No Reform on Blood Because Deaths are Cheaper

by metatron 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  metatron

  In recent years, the Watchtower Society has given conflicting signals about its policy

  regarding compelling Witnesses not to take blood transfusions. While there are many

  inconsistencies in their understanding and enforcement of this ban on blood, this doesn't

  mean much to the average Witness - who, having largely surrendered their power

  of reason already, will not question Watchtower authority in exposing them to possible

  death. They are likely to simply repeat "abstain from blood" with no further inquiry

  into glaring contradictions that would offend THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY left

  the "truth" because they couldn't find logic in it. Doctrine, scripture and cold reason

  don't apply here - we left that behind long ago when the Watchtower safely avoided

  all debate or official apologia on the matter. You should accept their silence as a

  confession of guilt.

  Getting rid of the blood issue appeals to you and me - and likely to anyone

  who has the least degree of honesty or humanitarian impulse. That clearly doesn't

  apply here. If you've been following the latest KM's, videos, and magazine articles

  the matter is given renewed emphasis.

  I think I may know why.

  Continuing to demand that Witnesses die for this issue is the least expensive

  and most convenient way for the Watchtower leadership to handle the problem.

  Consider that ALL THEY HAVE TO DO is keep insisting that this is a religious

  issue ( thereby above rational analysis) - and they're legally protected. There's

  nothing anyone can do about it. Even if a defector "went public" with complete

  testimony that the Theocrats KNEW the policy was a mistake, it doesn't matter.

  They would cling to the first amendment and ignore the whole uproar. They're covered.

  And that, my friends, is why your Witness friends and relatives will continue

  to bleed to death in emergencies, because sacrificing them is the cheapest

  and easiest way for Watchtower leaders to continue their authority. It's that simple.

  metatron
• 

  bigboi

  All true. This is one of the things the WTS will never change. Imagine the uproar that new light on blood would cause. I doubt even the most diehard witness would be able to continue to follow the Tower if it changed this doctrine.
• 

  Gopher

  It's all about POWER and CONTROL.

  If the WTS leaders publicly surrendered control over what SHOULD be a personal matter, they'd risk losing their control. So let the nebulous policy (some blood fractions, no whole blood) continue! If you can't dazzle the rank-and-file with your brilliance, then confuse the issue! Make a medical issue a religious one.

  That'll help make the followers feel they are "separate" from the world and somehow better. Never mind the death toll. Those who die are good candidates for a future Awake! magazine cover, especially if they're young.
• 

  kj

  Rotten bastards.

  kj
• 

  blondie

  We had a young brother who had contracted AIDS before he was baptized. Later on he realized he was HIV positive. Certain people suddenly started using hankies to open the doors (can't touch those doorknobs). I asked them if they used hankies everywhere. Duh! They looked at me, why? Because they have to assume everyone is HIV positive because people don't look sick. A coworker, a teacher, the bus driver, the doctor, the dentist could all be HIV positive and not know it. Then they got pale.

  They instructed brothers at the KH how to clean up blood or vomit. They decided the sisters could do.

  Did you know that the WTS instructs HIV positive or JWs with AIDS to tell the elders so they can reassign them to a book study at the KH and keep an eye on them. All this is pointless because of the fact that several unidentified people at the KH could be at risk and no one would know it. Are they going to reassign everyone to the KH book study? Are they only going to use precautions when dealing with known HIV/AIDS people at the KH?

  To be baptized, the HIV/AIDs individual must go last or be baptized separately.

  It is all insanity.

  Blondie
• 

  greven

  Cheaper, yes. They will be protected from legal issues by claiming it to be purely religious.

  Two notes however:

  1) Cheap in monetary terms yes, it will however cost them potential converts, even more with media exposure.

  2) There is a growing tendency to cull religious authority. This is fueled by religious leaders encouraging terrorism and bigotry. We're not there yet however. Religions shouldn't be exempt from the law like they are now...

  Greven
• 

  Country_Woman

  Don't forget the possibility that the Watchtower receive the inheritance from those faithfull JW's...
• 

  Room 215

  Meta, I don't understand why they refuse to take the simplest, most pragmatic and maybe even the most enlightened, highly principled way out of the corner in which they've painted themselves: Defuse the issue by simply declaring it a ``matter of conscience", i.e. retrench to the pre-1962 policy of treating any offenders as spiritually weak NOT willfully wicked, and therefore disqualified from any position of responsibility or full-time service-- people to be ``studied with," ``restored," or ``helped" but not ostracized.

  Look what that accomplishes: it ``savies face," preserves their argument yet removes any possibility of legal repercussions, and grants ``wriggle room" for JWs who cannot conscientiously accept their view of the matter.
• 

  metatron

  Your logic and compassion are impeccable - but that doesn't apply here.

  The individual lives of Witnesses are expendable. They can be disposed of without cost to the Society.

  They don't have to engage in the least bit of compromise because Witnesses are willing to die as ordered.

  Car manufacturers failed to fix potentially dangerous gas tanks because ( an infamous memo) it was calculated

  to be cheaper to fend off such claims in court. The Society is one up on Ford because they can hide behind

  the 1st amendment. It's simple.

  It only becomes a "problem" if the men responsible are tormented by pangs of conscience.

  They aren't. Do they enjoy a peace of mind common to sociopaths?

  You decide.....

  metatron
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Yes to admit error would mean being sued out of existence