A couple of bloggins ago I wrote a sequel to the harms of religion. On of the cases has now met one milestone: the case of an 11-year-old girl who died of untreated diabetes when her parents, because of their religious beliefs, did not take her to see a doctor but instead prayed for and with her for hours while their daughter was dehydrating. The jury found the mother guilty. The father will face the same charges and get his verdict in near future. Meanwhile the parents' lawyer, Linehann, files an appeal because...
"Neumann didn't realize her daughter was so ill and did all she could do to help, in line with the family's belief in faith-healing. He said Neumann is a devout Christian who prays about everything and took good care of her four children.
The district attorney described the Neumanns as "religious zealots" which provoked new definitions from Linehan to the concept of 'religious zealot':
"'Religious extremism is a Muslim terrorist,' Linehan said. 'They are saying these parents were so far off the scale that they murdered their child. The woman did everything she could to help her. That is the injustice in this case.'"
Right, only Muslims can be religious extremists... my ass.
More "interesting" comments were gotten from Mrs. Neumann's step-father:
"He said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter. 'We should have that right in this country,' he said."
The right to kill children? What did I just say about Christian principles... hmm... can't remember... it had something to do with this but I can't quite figure it out...
Anyway, Mr. "Not-a-Zealot" continues to flash his immense wisdom:
"'We definitely are not terrorists,' he said. 'We are Bible-believing, God-believing, Holy Ghost-filled people who want to do right and be right.'"
Holy Ghost-filled aside, the operative word of the above-quoted phrase is "who want to *be right*". They want to do right but most of all, they want to be right. Oh dear... again I'm filled with the sense of dejá vù...
Christian principle: "We are the chosen people. We can do whatever we want. If you oppose us, you are evil, of the devil."
Christian love: "Do whatever thou wilt as long as you hurt someone; God would like to add that Irish Catholic Schools have excellent history of good methodology"
Christian morality: "The paradox of all paradoxes but don't tell that to anyone."
I've been listening to that over and over again for nearly an hour. It makes me so happy for them, fictional as they are. Feel sorry for Shane, though.
Torontosta: Yes, they are. They claim that until 18 or so the child can choose for themselves but how does one choose if they've only ever been given but one option. Plus they must be very aware of the fact that if one doesn't play by the Jehova's rules, they're so out of it, excommunicated from their community, alone since most of their contacts are other Jehovas. Not everyone love life enough to take the chance of being thrown out of their family, no matter how bad it may be.
Rokkihomo: I know someone who said something like that once. The as-if-caring smile soon turned into shouting that the person they were trying to convert was himself Satan's disciples. The same thing also happened when their argumentationg was rather circlish: they claimed that the loss of faith is one of god's most common methods to have you believe even more but alas, when the mister in question was asked if he himself as a Jehova had ever had loss of faith he found it extremely offending, as if it would make him somehow less than a good god-fearing Jehova. As the convertee walked away, there were again shouts of Satan's disciples (they really love this phrase apparently).
But let's see one thing: what is the reason for the stupidity? It may be that a person may not be the brightest person on the planet (as most of us are not) but the whole point is to challenge the brain, to force it to make new connection between neurons. This happens at school and at the university and so on. But which kids tend to be homeschooled at USA; those that have religious backgrounds. It's the same thing as with founding Christian schools and daycare centres: to gather likeminded kids together so that they don't have to tolerate anything new or *gasps* learn new ways of thinking. Furthermore, religion and other religion-like forms of belief, though not religions per se, are the reason for the stupidity when it comes to health issues. Of course this can be for not knowing things as one's been lazy at school and hasn't learned biological basics. But do you think this person would start disagreeing with the doctor? No. A person who *would* must have an authority behind him, and religion is a very good tool for this. And the whole basis of religion is not to learn anything new because, as we all know, religios teachings are ambiguous and self-contradictory! Therefore, if a person was to learn the feared new ways of thinking, the likelihood that the religious teachings remain intact after those new ways of thinking have been planted in people's heads, are falling. And that, my dear Watson, is why all religions shy away from high education. An example of this is the Jehova's Witnesses who have "a recommendation" (read: one tiny bit below a command) to get a profession as soon as possible, that is "ammattikoulu". Polytechnic too lasts too long and universities most certainly are on the forbidden list. Because the longer you stay in the educational system, and the higher you go, the more likely you are, again, to learn new ways of thinking that are likely to challenge the religious teachings built on sand by the sea.
I mentioned the religious-like forms of belief because they too can harm. At Age of Autism blog (www.ageofautism.com) a guy has an autistic daughter, Jacqueline. The father, instead of listening to the doctors, has spent years dragging her daughter from one alternative care form to another with no results. The caretakers have the most amazing excus.. erm, explanations to this and it's of course not their fault that magic water did not help. These alternatives that MEP candidate Liisa Sulkakoski so hard tries to defend (you might have seen her at A-talk some time ago talking for this), especially now that the Finnish parliament has legalised the "Puoskarilaki" (which was much needed though I don't like the condescending attitude of "women are baby factories"). Some say these don't do any harm, I say they are potentially very harmful and their ads are unethical. There has been examples of this already: there are estimated 750-1500 deaths caused by alternative medicine in Finland annually. As with other, more personal examples:
Gabriela Ascarrunz had a "suolentukkeuma". In addition to the usual boring safe medical care, she tried an alternative method. Urine therapy. Yes, you read correctly, "virtsaterapiaa". The person who "advised" Gabriela to try this had the police on them at the time already. Well, two days after intensive care unit, Gabriela died. Of drinking her own urine.
Russell Jenkins, a diabetic. Had a broken foot but his inner voice told him to seek help from another source than medical doctors. He went to a homeopath who advised him to drink lots and lots of honey. To a diabetic. Probably goes without saying that the guy, being diabetic, had complications: his toe was very infected and eventually developed a gangrene (“kuolio”). The toe rotted and smelled for two days until Jenkins went to see the homeopath again. She could see and smell the toe but did not take him to a doctor. The guy died.
Gloria Thomas, 9 months old. Had an eczema (“ekseema”), a form of skin disease. The baby’s father was a homeopath who decided to ignore the doctors and instead tortured the baby for five months by only giving her “special” water drops and sugar. Surprisingly enough, it did not work. For five months the baby’s skin had numerous painful wounds and the skin peeled of when changing clothes as it stuck with the clothes. If anyone’s ever had a wound in your foot but have not bee able to take off the sock until the blood’s glotted… well, you know what I mean. Doesn’t feel nice. Gloria died, and parents are on trial for manslaughter.
Next time you think religion cannot do any harm, think of them:
Daniel Hauser, 13 years old. Has Hodgkins lymphoma, a type of cancer that is treatable with chances of survival up to 95 % but if left untreated kills within a few years. Daniel was homeschooled by his extremely religious mother and refused treatment for her son on religious grounds. Daniel who of course has learned his mother's way of thinking has also refused treatment on religious grounds. Daniel, however, was tested and found to be completely illiterate. As a result, a court order came down saying Daniel is to be treated with proper modern medical care. The mother backed the bags, took Daniel and did a runner. The case remains in constant observation. Makes you appreciate the Finnish educational system so that no one will be homeschooled unless absolutely necessary.
Madeline Neumann, 11 years old. Had diabetes (type I) and died on March 23rd 2008. Instead of getting her daughter real medical care chose to pray. She also made her ill daughter to pray with her for hours. The mother did not take Madeline to see a doctor as she believes healing comes from her god, not from educated (and apparently godless) doctors. Diabetes is easily treatable, and now the mother is charged with homicide.
14 boys and girls. Molested by cult leader Malachi York repeatedly. York recruited older girls to groom the younger ones for sex with him. If the girls pleased him, they got trips to WalMart (an equivalent to CityMarket in case cultural reference does not open). York was convicted in 2004 and still faced 77 other charges of child molestation.
Alisa Izquierdo, 6 years old. In 1995 her mother believed her daughter was possessed by Satan and tortured Aliza to death. The mother thought the devil didn't like cigarette burns, open bone fractions, broken finger, head smashed against a cement wall. The mother showed no regret. "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock" (Psalms 137:9) and let us not forget the "Good Book" does give you the
right to kill an disobedient child.
Joel David, 26 days old. Had pneumonia which was left untreated due to the parents fierce faith-healing sect's dogma to refuse medical treatment. Sentence: 5 years in prison.
Deborah Lewis, 27. In 1992 Samuel Lee was commanded by God to cut off Deborah's head. Deborah, surprisingly enough, did not live to tell the tale.
Nine hundred victims, Jonestown, 1978. A Christian sect leader, Jim Jones of People's Temple, thought it was time for them to get to know to the famous afterlife and convinced the members of the sect to commit mass suicide by poisoning themselves.
Four children, eldest 19 years old. Starved to death by their foster parents in 2003. The parents fed their biological kids but locked the adopted kids out of the kitchen. When the parents were released on bail, their fellow members of Come Alive New Testament Church met them with cheers.
A girl, 6 years old. Found dead in 2004 in a motel room, tortured to death during exorcism. The girl had a broken back, broken bones and other wounds. The adults responsible of this religious good deed gone wrong were taken to a psychiatric ward. Their children, ages 2 and 7, witnessed the exorcism and were taken from the parents.
Boys, molested by their church's youth worker. Boys were told the molestation was their fault. YLE news in 2008. This happened in Finland; not to be fooled by the American example majority.
And this is only a very few examples. Then there's of course those refused from medical care due to their sex, those killed during Inquisition and the witch hunts, those millions of others who are killed because "God told me to", and those who don't know any better. And then of course those who suffer the secondary consequences of the refusal of medical care, usually done by their male relative for dogmatic reasons; STDs, pregnancies, infections, circumcisions, labour, honour killings... it's a long list.
So let me ask you again: is religion really that harmless. And no, the military methodology will not work: these did happen, they are not isolated cases, they are not taken out of context (how can you take a death of a child out of context anyway?). And before you say you are an apologetic: your faith, even if not this extreme, is the basis for this extremeness. I suggest you look in the mirror.
Look inside, look inside your tiny mind
Then look a bit harder
'Cause we're so uninspired, so sick and tired
of all the hatred you harbor
So you say it's not okay to be gay
well I think you're just evil
You're just some racist who can't tie my laces
You're point of view is medieval
Fuck you, fuck you very very much
'cause we hate what you do
and we hate your whole crew
so please don't stay in touch
Fuck you, fuck you very very much
cause your words don't translate
and it's getting quite late
so please don't stay in touch
Do you get, do you get a little kick out of being small-minded?
You want to be like your father
It's approval you're after
Well, that's not how you find it
Do you, do you really enjoy living a life that's so hateful?
Cause there's a hole where your soul should be
You're losing control a bit
and it's really distasteful
Fuck you, fuck you very very much
cause we hate what you do
and we hate your whole crew
so please don't stay in touch
Fuck you, fuck you very very much
cause your words don't translate
and it's getting quite late
so please don't stay in touch
Let's see... if atheists and secular schools are evil, bad and immoral, how come nothing like this ever happens in them or is committed by them but instead all these reports are about religious schools run by specific religious institutions?
Oh right, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. The same on eresponsible for bribing all authorities to say that Obama's birth certificate is genuine. The same one's that have the terrible agenda of giving *all* people.. *shivers*.. equal human rights!
Kirjoitin tämän EU-vaalimainoksista kertovan uutisen keskusteluun. En tosin tiedä pääseekö tämä HS:n sensuurin läpi vai ei, joten laitan sen tänne koska se on omasta mielestäni aika hyvin kirjoitettu noin niin kuin kertaistumalta. Saa kritisoida jos siltä tuntuu.
~~~
Ei ole yhdentekevää ketä äänestää. Jos ehdokas (ja kun niitä 13 sinne menee joka tapauksessa, äänestit tai et) pääsee läpi, onko tosiaan yhdentekevää onko se joku sitten NATO-myönteinen, ihmisoikeuksia polkeva tyyppi jonka pääasiallinen tarkoitus on ajaa
tietyn erityisryhmän agendaa muiden oikeuksia polkemalla vai joku, jonka tarkoituksena on vaikuttaa nimenomaan asioihin, joista on enemmän hyötyä koko Euroopan tasolla kuin yksistään Suomen tasolla, esimerkiksi ihmisoikeus- ja ilmastokysymyksissä sekä Itämeren tilan ja niiden maataloustukien jakoperusteiden suhteen. Kuten on todettu, ei ne
kasvihuonekaasut valtion rajojen mukaan mene, siinä pitää olla kaikkien mukana.
Lisäksi EU on lisännyt maan turvallisuutta; menetkö muka itse kiusaamaan koulun pihalla sitä jolla on koviskavereita vai sitä joka on yksin? Mitä tulee Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymiseen Suomen eduskunnassa, se tapahtui nimenomaan siellä ei Brysselissä. Jos ei miellytä, se on enemmänkin eduskunnan syytä sillä EU-tasolla on kaikkien huomioitava muidenkin olemassaolo. Siitähän EU:ssa on kyse: yhteistyöstä koko Euroopan hyväksi, ei
omaan kansalliseen napaan tuijottelua (vaikka jotkut maat, Suomi mukaan luettuna, tätä harrastavatkin). Onko tällöinkin aivan sama, kuka parlamentissa istuu?
Kansalaisen mahdollisuus vaikuttaa on siinä, että edustaja tajuaa sen että kansalaisia saa ja pitääkin kuunnella myös vaalien välillä. Kaikki ehdokkaat eivät tätä tajua, toiset tajuavat. Onko tällöin yhdentekevää, kuka sinne parlamenttiin menee istumaan?
Kansalaisten ääntä ei ole kuultu monissa kysymyksissä ihan Suomen eduskunnan tasolla. Tämä ei siis ole EU:n yksinoikeus. Kysymys kuuluukin: haluatko mieluummin vetää maihin tassut taivasta kohden vai tehdä aktiivisesti jotain huomaamasi epäkohdan korjaamiseksi? Oletko koskaan edes yrittänyt vaikuttaa? Äänestämättä jättäminen tai äänestäminen ehdokkaan ajatuksiin tutustumatta on tietyssä mielessä pelkuruutta ja vastuun siirtämistä. Älä siis
vain valita vaan äänestä ajatuksen kanssa!
Splenetic
Good that there are no generalisations of heavy metallists anymore (picture taken from Radio Rock's homepage).
NOM, as in the National Organization for Marriage, has come up with a new ad. Their concern is that if gay marriages are allowed, this might teach children new ways of thinking. And that we don't want, do we? They, of course, use the God card ("God didn't create Anna and Eve") and to promote their bigeted view they have chosen the one thing everyone will feel sorry for, something advertisers have used for ages: kids (animals would be another way to appeal to human emotions). These kids are just soooo confused to learn new ways of thinking these people just have to make an ad even worse than the previous one (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI for NOM's Gathering Storm ad; on the right side there are plenty of responses and parodies so feel free to watch and laugh). Let's see how long the video stays up there; but then again, it is a fact universally acknowledged (fact forbid, did I just quote Jane Austen AND Charles Dickens?!) that YouTube only expells groups that "teach new ways of thinking", i.e. have an anti-religious message because we all know that when a person says there's no god, it of course refers to Christian theology (egoism is apparently another Christian virtue).
No fucking way! I was taking a screen shot of the ad and this whole "if gay people are allowed to marry it will teach our kids new ways of thinking" because it's just so fucking absurd! It's very true in a sense that these right-wingnuts really are against teaching kids -or pretty much anyone- new ways of thinking but if anyone else said that it would be just downright hilarious!
