Pharyngula

Religion kills

So this young man, Dennis Lindberg, refused a blood transfusion and died. This was a completely useless, futile death; it wasn’t a sacrifice that helped someone, and it was avoidable by a routine medical procedure. So what could possibly have driven him to this behavior?

Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew “he’s basically giving himself a death sentence.”

“I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision,” the judge said during the hearing.

“I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.”

So he wasn’t coerced; he was mature and capable of rational thought; he wasn’t suicidal; this wasn’t an expensive treatment his family couldn’t afford; he did not make the world a better place by dying. He simply calmly decided on the basis of certain premises that were planted in his brain at an early age by an aunt who was a Jehovah’s Witness that he had to do something both lethal and stupid. His head was filled with garbage, and this is the end result.

Religion is child abuse. It strips kids of the critical reasoning abilities that can save their lives. His crazy aunt killed him as surely as if she had beat him to death with a baseball bat.

Comments

  1. #1 Rick Schauer
    November 30, 2007

    As Dawkins said, “the implications of religion are staggering…” and this is just one small example. As the owner of a health care communications company my biggest obsticle informing people about health care is religion. Some people want to “pray” their way to better health…crazy or what? It’s totally inappropriate…leading kids there is child abuse, no question. That’s why confronting West tonight at the U of M is so important…hopefully, we’ll see all you Minnesota freethinkers at the Campus Club at 5:30pm today…free beer!

  2. #2 MAJeff
    November 30, 2007

    SG,

    What a sad and pathetic life you must lead. Wishing for faith in a fairy tale, so much faith that you’d rather die than test that fairy tale. Truly sad.

  3. #3 Ichthyic
    November 30, 2007

    it is simply not true that irrational religious belief is the result of mental illness. It sometimes is,

    LOL

    explore the exceptions and extend outwards…

    you will see a great many parallels that are not readily dismissable by saying “it is simply not true”.

    is alcoholism the result of an underlying susceptibility to addictive behavior?

    it’s not the “alcholism” that’s the mental illness in and of itself, rather it’s an enabler of an underlying one.

  4. #4 Ichthyic
    November 30, 2007

    Do Jehovah’s Witnesses expel people for actions they did not actively consent to?

    yes.

    so does Islam.

    so do many other religious sects.

  5. #5 Ichthyic
    November 30, 2007

    In a free society, adults have domain over their own bodies and should be allowed to refuse treatment, regardless of the reason for their refusal.

    then there is no such thing as a free society, as the interests of the many often outweigh the interests of the individual.

    man, how many million examples of this are there in this country alone?

    now, stretch your same logic to cults.

    no, your logic here is simplistic at best.

    this amazes me coming from Orac, who, with an extensive medical background surely has treated someone for a communicable disease at one time or another.

    do tell me, Orac, what exactly, as a physician licensed in the US, is your responsibility to report and treat extremely contagious diseases?

    I suppose when you run into a patient with tuberculosis who refuses treatment, you just let them walk out the door, eh?

    that was a pathetic excuse for a rant that you posed to be an actual workable argument.

  6. #6 Ichthyic
    November 30, 2007

    That’s something we all can learn from.

    yes, Sam, but it seems to teach many of us quite a different lesson than it seems to teach you.

    maybe someday you will grasp the real lesson, but I doubt you have the capacity for self-examination required.

    we should all just respect his opinion

    no, Priscilla, we very much shouldn’t.

    I’m sure even you can think of very destructive “opinions” even you would not respect.

    now if those “opinions” were part of your cultural upbringing, and you really were entirely indoctrinated with them, would you think it useful to value those opinions outside of the specific culture?

  7. #7 Ichthyic
    November 30, 2007

    OMG, someone let in the wingnuts

    I’m sure someone, somewhere, has remade “Who let the Dogs Out” with just such wingnuts in mind.

    gotta be out there on youtube somewhere.

  8. #8 Ichthyic
    November 30, 2007

    Was it his choice to go through the transfusion? Yes. But the child was preconditioned against it.

    BINGO

    too bad Priscilla doesn’t get that.

    I left not so subtle clues (*cough*cult*cough*), but somehow I doubt they were obvious enough.

  9. #9 Sastra, OM
    November 30, 2007

    Sam #202 wrote:

    It is sad that this kid died, from a seemingly treatable condtion. But he had faith. That’s something we all can learn from. He may be a “kid” but there are a lot of “adults” I know that are probablu far less mature than that young man was.

    The child died for a cause. And there are causes worth dying for. But that does not mean that this was a cause worth dying for, and we need to learn something from this child.

    “Faith” can mean hope, trust, confidence, devotion, and being steadfast. So in itself it could be good, or bad. It’s going to depend. But when used in the context of religion, it means being sure — really, really sure — of things that are hoped for, and of evidence which is not seen. It means being unwavering and confident of things which can’t be cross-checked or verified in this world. And not letting go. You don’t change your mind, you “lose your faith.”

    The faith, then, isn’t in God. The faith isn’t in heaven, or scripture, or a particular religion. When it gets down to it, the faith is in the self. That’s the cause.

    Religion is an area where good, intelligent, thoughtful people can’t come to a consensus. Forget the different sects — there’s not even an agreement on whether God even exists. So — could you be wrong? Answer: No. If you were wrong, could you know you were? Would you be able to find out, within the context of your faith? Answer again: No.

    Those are not good answers to those two questions. They are not humble, or honest, or virtuous. They don’t demonstrate character. If you were to put those questions to someone on a matter of politics, or science, or any other area of human endeavor, and get those answers, you know that it signifies that someone suffers from a stubborn and arrogant inability to consider themselves human, and liable to err.

    It’s the same when it comes to religion. No, it’s worse — because the experts themselves operate from the same “faith,” the need to believe beyond evidence in this world. So the kid didn’t die for a Higher Cause. He did not die for God. He died because he could not seriously consider the possibility that he was wrong.

    And that is not a mark of maturity.

  10. #10 Sastra, OM
    November 30, 2007

    BlueIndependent wrote:

    Wow, the most posts to a thread I’ve yet seen on this blog.

    Oh, this is nothing. I didn’t bother to read it all, but one of the recent entries (on global warming I think) was up over 1,200 last I bothered to check. I think Pharyngula was invaded by a mess of folks from another science-related blog. And you know how those kinda people are.

    Good post, btw. I agree with Orac, that people do have the right to make their own decisions on health — but this kid was too young. Sticky situation all around, though. No good outcome no matter what — best you get is holding down a hysterical teenager and hoping he overcomes the deep and bitter resentment in a few years.

  11. #11 MAJeff
    December 1, 2007

    oh, what was that term of PZ’s?

    Oh, yes; the demented fuckwits have arrived.

  12. #12 Ichthyic
    December 1, 2007

    To whom do I apply for funding?

    for a hoot, try the Templeton Foundation.

  13. #13 Ichthyic
    December 1, 2007

    It really is that simple.

    aye.

  14. #14 Ichthyic
    December 1, 2007

    To say that religion kills people, at least to say so without showing a little humility by conceding, sua sponte, the abhorrent record of “science” in this regard sounds tinny to me.

    since the science is not what is at issue here, your comment reeks of contrived equivalence.

    now, since it’s clear it was a quite inappropriate comparison, ask yourself why you constructed it to begin with.

    self-analyze, and you will find it not appropriate and most accurately described as a defensive mechanism taking the form of rhetoric on your part.

    care to try again?

  15. #15 Ichthyic
    December 1, 2007

    There, happy now? Mea culpa.

    more than, considering I kinda overreacted to your original post.

    However, I still think you are pushing a rhetorically libertarian position in your argument.

    real world laws regarding treatment of course are more complex, as are any in general that balance the interests of the majority, or the state, against the rights of an individual.

    hell, even seat belt laws can generate some interesting debate along these lines.

    In my defense, I just wanted to make it clear that the issue is of course far more complex than a simplistic viewing of any individual rights involved.

    Especially in this case, given the obvious cult influences involved.

  16. #16 Ichthyic
    December 1, 2007

    But praying did not build Dachau; ignorant “science” blessed the ultimate solution.

    i notice you put scare quotes around “science”, but not around “ignorant”.

    think about that before you spout further about the responsibility of “science” in the construction of concentration camps.

    think further about the issues of control involved, and politics, again, long before you broach the relevance of “science” to what you use as an example.

    and read this:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg

    still think science had anything to do with what happened in Germany in WWII?

  17. #17 Ichthyic
    December 1, 2007

    The fact that he got his “wish” merely encourages the next case of religious abuse.

    expect the “rattlesnake” xian sects to use this to further justify allowing their members to handle dangerous snakes for “religious” purposes.

    sorry, but this is nothing short of cult behavior, and if the label “religion” wasn’t attached to it, we wouldn’t even be here right now talking about it.

  18. #18 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    who believed that demons lived at the bottoms of lakes.

    ahh, so THAT’S what Nessy is!

    ML figured it out ages ago, long before “In Search Of” ever went looking.
    :P

  19. #19 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    Eins, Zwei… Fünf!

    drei, Sir!

    “…then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”

    Amen

  20. #20 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    You have not dealt with the question of whether we can conclude that the aunt is a murderer, or even a manslaughterer.

    here ya go:

    I raise my kids to think that they must be able to survive being bitten by poisonous snakes, or surely it means they are rejected by the Lord and will go to hell (based on a specific interpretation of several bible verses).

    my kid, having been thoroughly indoctrinated with this belief, when the occasion arises is exposed to poisonous snakes, is bitten and dies.

    who is responsible?

    btw, if you think I pulled that out of my ass, think again. There is a very well known american xian sect that does just this. It’s even been on various news and TV proggies over the years.

    as to whether or not the parents or peers are responsible for injury to the children involved, it’s not hard to look up the relevant court cases and see for yourself.

    I’ll give you one guess as to who was found responsible for injury to the minors.

  21. #21 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    …btw, this discussion, and the court cases relevant to it, are nothing new:

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-9494(195921)26%3A3%3C471%3ARUCSHR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

    note that paper is from 1959.

    and here’s a bit on the pentecostal snake handlers:

    http://www.rickross.com/groups/snake.html

    the real question to ask yourself is:

    how responsible are cult members for harm caused to people they indoctrinate into cults?

    the religion tag here just confuses the issue where it shouldn’t.

    someday, we might be able to get past that, but at this point, if it has the label “relgion” attached to it, it requires extra effort to bypass the automatic “pass” this fucked up society gives cult groups.

  22. #22 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    I didn’t realize the extent to which people who are not religious misunderstand spirituality

    first off, you should think about the fact that “sprituality” and “religion” are not at all synonymous.

    In fact, I think you have SO much to think about, we shouldn’t be hearing from you again for at least another year or two.

  23. #23 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    That’s a set up for, at the far end of the continuum, genocide.

    *Yawn*

    uh, who exactly is the extremist here?

    plank-eye-self

  24. #24 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    Nor does using war to keep others from imposing their will on us work.

    LOL

    I rather think you might want to reword that.

    war doesn’t stop people from HAVING a different will, but history has clearly shown its effectiveness in thwarting the absolute imposition of that will, for better or worse.

    or did you think that the war for independence in this country did nothing to stop the imposition of the King’s will?

  25. #25 David Marjanovi?, OM
    December 2, 2007

    How do you deal with the very similar issues of right to die for adults? Would the European system force Terry Schiavo to stay a vegtable? Does Europe deny adults the right to chose not to be recessitated (sp)?

    In Europe, are all minors absolutely denied all autonomy over their bodies? For example, can a raped 15 year old get an abortion over the objections of her parents?

    I bet not all of this is the same throughout Europe, not even throughout the 27 countries of the EU.

    However, Terry Schiavo had no brain cortex anymore. She’d have been declared dead as soon as that became known. On the other hand, “forcing” doesn’t apply to someone without a brain cortex anyway…

    New Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson wants to file charges, but has concluded that Oregon laws providing religious immunity to charges of homicide by abuse or neglect and manslaughter, enacted in 1995 and 1997, prevent her from doing so.”

    Religious immunity to charges of hom[in]icide by abuse or neglect and manslaughter? Can I believe my eyes?

    This is absolutely incredible.

    They have a propositional faith about what God is about, what God is like, how God works, why God works that way (all of these are, in Quaker speak, “notions”–things one can never know and shouldn’t spend much time thinking about)

    Whether God exists in the first place is a “notion”, too…

    Science is a verb

    I cannot resist pointing out that it isn’t. “Verb” itself isn’t a verb either.* The rest of your comment is spot-on, though!

    * Except in the joke about polysynthetic languages: “Why noun when you can verb?”

  26. #26 David Marjanovi?, OM
    December 2, 2007

    How do you deal with the very similar issues of right to die for adults? Would the European system force Terry Schiavo to stay a vegtable? Does Europe deny adults the right to chose not to be recessitated (sp)?

    In Europe, are all minors absolutely denied all autonomy over their bodies? For example, can a raped 15 year old get an abortion over the objections of her parents?

    I bet not all of this is the same throughout Europe, not even throughout the 27 countries of the EU.

    However, Terry Schiavo had no brain cortex anymore. She’d have been declared dead as soon as that became known. On the other hand, “forcing” doesn’t apply to someone without a brain cortex anyway…

    New Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson wants to file charges, but has concluded that Oregon laws providing religious immunity to charges of homicide by abuse or neglect and manslaughter, enacted in 1995 and 1997, prevent her from doing so.”

    Religious immunity to charges of hom[in]icide by abuse or neglect and manslaughter? Can I believe my eyes?

    This is absolutely incredible.

    They have a propositional faith about what God is about, what God is like, how God works, why God works that way (all of these are, in Quaker speak, “notions”–things one can never know and shouldn’t spend much time thinking about)

    Whether God exists in the first place is a “notion”, too…

    Science is a verb

    I cannot resist pointing out that it isn’t. “Verb” itself isn’t a verb either.* The rest of your comment is spot-on, though!

    * Except in the joke about polysynthetic languages: “Why noun when you can verb?”

  27. #27 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    Religious immunity to charges of hom[in]icide by abuse or neglect and manslaughter? Can I believe my eyes?

    hard to say without looking at the actual statutes in question, but it certainly sounds like it on the surface, and there is support for it here:

    http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/legal.htm

    there was a decent article published on this issue a few years back:

    1. Seth Asser and Rita Swan, “Child Fatalities from Religion-motivated Medical Neglect,” Pediatrics 101 (April 1998): 625-29.

    which is touched on in this discussion:

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=swan_19_1

  28. #28 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    Perhaps we should all consider an alternative central point of this case to be not the religious influence, but the medical legal principles related to autonomy.

    It’s already been addressed in this thread, scroll up a ways.

  29. #29 Ichthyic
    December 2, 2007

    that is the most twisted, back-assward analysis of a contention I think I’ve seen in the last week.

    bravo, Timothy.

    National Socialism was a religious movement?

    you can claim the true scottsman’s fallacy for yourself if you wish (Hitler was no true xian), but all those pictures of the man meeting with clergy, his regular church attendance, the construction of the ideology of the national socialist party around historical german religious mythos (yes, lots of references to that too, regardless of you discounting it all as being from “biased” sources – read Mein Kampf sometime), rather suggests otherwise. The man obviously recognized the power religious ideology held for social control, and worked hard to capitalize on it.

    that’s most certainly NOT secular.

    However, the bottom line is:
    None of it matters one whit.

    can you answer why, I wonder?
    I rather doubt it.

    Of course, you also failed to even bother to respond to the many other criticisms of your various contentions.

    whatever.

    you bore me.

  30. #30 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    HE WAS NOT brainwashed by NO MEANS. I was raised a Witness and I am now 36 I NEVER once felt like I was having that done to me.

    LOL

    talk about not grasping the concept.

    Personally 8th graders ARE SMART and pretty much now right from wrong.

    but not how to spell, evidently, even if they are pretending to be 36.

    with the odd use of all caps, I keep wondering if there is some secret message in there…

    hmm, anybody make anything out of the all caps words?

    OK
    NOT
    BUT
    NOT
    GOOD THINGS
    HE WAS NOT
    NO MEANS
    NEVER
    ALSO
    WHAT ABOUT THOSE
    ABORTIONS
    NOW THAT IS MURDER, WHAT
    WHO SMOKE AND PREGNANT
    NOT
    NO RIGHT
    STOP MOM
    NOT
    TEACH
    ARE SMART
    HAS THE CHANCE
    NEW WORLD
    IF
    EVER
    LISTEN
    WHAT
    TRY
    ALL
    DOES
    MIGHT
    AGAIN
    OH
    NOT
    ABORTIONS
    NOT

    Is it a simple word jumble puzzle, or is there really a secret JW code?

    I notice the word “not” is capitalized quite often (always except in two cases, one being a misspelling.

    is that part of the key to the code?

    We need to put the code-crackers on this one right away. Where is Billy Dembski when you actually need him?

  31. #31 Timothy Travis
    December 3, 2007

    Back when I did divorce law I ran into a tactic called “parroting.” What one does is accuse one’s opponent of doing that which one is doing oneself.

    Since in a divorce case there really is no referee except in the court room, itself, the “negotiations” are a lot like an internet “discussion,” a lot like this one.

    So, I am not as surprised as I might have been two days ago, to find this tactic going on in a science blog where people have such a high opinion of their own rationality.

    “Of course, you also failed to even bother to respond to the many other criticisms of your various contentions.
    whatever.
    you bore me.”

    Well, I bore you enough that you keep right on reading and responding with more obsfucation, deflection, avoidance, conflation, and refusing to deal with what I write. Parroting? Polly, indeed, craves a cracker.

    Well, here it is again:

    People have written here that those they disagree with them should all die, that there should be a hell so they could rot in it (read the comments!), all kinds of their civil rights should be curtailed to, among other things, pass their beliefs on to their children. Judges who make decisions you disagree with should be “tried” (the crime is, what? applying the law when it offends right thinking people?”) or resign (the only reason a judge could possibly rule in a way with which right thinking people disagree is that he’s a religious fanatic).

    Not one of you–not a single one of you– has said, “Hey, we’re a little out of control, here, like them or not, they are human beings.”

    I bore you.

    But you can’t put it down, can you? Perhaps you cannot stop trying to dismiss me because something is telling you there something to what I am saying about you and your divisive, alienating and, frankly, hateful treatment of people you define as a homogeneous group that you have defined in the shape of your own fears, one that acts as you act toward other people–projection is the word that comes to mind.

    Ichthyic, you have consistently refused to acknowledge the main point I am making about the dangerous hatred people in this group espouses against a whole class of people, some of whom have some of the characteristics they ascribe to all in the group and some of whom do not. This justifies outrageous demands here that “religious” people be suppressed and controlled and even worse.

    This group has a scapegoat, which is not how people guided by rationality deal with their problems.

    This kind of hatred is dangerous no matter who engages in it, whether it is in the service of “science” or “religion.” This is just evil.

    For a bunch of people I’d probably like (and have a lot to talk about other than this subject) if I met and socialized with you I have come to really fear you.

    Some of you I presume are university and college instructors–how are you going to deal with my daughter (who never evangelizes) when you find out she’s a Quaker? Are you going to do to her what you have done to me–will you define her as your caricature of “Christians” and then deal with her as that instead of another human being?

    I am not evangelizing you–I don’t care what you believe. I haven’t once asked anyone to believe anything I believe–in fact, you know very little about what I actually believe because I haven’t written about that very much–the label is all you need to make a judgment to consign someone to the ash heap of your distorted views. Religious–bad.

    But I care about how you treat people–I care about how everyone treats people. That’s been the message you continue to ignore in favor of taking shots at me as though I were the phantom that haunt you.

    How we treat one another–even as we oppose or work together on those things we agree or disagree on–is going to determine how it goes for us (and not “in the sky”–don’t presume to think that I believe in an afterlife of some sort or in “invisible men” or “sky pixies”) and for our children. We live in a country–and you write in a blog– where compassion and connection are not as valued as a clever sneer and promoting alienation.

    Yeah, I know. Facts are what counts. “Facts” like National Socialism was a religious movement.

    Of course people who use religions (or anything else) as vehicles for hatred and to control other people are to be feared and dealt with. But how you deal that defines you, not them. And if you become like you conceive them to be in order to defeat them then, precisely, in what sense have you defeated them?

    You are acting as dangerously toward others as the people you are afraid of and you really don’t see that. Some of you will say anything to make your point–and you will also ignore anything inconvenient to keep the discussion on your “talking points.” You are huddling by the fire muttering about the tribe across the river. Of course, they are huddled around their fire, too, muttering about you. It takes two to keep a cycle going…

    I am sure that I do bore you. Anything that isn’t an over-generalized half truth that fits in with your prejudices (or a hail and hearty “right on” to such) seems to me to be boring to you.

    I’ll stop boring you. It does take two to keep a cycle going and I want out of this one.

    Anyone who seriously would like to dialogue about such issues can find me and we can do that off line…less heat but, hey, more light.

    Thanks again for all the opportunity to work things through and to have the benefit of the challenge.

    Timothy Travis
    Bridge City Friends Meeting
    Portland, Oregon

    You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.

    –Albert Einstein, (attributed)

  32. #32 Jaycubed
    December 3, 2007

    Science is a verb
    I cannot resist pointing out that it isn’t. “Verb” itself isn’t a verb either.
    Posted by: David Marjanovi?, OM”

    The word “science” is not a verb, but science itself is a verb; it is a process not a thing. Thinking of science as a noun, such as thinking that science is a body of knowledge, is a category error often made by pseudo-scientists & anti-science religionists. If science were just a body of knowledge than there is little problem exchanging one body of knowledge for another; like trading I.D. for Evolution.

    I must admit a strong influence from Bucky Fuller’s I Seem To Be A Verb in considering not just science, but myself and every other person as a verb, a work in progress. A person’s name is a noun: that person is a verb.

    You are of course correct that “verb” is always a noun, it is never a process or action.

    ps.
    Thanks for your other comments.

  33. #33 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    I was going to point out that fake mathematicians generally aren’t much good at code-cracking,

    actually, after the DaVinci Code came out on film, Dembski did spend some time with the “bible code” issue on his UD site, and IIRC, trying to relate it to some ridiculous notion of messages in DNA or some such nonsense.

    there is little doubt these twisted individuals are very interested in “secret messages”.

    One would think they aspire to Masonhood…

  34. #34 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    .less heat but, hey, more light.

    less heat because nobody is there to call you on your BS, but most certainly not more light.

    go back to your closet, professor.

  35. #35 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    One would think they aspire to Masonhood…

    OTOH, wasn’t John Nash inordinately attracted to “secret codes”?

    hmm, now what was the reason for that again…

  36. #36 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    The senior partner I was working with was so angry that these people let their son die needlessly, but still chose to sue whoever they could go after: the railroad, the driver of the car, the property owner. It was an all around awful case

    hmm.

    Harsh as it might sound, I could envision a defense attorney arguing in a potential damages phase that the parents aren’t entitled to damages for “death”, since they were the ones actually, in the end, responsible for it.

    injury, yes, death, no.

    do you recall how the lawsuits went, by any chance?

  37. #37 MNObserver
    December 3, 2007

    Ichthyic, in Minnesota, the jury gets to apportion the damages in such a case. The defense would argue that they were only responsible for a temporary injury that the man would eventually recover from, the parents would argue that it was the acts of the defendants that caused the death. It’s ultimately a question the jury has to answer.

    In this case, it did settle prior to trial, so we never got that far along.

  38. #38 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    In this case, it did settle prior to trial, so we never got that far along.

    are you aware of any cases where it did make it past a jury?

    I’m rather getting a bug up my butt about this thing, now that I’ve observed that 38 states have laws protecting the egregiously religious from prosecution.

    I think it might be worthwhile to start collecting some court cases to examine.

    thanks.

  39. #39 Ichthyic
    December 3, 2007

    since transfusions come from people who aren’t killed, then obviously, transfused blood is not “the life”. Or in other words: “We don’t take the magic part of blood, so we don’t put the magic part into you.”

    that sounds like a decent argument to me.

    where’s our resident JW with the random caps fixation?

    oh, Melissa…

    what is the standard JW counter to such an argument?

    is there one?

  40. #40 John C. Randolph
    August 4, 2008

    As a child I was healed of an asthmatic condition through reliance on Christian Science alone.

    No, you weren’t.

    Your asthma went away on its own, as childhood asthma sometimes does, and you chose to give the credit to your superstitions.

    -jcr

  41. #41 Simon
    March 3, 2009

    Religion kills, but Jesus saves.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.