After a few months, even if you had every drop of blood switched for new blood, all of those alien blood cells would have died and you're body would be full of 100% natural, your blood. It's not like you're trading blood and losing your blood forever. Besides, your blood is made u of all the different crap you eat. These beliefs stem from the misconception that we have a finite amount of blood in us and we use it our whole lives. These teachings come from the same book that tells us about a guy who was speared to death for pulling out if his wife because people used to believe we had a limited amount of semen as well (they thought it was stored in your head). I can't abide murder based on biological misconceptions.
I don't mean to put words in Adam's mouth, but I don't think simple death is the issue. I'm sure that if an adult decides to forgo life saving operations for his/herself and dies, that's their own choice. But when a young child is refused life saving treatment because their parent/guardian refuses it for them and dies (or really anyone who is unable to make that decision - this is why we should all have living wills, friends), it is selfishness on the part of that decision maker. Do whatever you want and get yourself killed, but don't drag others down with you.
Exactly. I actually support euthanasia and capital punishment (obviously all to be considered on a case by case basis). I am appalled by abortion (except in extreme situations) and parents making decisions such as the one currently under discussion. The reason minors have a guardian is because they are too young and inexperienced to always know what's best for themselves. This is not to say anyone under 18 can't make an informed decision, but it defeats the purpose of having a minor under the care of an adult if that adult is just going to encourage the minor to make decisions which they may not have made if they had a few more years of experience. If that boy was raised by his biological parents, he would have wanted to live. I realize it's not my place to decide whether or not God is real, but the odds are definitely against the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of God being true. I don't think it's responsible to allow such a young person to make a decision about his life based on the hope that he'll be rewarded in the afterlife.
My biggest problem with this sort of situation is that the boy wasn't able to make a well-informed decision. He was most likely sheltered as is encouraged for parents within the Jehovah's Witness community. They are told flat out to avoid any ideas that go against their religion. They are not supposed to even listen to people or read anything with a different point of view. I just can't consider a person well-informed when they've been denied any exposure to alternatives. As far as a child raised as a Jehovah's Witness knows, the majority of the world is just like them. When they encounter someone who is different, they are told that person is just a rare case. They have no reason to question what they are told. They are taught that asking questions is a bad thing. They discourage thought. Literally, the elders will say that you should not question any of their teachings. It's not faith, it's just good old-fashioned brainwashing.
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The suicide of a young man and the murder he committed before he killed himself are being blamed on a cult led by his mother.
Also disturbing, former members who spoke to CNN say they witnessed Ricky Rodriguez having sex with his mother, Karen Zerby, the leader of the sect now known as "The Family International."
The sect's activities and history are detailed in a newly released book, "Jesus Freaks." The sect was founded in California in the 1960s by David Berg, who referred to himself as "Mo," short for Moses. Berg was a self-proclaimed prophet.
Former sect members tell CNN Berg encouraged adult-child sex. More often than not, they say, the chosen child was Rodriguez, the son of Karen Zerby, who Berg called his queen. Zerby became the leader of the sect when Berg died in 1994.
"Jesus Freaks" author Don Lattin says Berg "wanted his child to embrace sexuality, to be a sexual being as an infant and growing up."
Former members say Berg and Zerby wrote about their beliefs in papers distributed to members. It was Berg's how-to guide for raising sexual children. The Family International now says all "questionable publications were officially renounced and expunged between the late 1980s and early 1990s."
In Berg and Zerby's manifesto, Rodriguez was the main character.
Former member Davida Kelley told CNN, "I actually witnessed Karen Zerby having intercourse with her own son, Rick Rodriguez, at age 11." Kelley says she, too, had been abused by Berg, starting at age 5. "You were only required to have actual intimate intercourse with David Berg once you were, like, the mature age of, like, 12," she says sarcastically.
Berg was apparently so obsessed with sex he used it to expand his group around the world. Lattin says Berg sent women out to seduce men and lure them in to accept his gospel of Jesus. Lattin says Berg called the practice "Flirty Fishing."
CNN made several attempts to interview The Family International, but it refused. In a statement, the group acknowledged Berg taught sexual liberty without "instituting safeguards for the protection of minors." But it says that was corrected in 1986 and any infractions are an "excommunicable offense." The group also told CNN all of Davida Kelley's allegations are false and Zerby never abused her son.
Rodriguez, who escaped from "The Family International" in 2001, apparently was so deeply scarred that he was making plans to kill his mother. CNN has obtained a copy of a videotape he made two years ago, in which he warned, "She's gonna pay dearly, one way or the other," while brandishing a knife and loading guns at his kitchen table.
Within hours of finishing the tape, in January 2005, Rodriguez tracked down his childhood nanny, Angela Smith. Former member Kelley says "she was one of the many female adults that had intercourse with Rick Rodriguez."
In his first bloody act of revenge, Rodriguez murdered his nanny. He cut her throat and left her body in his Arizona apartment. But he was still on the hunt for his mother. Lattin says Rodriguez felt the need to take justice into his own hands because "most of the abuse was, like, 20 years ago, so the statute of limitations had expired. Most of it happened outside the U.S., so it's very difficult to prosecute."
A spokesman for the group told CNN its "policy for the protection of minors was adopted in 1986. We regret that prior to the adoption of this policy, cases occurred where minors were exposed to sexually inappropriate behavior between 1978 and 1986."
Some of those exposed to the alleged abuse may have chosen suicide to escape the pain. A Web site set up by people who grew up as children in the cult says at least 30 of them have committed suicide, though CNN has no way of verifying that.
Rodriguez became a part of that group. He failed to find his mother, something his wife says he couldn't live with. Elixcia Munumel remembers their last phone call: "He's like 'Baby, I love you.' He said, 'Come die with me.' "
Rodriguez died alone at age 29 in January 2005 on a deserted road, four years after he fled the sect. A single shot to the head ended the misery he fought so hard to escape. His mother is still the leader of the family. She has not been charged with a crime and lives in seclusion.
NINE men who pleaded guilty last month to gang-raping a 10-year-old girl at the Aurukun Aboriginal community on Cape York have escaped a prison term, with the sentencing judge saying the child victim "probably agreed" to have sex with them.
Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley ordered that the six teenage juveniles not even have a conviction recorded for the 2005 offence, and that they be placed on a 12-month probation order, The Australian newspaper reported this morning.
Queensland's attorney-general is meeting with the state's prosecutions boss to consider the possibility of lodging an appeal against the sentence. The appeal period has lapsed, however it has been reported that the state could apply for an extension.
Judge Bradley sentenced three men over the age of consent of 16 - aged 17, 18 and 26 - to six months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended for 12 months.
Judge Bradley said from her Cairns home yesterday that she considered the sentences "appropriate" in the case because they were the penalties asked for by the Crown prosecutor.
"I am not in a position to comment and I refer you to my sentencing remarks," Judge Bradley told The Australian.
Family supporters of the child victim warned that violence and murders could follow the judge's decision not to jail any of the offenders, and they questioned what message the ruling sent to the community.
When sentencing seven co-accused on October 24 at Aurukun, Judge Bradley noted: "The girl involved was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of you."
The four juveniles are aged 14 to 16 years. They and the adults come from some of the most prominent and powerful Aboriginal families on Cape York.
Two more juveniles pleaded guilty on November 6 to raping the child, and were also given probation with no convictions recorded.
The child victim, now aged 12, does not enjoy the elevated family status of her attackers, and has had to be removed from Aurukun and put with foster parents.
News of the non-custodial sentences has added to the violent hatreds that exist in Aurukun between families and tribes and which have played a part in recent brawls involving dozens of assailants, many armed with sticks and spears.
Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine said last night he had called for an urgent meeting this morning with state Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare, who, it is understood, was not told of the submissions made by her prosecutor for non-custodial sentences for the rapists.
Mr Shine said he needed to receive a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the sentencing, including the prosecutor's submissions.
"I have been made aware of this tragic event this afternoon and have had an opportunity to read the sentencing remarks," Mr Shine said.
"I'm truly horrified by the circumstances of these offences. The circumstances of this case have not previously been brought to my attention, and nor has there been any communication with my office with regard to an appeal.
"Rape, particularly of a 10-year-old girl, by numerous offenders, is to my mind horrific in the extreme.
"It therefore appears to me that what I consider to be a particularly lenient sentence needs explanation."
One of the adult rapists is on the Australian National Child Offence Register following a conviction on March 29 last year for unlawful carnal knowledge of a female child - an offence committed after he was charged with the rape of the 10-year-old girl.
Judge Bradley said the man was the oldest and should have known a lot better.
"You cannot have sex with anyone under 16," she said.
"However, as I said before, I am not treating anyone any differently in terms of being a ringleader, and in your case, again, I will impose a sentence of imprisonment but it will be wholly suspended so you do not go to jail today.
"But if you get into more trouble in the next year, you could end up in jail." The man had been arrested on August 7, 2006, and the judge said the 14 days he spent in custody awaiting his sentence was to count as "imprisonment already served".
When sentencing the juveniles, Justice Bradley said: "All of you have pleaded guilty to having sex with a 10-year-old girl and (one of the juveniles) has pleaded guilty to having sex with another young girl as well.
"All of you have to understand that you cannot have sex with a girl under 16.
"If you do, you are breaking the law, and if you are found out, then you will be brought to court and could end up in jail.
"I accept that the girl involved, with respect to all of these matters, was not forced, and that she probably agreed to have sex with all of you.
"But you were taking advantage of a 10-year-old girl and she needs to be protected, and the girls generally in this community need to be protected.
"This is a very serious matter. It is a very shameful matter and I hope that all of you realise that you must not have sex with young girls.
"Anyone under 16 is too young. Some of you are still children yourselves. Others of you are adults but I am treating you all equally in terms of the behaviour.
"I am not treating any of you as the ringleader or anything like that."
She asked each prisoner to stand up and said she hoped they would realise it was wrong to have sex with young girls.
Justice Bradley then offered them probation and when each agreed to accept that, she said she would not record a conviction.
To one of the juveniles, she said: "You are still a child. You have pleaded guilty to one offence of rape.
"You have been in a lot of trouble in the past, though, and you still have some community service to do.
"You have not been doing that well. I am prepared to offer you probation but you have got to stick with the rules of probation."
The juvenile agreed and was then placed on 12 months' probation, with no conviction recorded.
H. Res. 847: Recognizing the Importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;
Whereas Christians identify themselves as those who believe in the salvation from sin offered to them through the sacrifice of their savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and who, out of gratitude for the gift of salvation, commit themselves to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Bible;
Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;
Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its roots in Christianity;
Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;
Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and
Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;
(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;
(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
From the BILL OF FRIGGIN' RIGHTS Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
It's not an establishment of religion, it's a recognition of the social and historic significance of Christianity within the Western World. It neither affects nor impacts anything.
What the fuck... To those who aren't following the link, the resolution passed 372 for to 9 against, with 10 not voting and 40 not present. I'll leave y'all to draw the conclusions.
EDIT: and Behemoth, I don't understand, how is Christianity not a religious establishment?
I think he's arguing semantics again, where Christianity is a faith, and Roman Catholic or Mormonism are establishments (central authoritative body). The text in the constitution is interprettable either way, but I prefer to read it as any religion. I'd prefer my government and my religion to be transparent to each other.
hardly. As it says; our nation was founded by Christians and modeled on Christian values. The entire Western ideal is the Christian ideal. We have made weak attempts to place a paper wall between laws and religious doctrine, but as you so love to point out, morals are rather subjective. Most can agree that there are certain common attributes to all functioning societies around the world (e.g. murder is wrong, cooperation towards a common goal is good). However, to write such specific laws as are necessary to govern such a large, impersonal society as ours, we need more specific guidelines to create a more objective set of morals. For the Western World, we use traditional Judaeo-Christian laws. When they are not in agreement, we go with the Christian way. Anyway, the point is that following Christian ideals is not all that contrary to our current path.
EDIT: I'm not arguing semantics. The fact of the matter is, words have definitions. We use different words because they have different meanings. When writing any legal document you have to choose your words carefully. The text is not interpretable either way. It says what it means. The government will not favor any one religion over another. This latest bill does not say that we are making Christianity our nations official religion. All it says is that our government recognizes the fact that the vast majority of it's population celebrates this religious holiday. If we had a religiously affiliated government program of any sort, that would be an "establishment of religion". It would be a slippery slope if the bill had something along the lines of "all US citizens will observe this holiday" written in it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than an appeasement for all of the right-wing nuts who think that Christians are persecuted by people like you.
I don't know, I'd say it's a pretty massive deal that something in direct violation of the First Amendment passed the house. And while the Christian morality is our de facto one, what happens when, for example, a bill is proposed that does not "express continued support for Christians?" Isn't acknowledging another faith as legitimate not in support of Christians? Which Christians? It all seems a mess.
Slippery. Slope. Individuals, congregations, communities, cities, states, etc.: I'm fine with them supplementing their laws with whatever other texts they need in order to live how they want. If it is religion, so be it. I am not fine with a written document ratified by a majority of our nations "leaders" even recognizing Christianity as existent, let alone praising it as this resolution does. With something like this in writing, it is signifigantly easier to enact laws or excuse actions that would otherwise give preferential treatment to those following this particular faith.
If the Christian doctrine is so ingrained in our country as you say, then a bill like this would be totally unnecessary. However, the House, in their infinite paranoia, seem to think that Christianity is under fire by the "fringe" religions. I really can't see any other reason that any one of our elected officials would even CONSIDER bringing this up.
This in itself does nothing. It gives the government the legal right to recognize its importance. That doesn't do much. However, it seems to me that the government in the future can make decisions based on its previously established right to recognize Christianity.
In other words, Christianity can influence future government decisions.
Am I wrong on this? This is what it looks like to me.
The operative clauses of this bill really don't do anything, except maybe
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
I would like to know what this "support" is, and am curious if they'll pass a familiar bill when Ramadan comes around.
However, it's not only just another one of the thousands of congratulatory-type bills that Legislatures pass (I remember the Idaho Legislature passing a bill commending Napoleon Dynamite, for Christ's sake), but also another front in the completely idiotic culture wars in this country. What, is your congressman AGAINST Christmas?
This in itself does nothing. It gives the government the legal right to recognize its importance. That doesn't do much. However, it seems to me that the government in the future can make decisions based on its previously established right to recognize Christianity.
In other words, Christianity can influence future government decisions.
I support the legislature commending Napoleon Dynamite.
EDIT: Also, thanks to those who agree with me. Sometimes, when someone like myself is constantly told that I'm wrong, I start to think I may be going crazy. You've kept the demons at bay for another night.
DOUBLE EDIT: I think I'm going to make myself a list of the names and contact information for those representatives elected by my district, along with those who may have a sympathetic ear for my plights. I'm actually e-mailing my Representative tonight and following up with a written letter as well.
(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;
(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.
While the language and tone are strikingly different, I think we can now go back to what I care about, how these managed to violate the first amendment and still be adopted. The Christian bill seems to be "Hey, we want one too!" much more than any attempt to shift US policy.
EDIT: This is important because, beyond the House now being able to say that they respect and support x religion, it seems that nobody cares about the resolutions. Probably. And Jakey, here you are. RESEARCH'D!
Comments
EDIT OF:
Scratch that, because that's what I'm trying to do myself is push my beliefs. I guess what I mean is, why do you find human death so horrible?
My biggest problem with this sort of situation is that the boy wasn't able to make a well-informed decision. He was most likely sheltered as is encouraged for parents within the Jehovah's Witness community. They are told flat out to avoid any ideas that go against their religion. They are not supposed to even listen to people or read anything with a different point of view. I just can't consider a person well-informed when they've been denied any exposure to alternatives. As far as a child raised as a Jehovah's Witness knows, the majority of the world is just like them. When they encounter someone who is different, they are told that person is just a rare case. They have no reason to question what they are told. They are taught that asking questions is a bad thing. They discourage thought. Literally, the elders will say that you should not question any of their teachings. It's not faith, it's just good old-fashioned brainwashing.
God is real. I have recently discovered this.
Also, what a great way to spend a 14-year-old life time! NOT.
holy... f-... wha-....
Some silver lining for the future, hopefully.
Transfusion-free medicine for Jehovah's Witnesses
SCIENCE!!!!
Wait, wrong thread....
Wait, that works in this thread too! ^_^.
Don't they have statutory rape laws in Australia?
The article made it seem like she didn't even talk to the girl. And even if she agreed there are statutory rape laws, it's still illegal.
Ron Paul was not present for the voting. I know he would have voted Nay. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-1143
EDIT: and Behemoth, I don't understand, how is Christianity not a religious establishment?
EDIT: I'm not arguing semantics. The fact of the matter is, words have definitions. We use different words because they have different meanings. When writing any legal document you have to choose your words carefully. The text is not interpretable either way. It says what it means. The government will not favor any one religion over another. This latest bill does not say that we are making Christianity our nations official religion. All it says is that our government recognizes the fact that the vast majority of it's population celebrates this religious holiday. If we had a religiously affiliated government program of any sort, that would be an "establishment of religion". It would be a slippery slope if the bill had something along the lines of "all US citizens will observe this holiday" written in it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than an appeasement for all of the right-wing nuts who think that Christians are persecuted by people like you.
If the Christian doctrine is so ingrained in our country as you say, then a bill like this would be totally unnecessary. However, the House, in their infinite paranoia, seem to think that Christianity is under fire by the "fringe" religions. I really can't see any other reason that any one of our elected officials would even CONSIDER bringing this up.
This in itself does nothing. It gives the government the legal right to recognize its importance. That doesn't do much. However, it seems to me that the government in the future can make decisions based on its previously established right to recognize Christianity.
In other words, Christianity can influence future government decisions.
Am I wrong on this? This is what it looks like to me.
(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;
I would like to know what this "support" is, and am curious if they'll pass a familiar bill when Ramadan comes around.
However, it's not only just another one of the thousands of congratulatory-type bills that Legislatures pass (I remember the Idaho Legislature passing a bill commending Napoleon Dynamite, for Christ's sake), but also another front in the completely idiotic culture wars in this country. What, is your congressman AGAINST Christmas?
EDIT:
Well, now, that makes sense too. Fuck.
EDIT: Also, thanks to those who agree with me. Sometimes, when someone like myself is constantly told that I'm wrong, I start to think I may be going crazy. You've kept the demons at bay for another night.
DOUBLE EDIT: I think I'm going to make myself a list of the names and contact information for those representatives elected by my district, along with those who may have a sympathetic ear for my plights. I'm actually e-mailing my Representative tonight and following up with a written letter as well.
While the language and tone are strikingly different, I think we can now go back to what I care about, how these managed to violate the first amendment and still be adopted. The Christian bill seems to be "Hey, we want one too!" much more than any attempt to shift US policy.
EDIT: This is important because, beyond the House now being able to say that they respect and support x religion, it seems that nobody cares about the resolutions. Probably. And Jakey, here you are. RESEARCH'D!