On 1/21/2014 1:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:07:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Funny thing is, if you called it something "other" than religion, it
>> wouldn't be muddy at all. Its only muddy **because** its religion, and
>> therefor "protected" from its value, and whether or not it constitutes
>> some mix of scam, and/or false advertising, or worse, being questioned.
>
> Yeah, absolutely.  That's the reason I still struggle with deciding if
> such a circumstance requires intervention.
>
> If someone said that their toaster told them not to get blood
> transfusions, they'd be thought to be a little crazy.
>
> But if someone says their God told them not to get blood transfusions,
> then they're thought to be sane.
>
> Just goes to show how deeply ingrained it is in the culture.
>
> Jim
>
And, well, it gets a bit worse than that, because its not the toaster 
telling them this, its someone else, who told them that the toaster 
thought it was the case. So.. technically, they may not be "insane" 
themselves, but they are never the less following an idea that really 
truly is insane.

However, taken in that context, there is also a precedent for deciding 
that the overall well being of society is not served by allowing people 
to do something, simply because someone else convinced them that it is 
OK. And, in such a case, it shouldn't, logically, matter if it was their 
priest, who convinced them, or their coworker/boss/etc. IT may absolve 
them of some, though not necessarily all, of the responsibility for 
doing it anyway, but it also doesn't lend them undue protection, just 
because they assumed that this other, second party, had valid authority 
to tell them it was OK.

That its religion still makes it messy, since they can simply turn 
around and say that they "prayed" about it, and god, (aka their own 
head), told them it was right, but.. the problem is that, invariably, 
most of the people trying to make such arguments, when/if things get bad 
enough, resort to more reasonable methods. A good example being people 
who starve their kids, or fail to get them medical help, until they are 
on the verge of death, then *suddenly* decide that prayer isn't working, 
and they need assistance. They get by with this anyway, sadly, with some 
families having higher infant mortality rates in states that allow it, 
(Oregon being one that seems to be unwilling to put a stop to it, or 
prosecute over it), than third world countries.

But, if they suspected that, in that case, medicine "could work", but 
opted for prayer instead, then they can't, in principle, turn around and 
argue that god told them not to use the former, and stick with the 
latter. Sadly, principles go right out the window, along with logic, 
reason, and the value of human life, (as apposed to the value of 
'salvation'), when religion is involved.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message