this is one of the reasons why religion is dangerous

[_beastie]

Yes, they do. But they can always "unchose" it if they want. And all they will have "suffered" is moral teachings that help them not have the problems common to many other kids growing up. They are taught not to smoke, drink, do drugs, engage in premaritcal sex. They are taught to be of service to their fellowman, to speak in public, to develop their talents. Sure hurts them for that early choice, doesn't it.

It never phases Charity to be completely inconsistent and even contradictory.

According to LDS theology, the baptismal covenant is THE most serious covenants that one undertakes in their entire life. But because Charity is a True Believer, her thinking shifts mid-track when her religion is discussed. Now, suddenly, an eight year old is capable of making the most serious decision of his/her life. And, of course, all its teachings are the best possible teachings. God knows what a miserable life they would have outside the church!!

(by the way, adding to the silly anti masturbation ban that harms youth, the anti-gay teachings, the patriarchal practices and attitudes of the church that slot human beings into predetermined functions, paying ten percent of one's income to the church despite one's financial situation, viewing oneself as chosen and elect and a god in embryo - just off the top of my mind - are teachings that do harm)

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks for the link. Lots of stuff germinated in this one...

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.”

Who's the worster here? Religion in general, JW's in particular or this guy, specifically? "Superior Court Judge John Meyer"??? Maybe they should have taken the case to an "Inferior Court"?? Could be litigation here?? Four defendents!? BIG BUCKS!!

Another case of being bound by law to stupidity. And, by tradition to indoctrination that binds even some, who seem intelligent, to irrational behaviours.

Someone above asked, "...what can ya do?" Exactly what we're doing here. Bringing to light, both good and not-good, issues that here-to-fore seldom moved beyond a 10 mile radius of the "happening".

Arroused intelligence will eventually displace ignorance, fear, supression, repression, and depression... Life is great!! Opportunities endless!! Warm regards, Roger

[_MishMagnet]

My sister is in her early 20's, temple married and a BYU student. She has a genetic condition that constantly threatens her health. She's hospitalized several times per year for it.

She's decided to have a baby although every doctor she's seen has told her it will both take years off her life, push her into diabetes for sure and might actually end her life if she has one of her episodes while pregnant.

There is no talking sense to her. She's gone to the temple and 'feels good about it.'

Such is the folly of mixing youth and faith in my opinion. Although older people don't act much better at times either.

I found myself in the low point of my life having 'felt good' about a decision and having several very strong answers to prayer. Fortunately my life wasn't in danger in addition to all the other things that went wrong but that experience does remain the turning point of my whole life.

[_dartagnan]

Jason, the flaw in your logic is that none of that bit about Stalin absolves the JW teaching from killing that kid

There is no flaw in his logic. You're trying to use this instance to smack religion in general but you don't want to put this into its proper perspective. If you want to call religion "dangerous" then you have to be making this judgment by contrasting it with non-religion. If atheism is just as dangerous as theism, then you have no basis to call one more dangerous than the other.

I think that was Jason's point, and it is a valid one.

and none of it absolves religion in general from fostering the kind of attitudes and permissiveness toward whacky ideas in the name of faith, that lead to this kind of thing.

We're not talking about religion in general, we are talking about the JWs. Jehovahs Witnesses represent a tiny fraction of the theistic world, and even in this case we are dealing with a boy's own free will to allow himself to simply die. I can think of many hypothetical situations where someone would prefer to die than allow something else to happen. Does that make the person dangerous?

I would rather die than watch my daughter get burned alive. Some would rather die than become a vegetable on life support. Does that make them dangerous, even though this choice would not be based on a religious principle?

At best your argument is a sort of tu quoque, and at worst it's just completely irrelevant.

No, I don't think you understand the argument. You guys are constantly throwing up little anecdotes to smack down theism in general, but you never want to apply this logic that flies in the face of a violent and ruthless atheistic history. Atheistic dictators, by percentage, have a far worse history of violence than do theistic leaders. But you don't want to acknolwedge this because it disrupts your worldview whereby the atheist represents an enlightened and evolved mind while the theist is just a step above a cave man.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, the flaw in your logic is that none of that bit about Stalin absolves the JW teaching from killing that kid, and none of it absolves religion in general from fostering the kind of attitudes and permissiveness toward whacky ideas in the name of faith, that lead to this kind of thing. At best your argument is a sort of tu quoque, and at worst it's just completely irrelevant.

I was not trying to absolve the JWs. However, you, as an apparent atheist, use this as in an example of why religion is dangerous. My point is, it seems less dangerous then atheism given the fact that atheism seems to lead to unrestrained maniacs that rise to power and slaughter millions. I think religion as a whole does more good then bad. Can the same be said about atheism?

[_Gadianton]

. . . . (and the idea of a 14 year being mature enough to make a life/death decision is laughable and based in ignorance in regards to the development of the human mind).

I agree with you here. And 14 year olds aren't old enough to decide about becoming sexually active, and taking birth control, and getting abortions, either. But our society has decided they are. Makes a person sick, all right.

Ah yeah. I also agree. A 14 year old is not old enough to decide whether to marry a man in his 30's who claims to be a prophet and commanded by God to deflower her, for time and all eternity. That really makes you sick, I'll bet, Charity.

[_Who Knows]

Jason, the flaw in your logic is that none of that bit about Stalin absolves the JW teaching from killing that kid, and none of it absolves religion in general from fostering the kind of attitudes and permissiveness toward whacky ideas in the name of faith, that lead to this kind of thing. At best your argument is a sort of tu quoque, and at worst it's just completely irrelevant.

I was not trying to absolve the JWs. However, you, as an apparent atheist, use this as in an example of why religion is dangerous. My point is, it seems less dangerous then atheism given the fact that atheism seems to lead to unrestrained maniacs that rise to power and slaughter millions. I think religion as a whole does more good then bad. Can the same be said about atheism?

But we have to look at cause and effect here.

Does atheism cause maniacs to slaughter millions? Are there certain 'beliefs' in atheism, that tell these maniacs that it's a good thing to do?

And likewise, did this kids JW beliefs cause his death?

[_The Nehor]

Jason, the flaw in your logic is that none of that bit about Stalin absolves the JW teaching from killing that kid, and none of it absolves religion in general from fostering the kind of attitudes and permissiveness toward whacky ideas in the name of faith, that lead to this kind of thing. At best your argument is a sort of tu quoque, and at worst it's just completely irrelevant.

I was not trying to absolve the JWs. However, you, as an apparent atheist, use this as in an example of why religion is dangerous. My point is, it seems less dangerous then atheism given the fact that atheism seems to lead to unrestrained maniacs that rise to power and slaughter millions. I think religion as a whole does more good then bad. Can the same be said about atheism?

But we have to look at cause and effect here.

Does atheism cause maniacs to slaughter millions? Are there certain 'beliefs' in atheism, that tell these maniacs that it's a good thing to do?

And likewise, did this kids JW beliefs cause his death?

Completely off-topic Why Me, but I just saw the same avatar we use on BoardGameGeek. That you?

[_Who Knows]

...Why Me...

grrr!

[_Sethbag]

Jason, the flaw in your logic is that none of that bit about Stalin absolves the JW teaching from killing that kid

There is no flaw in his logic. You're trying to use this instance to smack religion in general but you don't want to put this into its proper perspective. If you want to call religion "dangerous" then you have to be making this judgment by contrasting it with non-religion. If atheism is just as dangerous as theism, then you have no basis to call one more dangerous than the other.

I think that was Jason's point, and it is a valid one.

That could possibly be right, but I dispute that the tenets of atheism actually underpinned the acts of Stalin or anyone else. Stalin may have been an atheist, but that's no more causal to his actions than that he probably ate carrots within six months of his death. Atheism is the lack of a belief that there is a God. Period. No other belief system is assumed or implied by atheism. Contrast that with theism, which implies a Theistic authority outside of the bounds of human authority and morality, and reason, and the implication that ancient scriptures such as the Old Testament represent the Divine Will and ought to be followed, all of which directly lead to the situation where a 14 year old could be made to believe that it was better for him not to have a blood transfusion and die, than it was to have the blood transfusion and be looked on as unworthy by Jehovah.

and none of it absolves religion in general from fostering the kind of attitudes and permissiveness toward whacky ideas in the name of faith, that lead to this kind of thing.

We're not talking about religion in general, we are talking about the JWs. Jehovahs Witnesses represent a tiny fraction of the theistic world, and even in this case we are dealing with a boy's own free will to allow himself to simply die. I can think of many hypothetical situations where someone would prefer to die than allow something else to happen. Does that make the person dangerous?

I was in fact talking about religion in general (read the title of the thread) in that religion in general cultivates the kind of mindset that self-destructive practices based on the writings of Bronze Age goatherder morality and mythology as desirable and even admirable. If the Book of Mormon said something about no blood transfusions, Mormons would be right there with the JWs in sending their kids to an early grave by telling them it was better to die clean and pure than be defiled and made unworthy breaking God's commandments. The only difference, in this case, is a matter of interpretation of scripture, not the underlying mindset that would elevate the commandments in the Bible to "do this even if you're going to die" status.

At best your argument is a sort of tu quoque, and at worst it's just completely irrelevant.

No, I don't think you understand the argument. You guys are constantly throwing up little anecdotes to smack down theism in general, but you never want to apply this logic that flies in the face of a violent and ruthless atheistic history. Atheistic dictators, by percentage, have a far worse history of violence than do theistic leaders. But you don't want to acknowledge this because it disrupts your worldview whereby the atheist represents an enlightened and evolved mind while the theist is just a step above a cave man.

I don't think it's relevant because atheism represents only the lack in belief of a God, period. Any other belief that served to rationalize the killings of Stalin or Chairman Mao or whatever was not atheism, it was something else, like Marxism/Leninism or whatever. These beliefs do not derive from, but rather can coexist with, atheism, IMHO.