is often the result of bad political decision-making. Their role is not in any way synonymous with achieving the greater good as I do not believe that sort of reasoning is made by government.

 

If the armed forces believes their role in Iraq, for example, is necessary then they are misguided, it is not the converse.

 

What I meant by the 'best paid job' thing is that it is the case that the armed forces offers young working class men better paid jobs than what is available to them in the private sector. So certainly the financial incentives are a factor behind the reasons why people enlist. With consciption you didn't have much of a choice.

 

If they are of unsound mind then I would agree, other people should step in to save their life. But as with suicide is not simply the case that we believe that, in the context, their reasons for dying are so incomprehensible that we declare them to be of unsound mind and make them live? I think it is important to clarify what an unsound mind is because nobody has the right to make a decision for someone else if they want to die when they are of sound mind.

[P.K.]

Dear oh dear oh dear LDV, you just don't get it, do you.

 

I don't know where to start. So like trying to reason with a JW, I just won't bother. It's not as though I feel brow-beaten by you, or that I'm trying to dodge the issues, or even that I am swayed by your arguments. At the end of the day you can spend years reading The Complete Works Of Shakespeare to three monkeys and at the end of it you will have - three monkeys. I mean "the armed forces offers young working class men better paid jobs than what is available to them in the private sector" - jeeeeze..... Never mind the appalling grammar it simply isn't true, the only way they could end conscription was by having a professional military. Your assumption that you are brighter and better informed than leading politicians is probably bollocks as well. Oh well, I give up! Life's too short and anyway it's Friday night.

 

I hope you have a wonderful life on whichever planet it is that you inhabit......

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Dear oh dear oh dear LDV, you just don't get it, do you.

 

I don't know where to start. So like trying to reason with a JW, I just won't bother. It's not as though I feel brow-beaten by you, or that I'm trying to dodge the issues, or even that I am swayed by your arguments. At the end of the day you can spend years reading The Complete Works Of Shakespeare to three monkeys and at the end of it you will have - three monkeys. I mean "the armed forces offers young working class men better paid jobs than what is available to them in the private sector" - jeeeeze..... Never mind the appalling grammar it simply isn't true, the only way they could end conscription was by having a professional military. Your assumption that you are brighter and better informed than leading politicians is probably bollocks as well. Oh well, I give up! Life's too short and anyway it's Friday night.

 

I hope you have a wonderful life on whichever planet it is that you inhabit......

 

I wasn't trying to say that I am brighter and better informed than leading politicians at all. All I am saying is that the decisions taken by government are not necessarily taken with the good of the British people in mind.

 

I think your politics are bit too 'conventional' (traditional/conservative) in respect of the role of government and the armed forces for me to be swayed by your argument or maybe you didn't reason very well.

[DjDan]

Just a bunch of freakshows if you ask me.

 

Whilst this topic is about an unfortunate and tragic death of someone that most (if not all) of us outside the faith find terribly shocking, I think it is taking things too far to brandish them all as a group as freaks etc. etc. Jehovah's Witnesses are individuals also, and most live a very typical life that you may find to be... very similar to your own. Whilst we do not personally agree with many of their beliefs (this blood issue especially!!) to disregard them as complete fools and 'lower' than ourselves is taking things too far.

 

I do not at all agree with the decision that was made in this situation, and do wish that other Jehovah's Witnesses would not make similar decisions in future. - BUT - I will not label these people as 'simple-minded puppets' (which is the general idea that many have of them) because of it. They are certainly not brainwashed, but like each of us in our lives, have been taught in such a way that they have felt impressed to follow. We do it all the time, wether it be politics, an idea expressed on TV, a suggestion from fellow colleagues etc. We all have choice - and the many thousands of individuals who make up the "Jehovah's Witnesses" have chosen to accept and follow the teachings therein. Many teachings of which encourage a strong, healthy upbringing of the family and a peaceful and helpful society.

 

I have attended a number of Worship Services of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the people are genuinely friendly and caring. The meetings are quite normal too!! No brainwashing... that I can remember.

 

Perhaps one day we can learn, that whilst we do agree with the beliefs of other people... (as long as they are not genuinely harmful to makind) we at least tolerate them and treat these people as we would want to be treated ourselves. I'm sure a great number of them will be as shocked about this event as we are. They are people too.

[Albert Tatlock]

I have attended a number of Worship Services of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the people are genuinely friendly and caring. The meetings are quite normal too!! No brainwashing... that I can remember.

Brainwashing: the application of coercive techniques to change the beliefs or behavior of one or more people, usually for political or religious purposes.

 

Taking a child, especially at an age when that child is unable to make judgements or even ask questions, and feeding it myths and fairy tales as truth, amounts to brainwashing. Religion is a virus spread by parents to children, and nowhere can you see this better than in certain streets in Northern Ireland, where people on one side of the street (Catholics) and people on the other side of the street (Protestants) set up segregated schools, drank in segregated pubs, and spent years trying to kill each other.

[Gladys]

Well, I fall into the 'live and let live' category. For that reason I do detest religious zealots, because there is no room for those that disagree in their world. In this case under discussion, far from respect the woman's right to refuse a transfusion, I am in the camp of to hell with her 'rights'; what about the rights of her babies to have their mother bring them up? How Christian is it to deny yourself a simple procedure that will allow you to live to cherish your children? To allow any kind of mumbo jumbo influence very fundamental decisions for the well being of yourself and so those dependent on you, must surely mean that you are incapable of taking the decision rationally and so you forfeit that right.

 

Not so very long ago (a few hundred years admittedly, but not long in the scheme of things), children were taken up high mountains in Peru for sacrifice for religious reasons. Were they any less sane than this woman?

 

Her first priority should have been her children; her mumbo jumbo beliefs should have taken a back seat.

 

Sorry, I forgot, of course, it was God's will that she should die (despite having given man the ability to treat the condition which afflicted her) and leave her babies behind - what an abrogation of responsibility.

 

The sooner religion is downgraded to the level of 'hobby' or 'interest' the better in my view. Keep the morals, they were established by man to order society, not given by God. If there is a God, it is that little bit of altruism and regard for others that exists in all of us and that governs how we conduct ourselves. It is not some ultimate, intangible and unseen power. It is you and me, and the need to put the brakes on the more bestial side of ourselves for the surival of civilisation.

 

Rant over, but we really need to take responsibility for our own actions and not pass the buck to a superstition.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well, I fall into the 'live and let live' category. For that reason I do detest religious zealots, because there is no room for those that disagree in their world. In this case under discussion, far from respect the woman's right to refuse a transfusion, I am in the camp of to hell with her 'rights'; what about the rights of her babies to have their mother bring them up? How Christian is it to deny yourself a simple procedure that will allow you to live to cherish your children? To allow any kind of mumbo jumbo influence very fundamental decisions for the well being of yourself and so those dependent on you, must surely mean that you are incapable of taking the decision rationally and so you forfeit that right.

 

Not so very long ago (a few hundred years admittedly, but not long in the scheme of things), children were taken up high mountains in Peru for sacrifice for religious reasons. Were they any less sane than this woman?

 

Her first priority should have been her children; her mumbo jumbo beliefs should have taken a back seat.

 

Sorry, I forgot, of course, it was God's will that she should die (despite having given man the ability to treat the condition which afflicted her) and leave her babies behind - what an abrogation of responsibility.

 

The sooner religion is downgraded to the level of 'hobby' or 'interest' the better in my view. Keep the morals, they were established by man to order society, not given by God. If there is a God, it is that little bit of altruism and regard for others that exists in all of us and that governs how we conduct ourselves. It is not some ultimate, intangible and unseen power. It is you and me, and the need to put the brakes on the more bestial side of ourselves for the surival of civilisation.

 

Rant over, but we really need to take responsibility for our own actions and not pass the buck to a superstition.

 

I would agree with that completely. Live and let live but priority should have been given to the child.

[joeyconcrete]

If someone is in an accident and gets taken into A&E. This is *before* any family etc are notified, can doctors perform a blood transfusion to keep them alive?

 

And does the JH religion not have some form of forgiveness? e.g If she did have a transfusion - what would happen (apart from maybe survive)? I'd imagine when she come round she would have all sorts of psychological issues given she'd be brought up with a certain mindset, its a shame though, I'm sure the sight of her twins would have helped her get through it.