I submitted a letter to the editor of the LA Times in response to this article. I doubt that it will be published, so here it is for you:
Kudos to Dr. Michael Lill for providing treatment to Jehovah’s Witnesses despite the fact that he is, as described by Ms. Gorman, “a committed atheist who views [their] belief system as wholly irrational.”
Having been a member of the Witness religion for over 50 years, I do, however, take exception to Ms. Gorman’s use of the terms “biblically centered” and “literal interpretation of the Bible” when referring to the Witnesses’ belief regarding blood.
The following is a literal interpretation of what the Bible says about blood: When God first allowed Man to kill animals for food, the animal’s blood was to be removed so as not to be eaten. It was to be poured out on the ground. By doing so, Man would be showing proper respect for the sacredness of the animal’s life, in God’s eyes.
Jehovah’s Witnesses go far beyond a “literal interpretation of the Bible” when they say that this rule covers blood transfusions. Blood transfusions do not involve the taking of a life, as in the case of killing animals for food. Blood transfusions do not violate the sacredness of life. In fact, they are, in countless cases, the only way to preserve life.
Why do the Witnesses believe this way? It is not because they are “biblically centered.” It is to add to their list of beliefs that make them unique among myriad Bible-based religions, thus bolstering the claim that their organization alone is the true religion. It is a case of being organization-centered not biblically centered.
Frank Kavelin
Santa Monica, California