They cite verses from the Old and New Testaments of the Bible to support their position, including Genesis 9 vs 3-4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”
Acts 15:28-29 says: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favoured adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Source: Times Online
One reason why many people have become disillusioned with religion might be traced to the actions of some “religious groups” which often defy logic and common sense. The explanation or excuse usually offered is that the religious group followed the tenets of their faith. One such example is a story which appeared in the Times Online last week which highlighted the story of a 22 year old mother who died because her family (husband) refused to allow the hospital to perform a blood transfusion after a difficult delivery of twins. We should mention that the mother had signed a form prior to delivery refusing a blood transfusion in the event the doctors felt it was needed.
We know that we are stepping on the ‘corns’ of individuals who will be quick to say that all people should have the right to practice the doctrines of the religion of their choice. Isn’t it decreed in the constitutions of any self respecting democratic country? We respect all religions, but the ‘feeling’ we have always gotten when exposed to many of them is their healthy respect for human life, in fact human life is always attributed to the preserve of God or some higher being. It begs the question, why is it that the decision of a young husband and other family members can in such a whimsical fashion be responsible for the death of the mother of new born children? Ok, we will strike the word
whimsical! Why is it, as in this case, a Jehovah Witness family could decree that a young member and mother of their flock should die, and as a consequence two children are ‘robbed’ of the presence of a maternal presence for the rest of their lives? We are sorry if we cannot compute what was allowed to happen in this case.
To provide balance to our opinion this is what the JW’s had to say at the funeral of the deceased 22 year old mother:
Jehovah’s Witnesses defended yesterday the decision of a young mother who died after refusing a potentially life-saving blood transfusion, having just given birth to twins. To agree to a transfusion would have been a transgression comparable to adultery or sexual immorality, a spokesman from the central office of the British community of Jehovah’s Witnesses told The Times yesterday.
Source: Times Online
We will stop at this point because we can feel a sense of irrationality starting to overcome our writing. We respect the right of ALL citizens to practice a religion of choice but in societies we have been known to implement rules to ensure that our moral compass stays ‘steady as she blows’.