Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Law

Mick86

A woman's body is now shackled by legal reason

KATHY O'Beirne sold nearly half a million copies of her memoir documenting, in panting detail, her torture and rape as a young woman at the hands of the church-controlled Magdalene Laundries, but now her family has come forward to say that Kathy's Story is the biggest work of fiction since Bill Clinton told Hillary she was the only woman for him.

Whether Kathy O'Beirne is telling the truth, who can say? The only thing we can all agree on is that 'wayward' young women wouldn't be treated this way anymore by our enlightened State. We're much more civilised than our forebears, compelled as they were, the poor, misguided things, by the shackles of Catholic guilt and superstition into denying women their basic rights as human beings. At least that's what we like to tell ourselves.

Then along comes the High Court in Dublin to deliver a ruling that staff at the Coombe Women's Hospital can physically restrain a 27-year-old Jehovah's Witness from the Democratic Republic of Congo and force her to have a blood transfusion against her will, though it violates all her ethical and spiritual beliefs; and suddenly we see that the shackles of reason can be just as offensive to natural justice as those of supposed superstition.

This woman isn't even an Irish citizen, but the State has deployed every tool at its disposal to do to her something which Jehovah's Witnesses believe is "akin to rape".

Holding such a belief may make them so barking that Tom Cruise's Scientology friends look positively level-headed by comparison; but if it doesn't seem astonishing and reprehensible to us that this Victorian-style medical paternalism can happen in, ahem, 'liberal' Ireland in 2006, then it's we who are really mad, not them.

That's not to say the High Court didn't have the purest of motives when making its ruling. The so-called 'Ms K' had lost 80 per cent of her blood after giving birth to a healthy baby boy. If Mr Justice Henry Abbott had not intervened last week, then she would now be dead and buried and her child would be a motherless orphan.

But if the judge felt that he must, as he said, take the side of life against death, and that "the interests of that child is paramount in this decision", then why should another judge on another day not rule that the thousands of Irish women travelling to England every year for abortions should not also be physically restrained?

The reason judges cannot do so is because, after the X Case, we decided that a mother's rights should take precedence over those of her unborn child, and that a free society could not stop people exercising their rights, even if the consequences of that were tragic. Now all that seems to have been overturned - and the life of 'Ms K's' child was not even under threat.

This decision, what's more, was not made against some feckless, irresponsible girl who doesn't know her own mind, but a grown woman who, the court agreed, was fully 'compos mentis' and had made a conscious decision to refuse a blood transfusion, knowing that she would die if she didn't have one. In the circumstances, it's difficult to disagree with the Irish Jehovah's Witness spokesman who said: "They are treating her like a child".

The only way this can possibly be justified is if we conclude that Ms K's objection to taking in the blood of others is an outdated superstition which cannot be given weight by the forces of law and reason without making a mockery of modernity.

But who decides what is superstition? Sikhs never cut their hair. Are they going to be forced to get a short back and sides if Irish doctors ever find scientific proof that long locks are bad for your health?

It certainly doesn't bear thinking what would happen if an Irish court made an equivalent ruling against a Muslim patient. The storm of primal rage directed against Pope Benedict in recent days, and a few Danish cartoonists previously, would be child's play by comparison.

But Jehovah's Witnesses? What are they going to do?

Come round to our houses and give us some more pamphlets, and then leave witha smile when told, as they regularly are, to go forth and multiply?

JIMMY Carr told a joke at his recent show in the Olympia about how he preferred to do jokes against the Church of England rather than Islam because he liked being alive. When Christians got cross, he pointed out, all they ever said was: "I'd love to get my hands on that Jimmy Carr and . . . er, forgive him."

It doesn't really have the same impact, does it?

What this decision shows is that Jehovah's Witnesses in Ireland are so few in number and so lacking in any real political power - which, unlike Muslims, they have never sought anyway - that their beliefs can be safely ignored.

Easy for the rest of us, that is. It doesn't say much for our commitment to freedom of thought, or our respect for minorities. Time to start issuing fatwas, lads.

Eilis O'Hanlon

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1694271&issue_id=14687

Eilis is normally a journalist whose opinion I'd respect but in this instance I'm afraid she has been at the mind-bending hallucinogenics. Does she really believe that a woman should have been allowed die on the basis of an obscure biblical reference?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

The reason judges cannot do so is because, after the X Case, we decided that a mother's rights should take precedence over those of her unborn child, and that a free society could not stop people exercising their rights, even if the consequences of that were tragic. Now all that seems to have been overturned - and the life of 'Ms K's' child was not even under threat.

she doesn't seem to understand the distinction between an unborn baby and a born one.

wolfsbane

Mick86 said:

Eilis is normally a journalist whose opinion I'd respect but in this instance I'm afraid she has been at the mind-bending hallucinogenics. Does she really believe that a woman should have been allowed die on the basis of an obscure biblical reference?

I gathered Ellis was argueing that she should be allowed to die if that is what she chose. To argue against that is to argue for force-feeding of hunger-strikers. A case can be made for preventing the mentally ill from harming themselves, but can it really be done for the mentally competent - without abusing human rights?

I think the J.W. doctrine is absurd, but people have a right to be absurd. Especially when they think any other course is utterly immoral.

Let's say the woman needed a heart transplant rather than a transfusion, and the State was into eugenics. They euthanized the brain-damaged and harvested their organs, giving them to anyone needing a transplant. Would they be right to insist she have it? Would you accept it?

bonkey

Mick86 wrote:

Does she really believe that a woman should have been allowed die on the basis of an obscure biblical reference?

You could also phrase the question thusly:

Does she believe that freedom of religion should allow one to make a decision against medical advice and if so, to what extent.

Its not a question of whether or not anyone finds the grounds of her belief reasonable. Its her religion.

Hithertofore, teh notion of religious freedom was really only limited in that it couldn't curtail on the rights of others. You couldn't say, for example, that your religion required you to kill innocent people every so often.

But now we've stepped beyond that and decided that its not just a question of rights, but rather that because its "for the best" for someone else, the principles of religious freedom don't need to be honoured.

Your opinion of her religious beliefs have nothing to do with the issue. Thats the whole point of freedom of religion. You can think JW beliefs are the nuttiest on the planet, but it still doesn't mean they can be denied the right to uphold their religious beliefs.

Or do you disagree? Would it be okay for a judge to rule that a catholic be forced into something they found anathema, because they judge thought their belief system was a joke and that he was acting "for the best".

Asiaprod

bonkey wrote:

Or do you disagree? Would it be okay for a judge to rule that a catholic be forced into something they found anathema, because they judge thought their belief system was a joke and that he was acting "for the best".

Good reply. JWs have the same right to practice their faith as the rest of us have. We may not like understand or support their actions, but as long as these actions apply only to the individual in question the state is powerless to intervene. If those actions affect others, or if the state in question has a very clearly defined pro-life policy legally implemented, then it is a different issue and will need to be evaluated in light of its impact to the laws and other citizens. Although I applaud the judge for the ruling as I feel it is stupid for a child to be left without a mother when her life can be saved so easily, it is a very grey area. One can only hope that the mother's love and respect for her new child will help her to overcome any indignation or religious violation she feel as a result of the ruling. It is sad in this day and age that religion cannot adapt to keep pace with a changing world. This is to me the major down fall with religions in general. They remain rooted in the past, base their tenants on dead people who lived in a very different world, and are incapable or afraid of changing statutes to enable them to deal with modern societies.

the_syco

We may not like understand or support their actions, but as long as these actions apply only to the individual in question the state is powerless to intervene.

Suicide will only apply to the individual, but I doubt we should look the other way if a religon says its ok BTW, I'm not talking about suicide bombers, but rather "I'd rather die than do X" nutters.

Mick86

wolfsbane wrote:

I gathered Ellis was argueing that she should be allowed to die if that is what she chose. To argue against that is to argue for force-feeding of hunger-strikers.

To argue for it is to argue for assisted suicide. Next step euthanasia.

wolfsbane wrote:

A case can be made for preventing the mentally ill from harming themselves, but can it really be done for the mentally competent - without abusing human rights?

I presume that the hospital believed she was not competent as she was on the verge of death.

wolfsbane wrote:

I think the J.W. doctrine is absurd, but people have a right to be absurd. Especially when they think any other course is utterly immoral.

So if one can prove a moral or religious basis for any act that makes it permissible?

wolfsbane wrote:

Let's say the woman needed a heart transplant rather than a transfusion, and the State was into eugenics. They euthanized the brain-damaged and harvested their organs, giving them to anyone needing a transplant. Would they be right to insist she have it? Would you accept it?

That's not really the same thing at all.

Schuhart

bonkey wrote:

Hithertofore, teh notion of religious freedom was really only limited in that it couldn't curtail on the rights of others.

The decision would seem consistent with that idea. I have only read the media reports. But they seem to suggest she could refuse blood if she was the only person substantially impacted. What the Court has decided is the mother cannot entertain the screwy notion that a blood donation is rape if this has a serious impact on someone else – i.e. her child.

It may well happen sometime in the future that, a court case will arise where it’s necessary to affirm that deeply held religious beliefs are just plain nuts and can be ignored. But this is not that case. This case has just affirmed that whatever religiously inspired delusions someone wants to entertain cannot be allowed to harm others.

Asiaprod wrote:

Although I applaud the judge for the ruling as I feel it is stupid for a child to be left without a mother when her life can be saved so easily, it is a very grey area.

I think that’s a fair summary. I’d just add that it’s a grey area where the doctors caring for the woman must decide black or white – let her die or force an intervention. No ideal outcome is possible.

Asiaprod wrote:

It is sad in this day and age that religion cannot adapt to keep pace with a changing world. This is to me the major down fall with religions in general. They remain rooted in the past, base their tenants on dead people who lived in a very different world, and are incapable or afraid of changing statutes to enable them to deal with modern societies.

Ain’t that just the size of it.

Mick86

bonkey wrote:

You could also phrase the question thusly:

Does she believe that freedom of religion should allow one to make a decision against medical advice and if so, to what extent.

Its not a question of whether or not anyone finds the grounds of her belief reasonable. Its her religion.

Hithertofore, teh notion of religious freedom was really only limited in that it couldn't curtail on the rights of others. You couldn't say, for example, that your religion required you to kill innocent people every so often......

There's no such thing as an absolute right to anything. Mormons cannot practice polygamy in this country, nor can Muslims. Hindu widows cannot immolate themselves with their husbands body. Even if it's their religion, it is not acceptable practice in this country.

robindch

> [Asiaprod] We may not like understand or support their actions, but as long as these
> actions apply only to the individual in question the state is powerless to intervene.

Well put and agreed! But once you start looking, you'll find that the state does intervene in areas where the "actions apply only to the individual in question": keeping or growing drugs for personal recreational purposes, prostitution (convictions for kerb-crawling), viewing (but not paying for the production of) kiddie-porn, driving without a seatbelt and so on.

More generally, though, I haven't noticed too many people (outside this forum!) saying that the religion is actually what's at fault in all of this. It was reilgion which imprinted, then supported this stupid, selfish woman's notion that her own beliefs are more imortant than her kid's need to have a mum. And now that I think of it, the situation reminds me of JC telling us in the creationism thread that he'd allow his family to die, rather than deny his religion and BrianCalgary's statement that he'd happily die rather than deny his one.

All three are simply blindly following the instructions of the irrational belief system which they've been programmed with. Yuk!

buzbee

I have been following the thread on this topic and find it interesting how each individual has an opinion on something so private.
From the point of view of this lady it must have been a day she looked forward to with all the usual feelings of a mother waiting for her baby to arrive. Well to be honest I don't really know what she felt like at any given time. Neither can anyone else.
Now however she is a 'topic' and as such her feelings are not considered.

Why is she not being considered as a person whose feelings matter. They are her feelings, she may have tears to shed, do we know if she hurts to the core. Whether or not one agrees with her choices in life they are her choices. Did she set out to be a martyr? I think not. It seems she was commited to the choice she had made. Her baby if she died would never know any other mother than the one who reared it. Ask any adopted child who never wished to find the natural birth mother. They loved the one who loved them. There are many reasons why mothers die at birth. Not all are due to the same cause as this.

Early christians I believe were identified as being such with a method that was foolproof.
Groups rounded up were imprisoned then starved for days on end. eventually they would be offered blood sausage - something like black pudding. The christians would refuse and died horrific deaths. That kind of faith is spoken and written of in awe even by non christians.
Of course that was a different time. But if anyone chooses today to have a faith that will allow them to die for it who are we to condem it.

wolfsbane

Mick86 said:

To argue for it is to argue for assisted suicide.

Not at all. If she wants to die (or risk death in this case) that's up to her. Assisted suicide is where one actively assists the killing.

I presume that the hospital believed she was not competent as she was on the verge of death.

She had made her position perfectly clear beforehand. The same ruse could be used to force-feed or apply unending medical intervention against the wishes of the mentally competent.

So if one can prove a moral or religious basis for any act that makes it permissible?

No. But the person has the right to decide what medical intervention they will receive.

That's not really the same thing at all.

Why? You would die without it, you think it immoral, but the State insists you get it. Seems exactly the same to me.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

More generally, though, I haven't noticed too many people (outside this forum!) saying that the religion is actually what's at fault in all of this. It was reilgion which imprinted, then supported this stupid, selfish woman's notion that her own beliefs are more imortant than her kid's need to have a mum.

Would that apply to the non-religious hedonist who wants her 'freedom' and is prepared to desert her husband and children to get it? Should the State force her to stay with the kids? Is this proof secularism is anti-social and dangerous?

And now that I think of it, the situation reminds me of JC telling us in the creationism thread that he'd allow his family to die, rather than deny his religion and BrianCalgary's statement that he'd happily die rather than deny his one.

So there is nothing you would die for? No belief nor principle you would not abandon to save your skin?

All three are simply blindly following the instructions of the irrational belief system which they've been programmed with. Yuk!

Do you have a rational belief system? Or is it your position that all belief systems are irrational and not worth defending? Is that belief worth defending or holding on to in the face of persecution? Would you pray to Allah five times a day if Ireland became an Islamic State? Would you have joined the Nazi Party in Hitler's Germany?

Mick86

wolfsbane wrote:

Not at all. If she wants to die (or risk death in this case) that's up to her. Assisted suicide is where one actively assists the killing.

Other than as a matter of semantics there is no difference between allowing someone to die and assisting them in doing so. The result is a corpse in either case. The former is more morally repugnant in that a life which could have been saved was wasted.

wolfsbane wrote:

She had made her position perfectly clear beforehand. The same ruse could be used to force-feed or apply unending medical intervention against the wishes of the mentally competent.

Obviously she had not made her position perfectly clear since the hospital felt obliged to referthe matter to the courts.

wolfsbane wrote:

But the person has the right to decide what medical intervention they will receive.

Within reason. There are no absolute rights as I've already said.

wolfsbane wrote:

You would die without it, you think it immoral, but the State insists you get it. Seems exactly the same to me.

The state did not insist she be treated, her doctors did. Obviously they have a legal and moral duty to provide the best treatment possible. It is more than probable that, had they allowed this poor woman to die, some relative would turn up with solicitor in tow and sue the hospital for negligence.

wolfsbane wrote:

So there is nothing you would die for? No belief nor principle you would not abandon to save your skin?

Certainly not for some ridiculous cult that demands one die needlessly.

wolfsbane wrote:

Do you have a rational belief system? Or is it your position that all belief systems are irrational and not worth defending?

There are no rational belief systems.

Mick86

buzbee wrote:

......Now however she is a 'topic' and as such her feelings are not considered.....

I for one have considered her feelings. I'm trying to get in touch with my inner Jehovah's Witness.:rolleyes:

Schuhart

wolfsbane wrote:

So there is nothing you would die for? No belief nor principle you would not abandon to save your skin?

In the context of this issue, the thought that comes to mind is that there's plenty of things worth dying for but they all involve defending other people and their prospect of living in a decent society.

Choosing unnecessary death, ignoring the impact on anyone else, because of some bizarre religious ethic is quite another matter.

Mick86

Schuhart wrote:

Choosing unnecessary death, ignoring the impact on anyone else, because of some bizarre religious ethic is quite another matter.

From a religious point of view a this issue contravenes the Sixth Commandment. Apart from that a truly religious person would recognise blood transfusion and any other medical treatment as a gift from God and a rejection of such a gift is a rejection of God's love for mankind.

robindch

> Would that apply to the non-religious hedonist who wants her 'freedom' and is prepared to desert her husband and children to get it?

Erm, you'll recall that this woman wanted to commit suicide and abandon her husband and kid(s) because of her religion. You're saying that's a good thing? I thought one of religion's main selling points to social conservatives was that it "supported" "the family".

> So there is nothing you would die for? No belief nor principle you would
> not abandon to save your skin?

Nope, I can't think of one, though I'm sure there must be at least one out there somewhere. There are people and things that I would probably die for if the situation ever arose -- wife and kids, family and friends, but to die because some irrational idea I hold tells me to die? Nah. That's pathetic suicide.

> Do you have a rational belief system?

Contrary to Mick86's position, yes, I believe that fairly rational and fairly consistent belief systems do exist and that I hold one.

> Would you pray to Allah five times a day if Ireland became an Islamic State?

If some guy held a gun to my head and told me to sing a song I didn't care for and didn't believe, I'd do it and would probably make it look good. Same as you would, I expect, unless you're as suicidal as JC and BC are (in which case, please correct me). Of course, I'd do my best to subvert the system elsewhere, and I'd probably succeed -- a bit of intellectual pleasure to be had at the hands of religion's willing and suicidal fools.

> Would you have joined the Nazi Party in Hitler's Germany?

You mean having to make a choice like Ratzinger had to when he was "asked" if he'd like to fight in Hitler's armies?

Asiaprod

Mick86 wrote:

The state did not insist she be treated, her doctors did. Obviously they have a legal and moral duty to provide the best treatment possible. It is more than probable that, had they allowed this poor woman to die, some relative would turn up with solicitor in tow and sue the hospital for negligence.

Its even more simple than that. As taken by all nursing professionals

THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone.To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Same as you would, I expect, unless you're as suicidal as JC and BC are (in which case, please correct me)
?

Now where did you get this from? Personally haven't considered the idea very seriously at all.

BrianCalgary

Asiaprod wrote:

Its even more simple than that. As taken by all nursing professionals

THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH

I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone.To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."

Interseting. Thanks. A couple of noteworthy statements within the larger staement:

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise (medical schools charge a fortune)

wolfsbane

Mick86 said:

Other than as a matter of semantics there is no difference between allowing someone to die and assisting them in doing so. The result is a corpse in either case. The former is more morally repugnant in that a life which could have been saved was wasted.

The point is not just allowing someone to die, but forcing them to live against their mentally competent expressed wishes. It is not like seeing someone dying on the side of the road and passing them by. The issue is one of civil rights.

Obviously she had not made her position perfectly clear since the hospital felt obliged to referthe matter to the courts.

Seems more like them holding the same view as some of you here: her religious viewpoint is ridiculous, therefore she has no right to act on it.

Within reason. There are no absolute rights as I've already said.

To deny her rights in this matter is to endanger everyone's rights in all matters, for no principle is involved other than a dislike of the opinion held.

The state did not insist she be treated, her doctors did. Obviously they have a legal and moral duty to provide the best treatment possible. It is more than probable that, had they allowed this poor woman to die, some relative would turn up with solicitor in tow and sue the hospital for negligence.

If the State sided with the doctors, they were just as guilty. Their duty to provide best treatment in your view includes forced treatment. Again, let me ask you, does this apply to force feeding also? To abortion (as in China)?

As to sueing, a written consent form is the normal means of avoiding that.

Certainly not for some ridiculous cult that demands one die needlessly.

What you or I find worthy may be regarded by others as ridiculous - should they be allowed to force their will upon us?

There are no rational belief systems.

That's a helpful insight to your thinking. Thanks for the honesty.

wolfsbane

Schuhart said:

In the context of this issue, the thought that comes to mind is that there's plenty of things worth dying for but they all involve defending other people and their prospect of living in a decent society.

Choosing unnecessary death, ignoring the impact on anyone else, because of some bizarre religious ethic is quite another matter.

So there is nothing you would not do in order to save your own life? If you were offered the choice of starving or cannibalism? Calling your mother a whore? Whether we regard some things as sins or matters of honour, many people do not regard death as the worst option.

wolfsbane

Mick86 said:

From a religious point of view a this issue contravenes the Sixth Commandment. Apart from that a truly religious person would recognise blood transfusion and any other medical treatment as a gift from God and a rejection of such a gift is a rejection of God's love for mankind.

I have no problem with blood transfusions. But this woman does - she believes it contravenes God's law. She is mistaken, but she is not violating the commandment on not commiting murder. And she is not being ungrateful, just being consistent with her flawed understanding.

I would not eat blood, for the same reason she refuses a transfusion. Many others would not eat human flesh, for the same or other moral reasons.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Erm, you'll recall that this woman wanted to commit suicide and abandon her husband and kid(s) because of her religion. You're saying that's a good thing? I thought one of religion's main selling points to social conservatives was that it "supported" "the family".

Standing up for principles cannot be equated to commiting suicide and abandoning the family. Otherwise no patriot or martyr would be honoured today. The cause might be wrong, but the motivation cannot be questioned.

But my question to you concerned your consistency: if the State was right to prevent her 'abandoning her kids', should they not force all mothers to remain with their's? Is it OK for a religiously motivated woman to be forced to receive a blood transfusion against her will, so that her kids will not be motherless; but not OK for the State to demand a mother stays with her kids even if it means she sacrifices her 'freedom' to have a career or new lovers?

Nope, I can't think of one, though I'm sure there must be at least one out there somewhere. There are people and things that I would probably die for if the situation ever arose -- wife and kids, family and friends, but to die because some irrational idea I hold tells me to die? Nah. That's pathetic suicide.

No matters of honour? You would degrade yourself or the honour of those you love, if forced to do so?

Contrary to Mick86's position, yes, I believe that fairly rational and fairly consistent belief systems do exist and that I hold one.

But you would not die to adhere to its principles?

If some guy held a gun to my head and told me to sing a song I didn't care for and didn't believe, I'd do it and would probably make it look good. Same as you would, I expect, unless you're as suicidal as JC and BC are (in which case, please correct me). Of course, I'd do my best to subvert the system elsewhere, and I'd probably succeed -- a bit of intellectual pleasure to be had at the hands of religion's willing and suicidal fools.

I understand your pragmatism. But if you had no opportunity to subvert the oppressor - say you were in a prison camp. If the only stand you can make is to refuse to deny your principles in the face of death, would you submit or die?

You mean having to make a choice like Ratzinger had to when he was "asked" if he'd like to fight in Hitler's armies?

Yes. We know the choice he made, now how about your's?

robindch

> If the only stand you can make is to refuse to deny your principles
> in the face of death, would you submit or die?

With a gun to my head, I will happily say "That's bollocks, that is" when asked to reject any idea I'm asked to. If the fool with the gun is happy with that, then he's a bigger fool than he'd already have made himself out to be.

Now -- will you do the same? Will you reject or deny whatever you're asked to, including your religion, with some guy putting a gun to your head? Or, would you, like BC and JC, happily let your mind be killed because of one idea that it holds?

> Yes. We know the choice he made, now how about your's?

If I had no choice, then I'd happily join up and attempt to carry out the subversion I mentioned.

A timely example of all of this is Dmitri Shostakovich -- it was the one hundreth anniversary of his birth on monday -- when his life was on the line at the height of the Great Terror in 1936-1937, after his opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk was denounced by Stalin. In reply to this denunciation, he composed his deliciously subtle, ironic and subversive Fifth Symphony. If anybody's interested, BBC Radio 3 made an excellent 45 minute documentary on this thrilling work last year:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/ram/cdmshosta5.ram (real audio)

Sillyaspie

What a serious discussion.

robindch

> [briancalgary] Now where did you get this from? Personally haven't
> considered the idea very seriously at all.

A few months ago, you wrote that you'd happily let somebody kill you rather, AFAIR, than "deny" Jesus Christ. In the creationism thread, JC said that he'd prefer to have his entire family murdered rather than have to "deny" Jesus Christ himself.

robindch

> What a serious discussion.

Just trying to see how far people will go for their religion!

Sangre

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:

Is it OK for a religiously motivated woman to be forced to receive a blood transfusion against her will, so that her kids will not be motherless; but not OK for the State to demand a mother stays with her kids even if it means she sacrifices her 'freedom' to have a career or new lovers?

Since when can the legal guardian of a child abandon them? Eh, pretty much never and there are lots of laws stopping them doing so. Maintenance support, stringet divorce and separation laws, judical separation clauses, custody agreements, custody support etc.,

You've basically pointed out the consistency of the State's policy on protecting children (and the family). The (born) child always comes first in Ireland.

Dades

wolfsbane wrote:

So there is nothing you would not do in order to save your own life? If you were offered the choice of starving or cannibalism? Calling your mother a whore? Whether we regard some things as sins or matters of honour, many people do not regard death as the worst option.

Isn't that the point? If you do regard death as The End, then it would bizzare to throw it away for a principle. Robindch doesn't believe he'll enjoy an afterlife of martyrdom - he sees it as throwing away his 'one shot'. If you die - your principles die with you anyway.

As long as you weren't required to harm others - denying a personal principle seems a small sacrifice compared to saving your life - if you believe you won't get another. Instead, live to fight another day - you're no use to anyone dead.

Similarly I'm happy the State stepped in to act here, even if the "principle" of religion freedom was compromised. To not step in here in the face of obvious religious delusion would have been worse.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Now -- will you do the same? Will you reject or deny whatever you're asked to, including your religion, with some guy putting a gun to your head? Or, would you, like BC and JC, happily let your mind be killed because of one idea that it holds?

By God's grace, I would join JC and Brian, to follow the martyrs in their witness to Christ.
Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

If I had no choice, then I'd happily join up and attempt to carry out the subversion I mentioned.

A timely example of all of this is Dmitri Shostakovich

If it was the honour of my musical skill that was at stake, I too would follow his course. But if it were to participate in evil, I would not. The Germans had a choice. Had enough of them refused to condone Nazism, it may have withered on the vine. At least they could have stirred the conscience of some others and also kept themselves pure. Some did. Persecution followed.

Confession of Christ in the face of death is a hallmark of the Christian faith, in both Old and New Testaments. It is not an aberration, nor a mark of extremism.

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

Since when can the legal guardian of a child abandon them? Eh, pretty much never and there are lots of laws stopping them doing so. Maintenance support, stringet divorce and separation laws, judical separation clauses, custody agreements, custody support etc.,

You've basically pointed out the consistency of the State's policy on protecting children (and the family). The (born) child always comes first in Ireland.

You don't know of any mothers who have left their children for a new life with a lover??? No maintainance from them either. It's the deserting fathers who get the bill. So, I know of no laws preventing any mother leaving her kids forever. Can you tell me of one?

robindch

> By God's grace, I would join JC and Brian, to follow the martyrs in
> their witness to Christ.

I take it that's a "yes, I'd die rather than say I'm not a christian"?

> If it was the honour of my musical skill that was at stake, I too would
> follow his course.

I take it you didn't even listen to the first minute or so of the documentary then (oh, well ). Shostakovich's protest had nothing whatsoever to do with the "honor of his musical skill", and far more to do with Shostakovich telling Stalin to go stuff himself, a public act of almost suicidal bravery in the 1930's in Russia. Anyhow, as above, if you have 45 minutes and a good sound card, I'd recommend listening to the documentary -- it's one of the better ones in that series -- and you may come to understand something about tyranny.

> Confession of Christ in the face of death is a hallmark of the Christian
> faith, in both Old and New Testaments. It is not an aberration, nor a
> mark of extremism.

Perhaps to the religious mind, suicide is neither an abberation nor a mark of extremism, but I'm afraid that I cannot understand why -- to me, this self-imposed death-wish sign of insanity. And unfortunately, I must point out that you seem to value your life as much as islamic suicide bombers value theirs: you are both willing to kill yourselves because an old book tells you that you should be. Can't grasp that at all.

Sangre

wolfsbane wrote:

Sangre said:

You don't know of any mothers who have left their children for a new life with a lover??? No maintainance from them either. It's the deserting fathers who get the bill. So, I know of no laws preventing any mother leaving her kids forever. Can you tell me of one?

Many, but I'm a bit too busy atm. (studying for fe1s). Mothers (especially unmarried) are the LEGAL guardians of a child, there is no possible way they can abandon the child to do its own bidding. You obviously can't prevent them from leaving the kids but you can prevent them abadoning them.

should really be in bed.

wolfsbane

The Atheist said:

Isn't that the point? If you do regard death as The End, then it would bizzare to throw it away for a principle. Robindch doesn't believe he'll enjoy an afterlife of martyrdom - he sees it as throwing away his 'one shot'. If you die - your principles die with you anyway.

Sure, it makes apparent sense for the atheist not to give his life for anything. It makes apparent sense for the Christian to do so for the honour of Christ. The real sense depends on who is right about God, the atheist or the Christian.

As long as you weren't required to harm others - denying a personal principle seems a small sacrifice compared to saving your life - if you believe you won't get another.

Following your logic, Why stop there, if this life is all you have? Why not harm others if it is the only way you will survive?

Instead, live to fight another day - you're no use to anyone dead.

Good tactic in some circumstances, especially those not involving the honour of one's God. But what if refusing to kowtow is the only means of resistance? Would you still sacrifice your most treasured principle just to save your life?

Similarly I'm happy the State stepped in to act here, even if the "principle" of religion freedom was compromised. To not step in here in the face of obvious religious delusion would have been worse

It may seem a small infringement, but it establishes the principle. If the woman had decided to drink herself to death by alcohol abuse, they would not have prevented her. They would have given her a sick-line, and special sickness benefit so she could afford not to work yet buy all the drink she needed. But once she said it was for religious reasons she was refusing treatment, bang goes her rights.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I take it that's a "yes, I'd die rather than say I'm not a christian"?

Indeed.

I take it you didn't even listen to the first minute or so of the documentary then (oh, well ). Shostakovich's protest had nothing whatsoever to do with the "honor of his musical skill", and far more to do with Shostakovich telling Stalin to go stuff himself, a public act of almost suicidal bravery in the 1930's in Russia.

Forgive my lack of musical/classical erudition. It seems to me he composed a very subtle defiance of Stalin - so subtle that many thought it a submissive piece by a re-educated penitent! It may have given him inner satisfaction to hear it publically played and think of its hidden meaning. It did not harm Stalin in the least. So only Shostakovich's ego would have benefited. And of course the few others of erudition who suspected what it meant. And what did it protest? The imposition of atheism? The enslavement of millions? Or Stalin's philistine criticism of his music? What makes you think it was any but the latter?

Perhaps to the religious mind, suicide is neither an abberation nor a mark of extremism, but I'm afraid that I cannot understand why -- to me, this self-imposed death-wish sign of insanity.

To be murdered for one's faith is not suicide, any more than sacrificing one's place in a life-boat for another.

And unfortunately, I must point out that you seem to value your life as much as islamic suicide bombers value theirs: you are both willing to kill yourselves because an old book tells you that you should be. Can't grasp that at all.

As I've said, to be killed is not the same as killing oneself. Further, the suicide-bombers are not really suiciding, but are killing their enemy at the expense of their lives. Because they are our enemies does not mean we should lessen the motive behind their deaths. In defence of our democracies, men and women have went to certain death and we greatly honour them for it.

Is it that you reject all such brave sacrifice as insanity, or it is just sort that is motivated by religion that bothers you?

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

Many, but I'm a bit too busy atm. (studying for fe1s). Mothers (especially unmarried) are the LEGAL guardians of a child, there is no possible way they can abandon the child to do its own bidding. You obviously can't prevent them from leaving the kids but you can prevent them abadoning them.

This woman would have been leaving her children in the care of her family, so not abandoning them in your sense. She was in the same position as the others I mentioned, yet the State does not make them stay. If caring for the kids is your justification, I take it you will support the forcible return of errant mothers?

All the best for your exams.

robindch

> And what did it protest? The imposition of atheism? The enslavement of
> millions? Or Stalin's philistine criticism of his music? What makes you think
> it was any but the latter?

Re the enslavement of millions -- the third movement is slow and long drawn-out, taking thematic and harmonic form from Russian Orthodox masses for the dead and is generally understood to be a requiem for the millions of Stalin's victims. Themes from all four movements are linked with others to send an unmistakeable message of defiance and was understood as such immediately by the sophisticates of St Pete and Moscow, the people who could make a difference against Stalin. Shostakovich had one medium to write in and he used it brilliantly.

> It did not harm Stalin in the least.

It may or may not have, but it was the most public act of defiance that Shostakovich could manage and it seems to have worked. BTW, Shostakovich was taken in by the NKVD (Stalin's secret police) and would most likely have been executed, had the officer in charge of the case not been executed himself. A close shave.

> To be murdered for one's faith is not suicide [...]

I disagree. You are allowing yourself to die because you uncritically accept the truth of some text in an old book. You are gambling everything on the fact that the book is true and that your interpretation of it is correct, two things which are anything but sure. Especially when one considers that there are other people who hold identical views about whether or not it's worth dying/committing suicide as instructed by their own different religions. Since all religions can't all be right (since they say different things), it must therefore be that most of the people who believe that this is not suicide must therefore be wrong.

> Is it that you reject all such brave sacrifice as insanity, or it is just sort that is motivated by religion that bothers you?

It's the notion that somebody can hold an idea (which they admit is unsupported by evidence) for which they are prepared to die. As I said, I simply can't understand it.

.

Sangre

wolfsbane wrote:

Sangre said:

This woman would have been leaving her children in the care of her family, so not abandoning them in your sense. She was in the same position as the others I mentioned, yet the State does not make them stay. If caring for the kids is your justification, I take it you will support the forcible return of errant mothers?

All the best for your exams.

Thanks for best wishes.

In the OP case, the mother was the only known relative the state could find. Essentially the only blood/loco parentis guardian of child the State knew of. This was not a case of the child being moved on to relatives/god parents, this was a case being handed over to foster care.

In this scenario, when there are no other guardians. Yes, the state does impose its wills on the mother/individual. They are not free to abandon the child and have a legal duty to care for it. Death of a child due to negligent care would result in a criminal manslaughter conviction for the only mother.

The situations you describe assume there is a father left to care for the child, which was not the case (that the state knew of) in the Jehovah's witness' case.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you're trying to find discrepancy in the State's application to child protection, you won't find one. The child always comes first, over mother/father/family.

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

The situations you describe assume there is a father left to care for the child, which was not the case (that the state knew of) in the Jehovah's witness' case.

If that was the case, then it does indeed give the State more rights. Thanks for the clarification.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

It's the notion that somebody can hold an idea (which they admit is unsupported by evidence) for which they are prepared to die.

I don't know where you get the idea that I admitted my faith is unsupported by evidence. It is supported by the strongest possible evidence - the witness of God the Holy Spirit in my conscience; and by lesser evidences such as many providences from God in answer to prayer.

If it were a matter of holding to a possibility or a theory of the meaning of life, I too would not dare to die for such an uncertain cause.

Dades

As long as you weren't required to harm others - denying a personal principle seems a small sacrifice compared to saving your life - if you believe you won't get another.

wolfsbane wrote:

Following your logic, Why stop there, if this life is all you have? Why not harm others if it is the only way you will survive?

Well I guess there's nothing to say that any of us wouldn't do that put in the situation.

But I think another human's life and a "principle" are incomparable - at least as far as a non-believer is concerned. A human life is tangible and above all mortal. Any reasonable system of values would suggest it is wrong to have another person die to save your skin. On the other hand it seems wrong to die for a principle when no other life is at stake, and that principle will be buried with you.

My name is Mud

Well, whatever has been said in the thread cant change anything now. The case is in the high court and theres a whole can of worms opening regarding the State's constitutional obligations, verses the individuals religous beliefs.

When we get back to reality however, the woman is alive today, and is taking the mickey out of the government with this lack of care for herself and her child. If she wins, she should be killed. All square then! Leave the child to be looked after by the state... whats one more child on the welfare system eh?

/end sarcasm

bus77

Surely it would be Gods job to seek restitution not her. One of the benifits of a religious constitution no?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

If some guy held a gun to my head and told me to sing a song I didn't care for and didn't believe, I'd do it and would probably make it look good. Same as you would, I expect, unless you're as suicidal as JC and BC are (in which case, please correct me). Of course, I'd do my best to subvert the system elsewhere, and I'd probably succeed -- a bit of intellectual pleasure to be had at the hands of religion's willing and suicidal fools.

I will correct you. Suicidal? Not at all. My life is in God's hands, He will decide when I go, not I nor anyone else.

I would hope that if the situation ever arose where I may have to choose between: denying Christ and living on Earth; or proclaim Christ and die on Earth, I would hope that I would have the gumption to choose the latter.

God would then take it from there. I know a guy who at a biker convention was threatened by a Hells Angel, he said If God wills it that I should die now by your knife, then so be it.

In the end the Christian Biker gave a wonderful testimony that changed the heart of the criminal and led him to a better life in Christ.

One less drug dealer and pimp on the street. that is a good thing.

PDN

BrianCalgary wrote:

I will correct you. Suicidal? Not at all. My life is in God's hands, He will decide when I go, not I nor anyone else.

I would hope that if the situation ever arose where I may have to choose between: denying Christ and living on Earth; or proclaim Christ and die on Earth, I would hope that I would have the gumption to choose the latter.

God would then take it from there. I know a guy who at a biker convention was threatened by a Hells Angel, he said If God wills it that I should die now by your knife, then so be it.

In the end the Christian Biker gave a wonderful testimony that changed the heart of the criminal and led him to a better life in Christ.

One less drug dealer and pimp on the street. that is a good thing.

Brian, this was in response to a post Robin made in September 2006. Do I need to make an appointment to log back on in November 2008 to read Robin's response?

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

I will correct you. Suicidal? Not at all. My life is in God's hands, He will decide when I go, not I nor anyone else.

I would hope that if the situation ever arose where I may have to choose between: denying Christ and living on Earth; or proclaim Christ and die on Earth, I would hope that I would have the gumption to choose the latter.
.

Why wouldn't you deny christ when threatened and then spend the rest of your life proclaiming christ

that's a lot more proclaiming

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

Why wouldn't you deny christ when threatened and then spend the rest of your life proclaiming christ

that's a lot more proclaiming

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33)

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote:

Brian, this was in response to a post Robin made in September 2006. Do I need to make an appointment to log back on in November 2008 to read Robin's response?

I s'pose. This is what happens when you are tired because you have just watched your son go through open heart surgery in a hospital 3 hours away and the topsy turvy life that is now happening.

The operation went very well. The heart is working just fine. The only issue now is the healing of his sternum as they jig sawed through it.

And I hate being here in Calgary while my wife and son are in Edmonton.

Oh well at least we have our health.

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Why wouldn't you deny christ when threatened and then spend the rest of your life proclaiming christ

that's a lot more proclaiming

And that is up to God. I will die when He says so. Therefore I die when I can no longer be an effective witness, or my death is a profound witness.

Mortality rate is 100%. I'm going to go sometime.