Extremist Religions and Personal Damage

OK, all you fans of religious posts!

I have two examples here of where I believe that extremist religious beliefs have actually resulted in real personal damage to those who practice them. Let me just say right up front that I do not believe that a loving God, or even a “lets just keep everyone healthy” kind of God would want either of these examples to occur in “His” name.

Example 1 – My wife’s sister is a Jehovah’s Witness (which I regard as a classic “extremist religion”). She was alone for many years after a terrible first marriage and divorce, and finally found a kind and loving man in her church that she recently married. This guy is practically a saint. He helps others, he never complains, he orders just bread and water when you try to take them out to dinner, etc. etc. He is always happy and upbeat, and willing to lend a hand on any project from household repairs to helping older relatives get around. So far so good, right?

Wrong. Turns out that this guy (my new brother-in-law) has a tumor on his neck which is not malignant but still needs to be removed since it is growing and will eventually cut off his circulation, resulting in his death. There are plenty of surgeons who can do the procedure, which is about an 8 hour job – fairly complex, but nothing that can’t be easily and safely handled in today’s operating rooms. Of course, it will require blood transfusions since any head and neck surgery typically does because of the massive arteries that will be affected by the procedure. Since this guy is a devout Jehovah’s Witness, he can’t accept a blood transfusion. My wife’s sister backs him up in this. They are going from doctor to doctor trying to find someone who will operate under those conditions (no blood transfusions) and are being turned down everywhere. I don’t blame the doctors at all – they have little tolerance for whacko religious beliefs getting in the way of a potential patient’s chances of survival (to say nothing of their own malpractice concerns).

So now it looks like my new brother-in-law is going to die – he’s going to die because he believes that God says you can’t have a blood transfusion, and his wife is willing to let him die in a horribly misguided support of his belief (even though she waited many years for her soulmate, and they have been very happy as a married couple).

Is this right? What do you religious folks say about this? I can't wait for someone to come up with the example of Job, etc....

Example 2 – My wife’s best friend lives in Florida where she was at one time a big party girl. Lots of drinking, drugs, illicit sex, fake boobs – the whole nine yards. Apparently a great sex life with her first husband, who was an alcoholic and eventually divorced her for a younger "hotter" woman. However, after she got divorced, she turned to Jerry Falwell’s brand of religion – I guess it is some flavor of Baptist? Not sure. Anyway, she goes to this super conservative church (speaking in tongues, laying on of hands, etc.) and is taking classes through Liberty University. Her problem is that she is very passionate and sensual and needs a man in her life. But she can’t find one that doesn’t want to have sex with her before marriage, and she also wants this – badly. VERY badly, from what I can tell of her conversations with my wife (and even me, when she visits us). However, she denies herself this basic human pleasure because she believes that God told her she can’t have sex unless and until she is married again. This woman isn’t getting any younger (in her mid-50s). She still looks great, but doesn’t have too many “good years” left in her. For the life of me I cannot understand someone so passionate and clearly in need of human intimacy denying herself that because of some crazy notion that God says only sex between married couples is OK (and maybe even that is questionable).

Is this right? What do you religious folks have to say about this? Let's hear the invectives against fornication, etc.

I’ll conclude with what I have to say. Both of these are prime examples of where the practitioners of “extremist religions” are actually damaging themselves through their own mental prisons/belief systems. In the one case, the damage will eventually lead to death. In the other, simply watching one’s life pass one by without a partner to engage in physical love with.

Though the one case is clearly worse than the other (because the belief itself will result in the person's death), both are good examples of how extremism is the most damaging to the individuals who believe in those extreme views themselves. In other words, I go on my happy way praying for these fools to see the light and the error of their ways while they go on to death, loneliness, and unfulfilled needs. Too bad – so sad.

Begs the question - what would Jesus do? Doesn't it?

Carl

 

Example 1 - Will the JW's allow autologous donations (patient donates some of his own blood beforehand)?

Example 2 - Why doesn't she find a nice guy from church who doesn't mind that she had a past and who will marry her first?

 

Carl,

Your examples assume that everyone finds happiness and satisfaction in the same things you do. Not so!

In example 1, JWs believe in the sacred nature of blood and the prohibition of introducing it into the body. They cannot accept blood in any fashion. A poor exegesis of the scripture, IMHO, but apparently they find satisfaction in serving God in that way. As long as both husband and wife agree, accept the circumstances of their decision, don't cause physical harm to another, and find peace with their decision, why do you assume God is not honored?

In example 2, why do you assume she finds no satisfaction in obedience to God's Word? You believe it to be a crazy notion to save sex for marriage, while I believe it to be a crazy notion to throw away life's most sacred and intimate interaction on someone I don't even know.

I sacrifice much in life to serve God and have no regrets, concerns, issues, or reservations about it.

All that aside, you believe religious nuts are missing out on something becuase of their decisions. I believe you are missing out on something by not knowing the joy, peace, and satisfaction of serving God according to His rules.

For me, "Real personal damage" would be sacrificing my eternal soul for a short term indulgence based on someone else's definition of "normal".

You and I would find some agreement when religious fanatics cross the line and cause harm to another in "serving God" (blowing up buses, bombing abortion clincs, protesting at a gay man's funeral).

While I am certain we both may believe the other to be wrong, rest assured I would be miserable trying to live life according to your rules.

BTW Falwell's "brand" is fundamentalism (there would be no speaking in tongues, laying on hands, etc.). There would be a strict adherence to a literal interpretation of Scripture and a strong call to evangelism.

 

Speaking in tongues and laying on of hands sounds like Pentecostalism, which would be the "brand" of Pat Robertson (founder of Regent University).

 

Christian Science is scary. I've seen a case or two involving parents refusing to obtain medical treatment for their young children.

There's something worse going on around here, though. There's an itinerant preacher who does tent revivals and claims in his posters and handouts (Spanish only, BTW) to remove breast lumps and cure cancer.

For anyone out there who thinks that this sort of thing is legitimate, I recommend finding a copy of "A Doctor in Search of a Miracle". I don't remember the surgeon/author's name but his investigation was personal and careful.

 

another case

In Peace Corps we had a lady that was a Christian Scientist who wouldn't take the anti-malarial pills. Long story short, she died on her front porch steps of malaria. The villagers don't mess with dead people so she sat there for two weeks until we westerners heard about it and recovered her. (with much gagging)
One of the many times in my life when religion really ticked me off. She was a good person and only 24.

 

Those are really good questions. Apparently it is still not OK to do that even with your own blood for a JW - once it leaves the body, it is seen as "sinful" for it to re-enter, at least that's what I've been told by my misguided inlaws.

As for example 2, that is also a possibility for her. But I question why she is seen as having a "past" when all she wants to do is just have some wild fun sex - none of which incidentally (in my opinion) would condemn her to anything but experiencing the joys of THIS world while on her journey to eventual paradise in the next.

 

I knew I was off base on the laying on of hands thing with Falwell when I wrote it - but what the heck, it stirs things up and paints a vivid picture. I respect your views on this, kansasbaptist, and appreciate your response. However, I do not think it is good - in fact I think it is EVIL - for my sister-in-law and her new husband to hide behind their religion while he faces a death sentence because of the stubborness of his misguided beliefs. This is one case where science and the secular world DO know better.

As for the indulgence in pleasures of the flesh (as if that somehow sacrifices your eternity), what can I say? We simply do not agree. I believe that God wants people to enjoy each other sexually and otherwise, and that it is a great joy that people share. I even believe that it is OK for married people to have open relationships, so long as both partners are "in the loop" on that arrangement. I do not think that this in anyway affects one's likelihood of salvation. I DO think that the restrictive sexual positions of most conservative Christian churches (and a lot of other religions, like Islam) are more the results of male-dominated patriarchs laying down the law on "their women" than anything even remotely inspired by God.

Thanks for your reply though.... best wishes to you as you enjoy your life (which apparently contains a fair amount of self-restraint and control of "carnal urges"). Sounds like fun - NOT!

 

Originally posted by Carl_Reginstein

And Best wishes to you as you enjoy yours (which apparently contains a fair amount of ............, well you know),

This is truly a most difficult subject to comment on. I think you and I agree on this, for the most part. I cannot imagine a situation in day-to-day life where God would favor us to choose death over life. Like you, it is hard for me to imagine a God that demands that level of sacrifice from His followers. Even among the most conservative of us, common sense is still a good tool to invoke.

 

Good post. Of course you know me... I have problems with remarks like "fake boobs" and "doesn’t have too many “good years” left in her," but I can get past that and appreciate your overriding and valid points. I consider myself "religious" by any standard, yet I completely agree with your essential point; and with your definition of "extremist" in this case. Jehovah's Witnesses have it wrong. Falwell and Robertson and all the extremists have it wrong. Always have.

Ted's "autologous donations" is the first thing that came to my mind. There are, quite likely, ways that your brother-in-law may be treated without circumventing his religious beliefs... however misguided they may be.

Your brother-in-law and his wife (and whatever doctor they can get to stop playing it so safey and to open his/her mind to all the possibilities) should read the articles that may be found by doing a Google search on these terms:

• +autologous +blood +"jehovah's witness"

I'm sure they'll be helped by what they find there.

And, of course, kansasbaptist played right into that invitation by giving you almost exactly what you thought you'd hear, in almost exactly the way you thought you'd hear it. While I certainly understand and respect his position -- it is thoughtful and well articulated -- I cannot agree with it, as clearly you do not, either.

I would not spend any more time than you already have worrying too much about your wife's best friend. It is her right to be misguided; it is not life-threatening, as is your brother-in-law's misguidedness; and the thing about it is... well... Carl Sagan said it best:

• "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
  -- Carl Sagan

Your wife's friend will need to first discover the reasons why she chose the extreme of religious rigidity after so many years of being, as you called her, "a party girl," before she can be disabused of her wrongheaded ideals (and ideas). You probably can't help her with either of those things. Nor, likely, can she. There may be no solution to her problem possible and, in any case, you're probably not going to be the one to help her find it. Just grin and bear it. When and if her beliefs become life-threatening, as is the case with your brother-in-law, then you can start losing sleep over it if you want to. Until then, shake your head in disbelief, shrug your shoulders in resignation, and go play some carefree golf.

Pick-up a new pack of Titleists on his way to the front 9. Free will is God's gift, too. If he didn't think he had already given us all the directive we needed -- all of us, me, you, your brother-in-law, your wife's friend... even kansasbaptist -- to do that which honors him and his plan for us, then we'd still be hearing from him.

 

What I said was, "Why doesn't she just find a nice guy from church who doesn't mind her having a past and who will marry her first?"

Do not misrepresent my words. There are many Christians who would be open-minded enough to realize that a person in their fiftysomething years likely has a prior sexual history. Not every Christian would have a woman stoned to death and/or cast away into hellfire and damnation for having had sex outside of marriage. Some of us have read the Book of Hosea and John 8: 3-11.

 

Re: Re: Extremist Religions and Personal Damage

Quite often, when people go through some sort of conversion experience, they become quite embarrassed of some aspect of their past. I have an old college buddy who was absolutely convinced that rock music is sinful (perhaps because he enjoyed it too much before he became a Christian). Or look at some politician who converted from the Republicans to the Democrats (or from the Democrats to the Republicans) and listen to them tell you about the days "before they finally saw the light." Sometimes the most convinced of the "true believers" are the new converts.

 

Hmm. While I am willing to concur with you in your theory as to how things are now, I do not think that that was God's original intent. I think that God's original intent was one of mutual monogamy within marriage. Monogamy was the way that, in pre-DNA testing days, the husband could have a reasonable degree of certitude that the child(ren) that he was expected to expend his economic resources upon are indeed his own (and not bastards foisted around his fire by other men). The husband ought to reciprocate monogamy both out of respect for his wife's feelings and so that she can be assured that economic resources that ought to be devoted to the support of her and her children are not being squandered on mistresses and bastards. As to your notion of patriarchs laying down the law on their women, I agree that that is how things have worked out, but that was not how it was intended. In the story in John 8: 3-11, cited above, the Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman caught in adultery and ask what they are to do with her, noting that the old Mosaic Law says that they should stone such a woman. However, if you check the old Mosaic Law, you will find that they are to stone both the woman and the man; thus, the hypocrisy of the situation is what Jesus is taking a stand against when he says, "He that is without sin may throw the first stone."

 

Carl, did you ever stop to realize you think everyone who doesn't agree with you either politically or theologically is extreme?

 

I agree here, if it weren't for monogamy the world would never have had to deal with STD's.

 

Confused

Restrictive sexual positions? I didn't know that any of the denominations prescribed certain sexual posi... er... oh... wait... you meant restri... sexu... okay... I got it.

Never mind.

 

Re: Confused

Gosh! If no denomination prescribed certain restrictive sexual positions, then how did "missionary position" get that name?

 

Jimmy! If it werent(?) for monogamy?

 

Re: Re: Confused

Excellent. You went straight to the sub-joke. Actually, I was hoping to get a slightly different reply so I could spring it, but you beat me to it. Well played.

 

Re: Re: Re: Confused

To answer my own question, I think I heard somwhere that some Pacific Island tribe that was accustomed to female on top as the standard position noticed the local Christian missionaries doing it male on top. Not sure what the source of that info was, however.