February 2, 2007

Thoughts On The Jehovah Sextuplets

Click cartoon to enlarge it:

This is a situation where a ridiculous religious belief gets in the way of SAVING LIVES. It is up to the state to protect the lives of minors; those incapable of making mature decisions. Once the state knows about this situation, they have every right to step in and SAVE LIVES.

What the parents are doing here is akin to murder and they want the doctors to be accomplices. Here are what doctors swear to:

From the Hippocratic Oath (Modern Version):
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

If a Fundamentalist Christian put his house on fire because he believes Jesus told him to do this on his 50th birthday, and to make sure his wife and kids were also in the house with him at the time, and firemen showed up and started to put out the fire, only to hear the man and his family telling them not to, because if they did, he and his family would wind up going to hell instead, do you think any fireman in their right mind (regardless of faith) would even consider what this lunatic is telling him to do?

And if the firemen didn't put out the fire, would this be acceptable to the religious freedom nuts out there.

Speaking of the nutcases, this situation in BC is silenting a lot of Fundies who have been whining about religious persecution, and the war against Christians. What says you Fundies? Should the doctors respect the parents wishes? Two have died so far. Is this acceptable?

This is even a dilemma for hardcore Libertarians who believe heroin and cocaine should be legalized. The ultra-Libertarians think government should have no say. What about here?

How about this?, since the babies were born premature, they can be considered late trimester abortion cases. Let the parents decide.

The bottom line is the children have been born (and they can survive outside the womb without the parents help), and they were not born with any beliefs.
There is no such thing as a Jehovah Witness ethnicity, and unlike Jews, are not Jehovah Witnesses by birth. They are too young to make this decision and not bound by any religion. They should get the best medical treatment that is possible. End of story.

Did you know that there are 6.5 million Jehovah Witnesses out there. But only 144,000 get to go to heaven when Jesus returns. The rest stay on an Edenized earth forever and ever.
I wonder what happens when the sun burns out.

It is just another cult of delusional Godidiots.

They keep saying the end is near. From the cult's beginnings in the late 1800's to now, they have already had three major dates of exact predictions of Jesus' Return come and go. In the meantime they were able to suck millions of dollars and belongings from their faithful flock.

Damning blog post at Progressive U.

Jehovah's Witness Law: In order for a crime to be recognized, you need either a confession by the guilty party or two witnesses. This pretty much gives a green light to sexual abuse.


  1. A marriage made in heaven between pedophiles and a Church that is more concerned with it's reputation than the welfare of sexual abuse victims.

  2. If you are talking about the JW family of 6 babies recently in the news.

    Apparently the 6 babies were conceived using IVF procedures. I don't understand how using IVF is approved by god, but blood transfusions aren't.

    Can't say I am a huge fan of IVF and I realize that that comment will probably get me into trouble somewhere along the line, but I kinda figure that if a couple is having a huge problem conceiving, that nature is trying to tell them something.

    (You may all attack me for being a heartless atheist now.) ;)

  3. The article you link two unfortunately mixes two issues, and claims that disfellowshipping is a violation of freedom of speech: "Their 'freedom of speech' was taken away by no church member being able to talk to them and in many instances they were put out on the street by their families as directed by church leaders." But an organization certainly has the right not to talk people, and to ask others not to talk to them. (Putting family members out on the street is a different matter, especially if it's done to minors.) It's stupid and may be dishonest, but not a violation of anyone's rights.

    BTW, I've been told that if a JW comes to your door, all you have to do is say, "I've been disfellowshipped," and they'll run away from you as fast as possible.

  4. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They discount Jesus as the Son of God and their religion is based a modern version of Arianism (a really, really old heresy). Their translation of the Bible is full of significant flaws and contradictions. Comparing it to a more accurate translation (or even original Greek and Hebrew) definitely sheds some interesting light on their wierd views. You don't have to tell a JW you have been disfellowshipped; it takes less than five minutes to find an inconsistency in their "Bible" about Jesus and His relationship to God (Revelations is a great place to start, especially since they love talking about the end of the world).
    (Also, it's not just 144,000 that get to go to heaven. It's 144,000 virgin men. One wonders what the attraction is for women or anyone with family.)
    With regards to their views on blood transfusions, it is based on a flawed understanding of Acts 15 in which Paul admonishes Christians to abstain from blood. This is is taken from a similar OT law (Leviticus 3) which also forbids the consumption of blood. Drinking blood was not unheard of in both the pagan cultures at the time of the Israelites and also Greece and Rome during the time of the early Christians. Both Paul and Moses were referring to religious practices that were deemed morally unacceptable by God for His people. They were NOT referring to medical procedures.
    Should the government interfere? The problem with allowing the government to interfere in this case is that the government has to be very careful when it tells a group of individuals to do something that contradicts their religious beliefs. In this case, however, a group of individuals are acting in a way that puts not just minors but BABIES in danger. Because of that, I think the government does have a right to act in this case.

  5. Ruth, thanks for dropping by.

    Here is a quote from a JW site:
    'Are you Christians?

    Yes. We follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and put faith in the ransom sacrifice he provided for the salvation of mankind. We imitate his example in preaching and teaching and in our dealings with fellow humans. We also look forward to living in true peace on earth under his heavenly Kingdom.'

    I look at anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God to be a Christian.

    There are obviously many different interpretations of the NT and many different types of Christians out there. And I can find any different Christian sect to state that their interpretation is the real one, and that all others have flaws, some more than others.

    I know Baptists who say that Catholics are evil and aren't Christian.

    To me, Jehovah Witnesses are just as Christian as anyone who accepts Jesus as the Son of God. But I think that Catholics like Dr. Ken Miller who accepts scientific fact to be closer to be less delusional than JW's or Evangelical Baptists.

    Just because God couldn't make his word easy to understand and caused all these different sub cults to spring up, doesn't make a Catholic less of a Christian than a Baptist or a JW.

  6. Check again under "God, Man, The Future" on the same site. One of their explicit teachings is that Jesus is NOT Divine and is NOT equal with God. This means that, despite their statement to the contrary, they cannot be considered Christians. JW's will even go so far as to say that Jesus rejects equality with God, citing Philippians 2 as their proof text. They especially reject the notion of the Trinity and have a very strange interpretation of the historical events surrounding the Council of Nicea as a result. The New World Translation of the Bible was written to exclude or reinterpret most Bible verses in which Jesus (or an apostle) states that He is God.
    There is a difference between a set of heretical beliefs and an all-out cult. There is also a difference between interpreting the same set of verses in a different way (look up Calvinism vs. Arminianism) and re-interpreting/mistranslating the Bible in order to support an incorrect belief. JW's and Mormon's have both mistranslated and reinterpreted the Bible to give it an entirely different meaning than the original.
    It's true; some people will say that Catholics are not Christians. There is also a belief that the anti-Christ will be the Pope or a Pope-like figure. These things are silly and cause division within the Church. They don't help the Christian cause at all. As far as Catholics go, yes of course they are Christians. So are the Orthodox Church and many other denominations. Mormons, however, are not. Like JW's, they have their own version of the Bible and reject many foundational truths and are classified as a cult.

  7. Ruth, I think you are right about the Jehovah Witnesses not being Christians. My sister is one of them and she considers herself a Christian even though she doesn't believe in Christ as a God. I think that they say that just to be accepted in the society. Like a psychological-social-religious strategy or something.
    But I don't agree with you when you want to put them down either. You say that their bible is full of flaws. Isn't your bible full of flaws too?
    That's the problem we have in the world right now. Religious people fighting all the time against each other. When the whole world becomes smarter and accepts the reality of the absence of a God then we would be a happier society.

  8. Well, if one accepts the bible as the word of god then the church of JW is correct. Only 144,000 get into heaven; they have to be vigin men; AND, from the 12 tribes of the children of Israel. Rev.7:4

  9. BEAJ
    I don't have your email (you can respond to this msg at rootles@gmail.com).
    Did you just post a highly profane comment telling me not to visit your blog anymore? Since it wasn't signed using your blogger id, I assumed it was not you and just deleted it


  10. Ruth, that wasn't me. It was most likely Rickey. Did it come from California, if you can tell from your site meter?

  11. I cut to the chase and consider all religions cults. It is only the cultural acceptance of their beliefs that differs.

  12. If you do a search on “email headers gmail” you will find instructions that will tell you how to find out who the original sender of a message is. Most unprincipled mail abusers do not realize there is extended email header information included with all email messages that includes information like who sent the original message the route it took to get delivered the IP address they used when they sent the message etc. Also most services have a place where you can report abuse.

    ISP’s and internet mail services generally don’t like having their users reported as abusers of their system and will terminate that person’s internet service(s). It takes up their time and their domain name could get black listed not to mention the hundreds of pages of court documentation that has been written about how to deal with internet abuse and how it applies to etc etc etc. Suffice it to say ISP’s don’t want to get caught up in courts about abusive net users. Most services also have some kind of “terms of use” you click on when you sign up that makes it possible for them to charge the liable person as is appropriate.

    If you are looking to get a troll who has been bothering you in some deep dodo, you might even consider giving out your email address and letting their low IQ do the rest.

  13. Jhrhv, the troll apparently said it was me and left a nasty message on another bloggers site.

  14. BEAJ, sure sounds like Rickey the loser trolls M.O. doesn't it?

    I just wanted Ruth to now that with email header info if she wants to she can bust Rickey and probably get his internet access taken away. At the very least if its his first offence when someone has taken him to task he would be put on warning of suspension of service.

    Who you cheering for in the game today? I think I’ll take Da Bears.

    The day of the year when millions of people around the globe get excited about a bunch of men throwing around a sack of air. YEAH!!!! I love it.

  15. Jhrhv, I don't think Ruth got an email, but someone posted on her blog pretending to be me.
    I like da Bears. Defense over offense, but the game is unbettable to me even with the 7 point spread....7 points is high, do the bookies know something?