Should we teach kids that our beliefs are true?

[A Vestigial Mote]

You destroy too much truth I think with this approach.

Real "truth" is never "destroyed." Whether we know it or not is an entirely different matter. Saying "I don't know" offers up A LOT more opportunity for coming to the conclusion that we can "go find out" than does MAKING UP AN ANSWER and pretending it is "truth."

If, in our inter-subjectivity, we find a lot of variability then that does not mean there is no truth. It just means there is a weak objective view on the matter.

Agreed. But it doesn't make any of our subjective views "truth" unless it can be demonstrated that this is so. And if it can't? Then "I don't know" is still leagues more honest than claiming that your subjective view is "truth."

Belief, IMO, is a form of art appreciation although it has been perverted into a philosophical, scientific matter.

Belief is all we ever do... but there are beliefs with a valid basis and there are beliefs without valid basis.

This is because objectivity is given entirely too much
emphasis in all areas.

And subjectivity is given entirely too much emphasis in very particular areas - so much so, that it tends to be claimed to be "objectivity" by a great many - which gets us back around to your point about objectivity, doesn't it? How ironic.

What is personal and historical is treated as "only subjective" and no basis for anything of truth-value. In that view most of what makes us ourselves is of no importance.

It can be of as much importance as you want to make it FOR YOURSELF. And that's where a great many ideas should stay. Important to you... and ONLY important to me if its importance can be demonstrated.

What is demonstrable is limited to what can be made simple...and perhaps the history of science is the development of technologies that allow us to create simple little corners of the Universe where what happens is reproducible. But the much larger realm of economics and politics and psychology and culture deal with truth as well. Truths often more practical, more consequential and more personal and therefore more real than laboratory determined truths.

Here again though, the realms of politics and psychology and even culture offer trends and data to be analyzed and actual individuals to study, talk to and gain information from. The "realm of god(s)" offering any of this? Hahaha... what a giant farcical joke.

 

[sealchan]

Real "truth" is never "destroyed." Whether we know it or not is an entirely different matter. Saying "I don't know" offers up A LOT more opportunity for coming to the conclusion that we can "go find out" than does MAKING UP AN ANSWER and pretending it is "truth."

I fully agree that we should not simply make up truths where we don't know. Not knowing is an essential and profoundly useful stance to take both epistemologically and psychologically.

Agreed. But it doesn't make any of our subjective views "truth" unless it can be demonstrated that this is so. And if it can't? Then "I don't know" is still leagues more honest than claiming that your subjective view is "truth."

In science there is no deadline to meet as far as determining truths are concerned. In life, however, there are many such deadlines and those deadlines require us to make a determination of some sort in order to substantiate a decision. Often those choices are not based on scientific data. Indeed, prior to the Internet, this was probably typically the case. And even now it is likely not frequently the case.

Belief is all we ever do... but there are beliefs with a valid basis and there are beliefs without valid basis.

Okay, great. I agree that whatever we think is true is a provisional truth, a belief. Whether that belief has validation or not is a matter of submitting that individual's subject belief to some community for evaluation. Whenever an individual starts to speak of the truth they should be ready to treat that truth (belief) in that context.

And subjectivity is given entirely too much emphasis in very particular areas - so much so, that it tends to be claimed to be "objectivity" by a great many - which gets us back around to your point about objectivity, doesn't it? How ironic.

It may be given too much emphasis from your perspective but I bet that those who are being subjective do not think they are being subjective but are dealing with "real truth".

It can be of as much importance as you want to make it FOR YOURSELF. And that's where a great many ideas should stay. Important to you... and ONLY important to me if its importance can be demonstrated.

Absolutely! But we must also make room for those YOURSELF truths to interact with the communally recognized OUR truths.

Now this may seem to be a great big and unnecessary bother...why allow for all this subjective variability interact with clearly established objective truth established by an authoritative and sound community?

One very important reason is that we need to continue to let this encounter occur because this is exactly what happens with any child as he or she grows up into their adulthood...they must take their dependent attitude toward the world where much of their truth is backed up by their (OUR) parent's authority and make it into truth for YOURSELF.

Currently in our adult culture we tend to dispose of the painful experience of growing up out of our dependency into our independency because of the painful process we went through to dismantle some of our subjective truths. Sometimes this means personal humiliation. Sometimes this means abandoning one's parents' perspective. Sometimes it means loosing connection with one's childhood community of support.

A common such experience in my culture is that of the story of Santa Claus. As children we might be encouraged, not just by our parents, but by our peers and other adults, to believe in Santa Claus as literally real. Our parents might "fake" Santa's existence through creating physical evidence of his presence. But at some point children find out about "the lie". How does one contextualize this whole process which I suspect most parents participate in without really struggling over the moral and epistemological implications of such an easy, systematic ruse? Do we move forward with resentment and become absolute non-believers critical of all that isn't based on labwork? Or do we rush into the next level Santa and fool ourselves with the same belief that so many other grown adults have fooled themselves with...the REAL SANTA is spelled GOD after all!

Here again though, the realms of politics and psychology and even culture offer trends and data to be analyzed and actual individuals to study, talk to and gain information from. The "realm of god(s)" offering any of this? Hahaha... what a giant farcical joke.

Sure, but in practical terms, when day to day decisions are being made, how is this information accessed and utilized? How is it proven by the individual who is to make use of it? How much of it is even clearly relevant to the rational decisions that each of us need to make?

I hope to come back and talk more specifically about my approach with my grandson who is 10 and transitioning to the post-Santa perspective but is also a literalist believer in God and Jesus as well as a lover of Marvel superheros, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc...

I want my grandson to be able to believe but without falling into either the "anti-belief" trap or the "literalist belief" trap. He is a lover of science too so that should help us both out along the way...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It may be given too much emphasis from your perspective but I bet that those who are being subjective do not think they are being subjective but are dealing with "real truth".

I 100% agree that this is probably the case. I also believe this to be one of the largest among the problems that such belief brings to bear.

Absolutely! But we must also make room for those YOURSELF truths to interact with the communally recognized OUR truths.

Now this may seem to be a great big and unnecessary bother...why allow for all this subjective variability interact with clearly established objective truth established by an authoritative and sound community?

One very important reason is that we need to continue to let this encounter occur because this is exactly what happens with any child as he or she grows up into their adulthood...they must take their dependent attitude toward the world where much of their truth is backed up by their (OUR) parent's authority and make it into truth for YOURSELF.

This is all well and good, but one of the things that has most fostered human development along ease-of-survival and longer-term viability is our ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were. That is, the ability we have to assimilate our forebears' knowledge into current society and take it those extra few steps further during our relatively short life-spans. And this is the crux of the matter. Have we found a "better" mode of thinking than the one that encompasses all of these antiquated, fictional stories? Should we be "standing on the shoulders" of our philosophical giants and advocate that we all move forward into the modes of thinking that have proved most fruitful? Or should we allow a great many of us to remain children? Should we be fostering the idea that many people simply need to hold onto their "Santa Claus?" "Need" is such a strong word, and in a context such as this it is completely and utterly misused.

 

[Willamena]

Should we teach kids that our beliefs are true?


God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

We should teach our children that a claim of "true" means beliefs.

 

[Dan Mellis]

We should teach our children that a claim of "true" means beliefs.

I think we should just teach our kids to be wary of the word true and investigate what people claim to be true.

 

[sealchan]

I 100% agree that this is probably the case. I also believe this to be one of the largest among the problems that such belief brings to bear.


This is all well and good, but one of the things that has most fostered human development along ease-of-survival and longer-term viability is our ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were. That is, the ability we have to assimilate our forebears' knowledge into current society and take it those extra few steps further during our relatively short life-spans. And this is the crux of the matter. Have we found a "better" mode of thinking than the one that encompasses all of these antiquated, fictional stories? Should we be "standing on the shoulders" of our philosophical giants and advocate that we all move forward into the modes of thinking that have proved most fruitful? Or should we allow a great many of us to remain children? Should we be fostering the idea that many people simply need to hold onto their "Santa Claus?" "Need" is such a strong word, and in a context such as this it is completely and utterly misused.

I think that even in a science-driven society we need to be wary of potentially dystopian tendencies. Automation breeds complacency and distance from subsistence lifestyles can introduce differences in outlook that are mutually misunderstood between the "automateds" and the "manuals". We need to remember our progressions in perspectives so that we don't fall into a trap of "we know it all". Embedded in many stories held sacred in religions are just such stories. Today's mythic tales such as those told on countless episodes of Star Trek carry on this content in new, sometimes prophetic ways. Movies such as The Matrix, Star Wars, Avatar...all deal with such themes and so it would seem that we still need these fantasies.

Fortunately the latter mentioned TV and motion picture stories are not fallen into dogma. It does not even seem possible that they will although some of these have developed a "canon". But what I am getting at is the deep truth value that we need to enter fantasy to help us maintain our focus on the sort of moral reality we want to achieve and maintain. Without these fantasies, we might fall into a despair of our present reality. And so with great stories there comes great responsibility. Our sacred and popular "fantasies" are a necessary dimension of our truth, our subjective connection to what is objectively understood. But so called objective truth becomes merely a fantasy without the will of a people to "make it so".

 

[nPeace]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

I think a parent can only give what they have, and if one deliberately holds back what they have, they have to live with that until they die.
I also think parenting starts from the time of brain development in the womb, so a child is really an unborn.

This may be slightly long, for the purpose of making the point.
What I mean...
If a parent lacks an understanding that a child is vulnerable, helpless, and dependent, then their actions will reflect that, and result in neglect of that child's needs - whatever those needs are.
For example...
A parent may neglect protecting their child from the dangers of sexual predators, dangers of running into the street, drowning in a pool of water, suffocating on a plastic bag, choking on an object... the list is endless.
This is due to the parent's ignorance to a degree. They can only give what they have. After the damage is done, they learn their mistakes.

On the other hand, a parent that understands the needs of the child, is in a position to fulfill those needs - They give what they have.

The point...
Parents who recognize that a child should be protected, prepared / prepped for the future, take the necessary steps to do so. Those steps depend on what the parents have - their knowledge, their understanding, their wisdom.
These differ from parent to parent.

The application...
A parent may see another parent doing something which seems odd (by odd, I am not including crimes against children which is clear cut), and that parent may consider the other parent's actions as wrong, but keeping in mind that each parent is giving what they have - their own knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, which one is in a position to determine who is wrong?
Each parent has the responsibility to take the steps they consider right, in protecting, and preparing their child.

At this point, I will give a personal experience.
I have witnessed, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, that parents who take their children out in the ministry from very early age - when they are weaned - on a regular and consistent basis, raise the best children I know.

Although they are people who think this is wrong, I have found those children to be the most pleasant, polite, loving, well mannered, all the virtuous qualities with an A+ (personal experience).

What contributes to that?
They interact with all kinds of people of all ages, personalities, races, and conditions.
For example, meeting an elderly individual, the child picks up on the empathy the parent shows. They observe the reaction on the face of the elderly person, in response to the attitude and action shown by the parents.
The child can also pick up on negative reaction - like meeting an angry householder, who isn't happy to see the JWs at all. However, seeing how the parents respond, the child learn though not understanding, what kindness involves. Later as it grows, and observes, along with the teaching from the parents, the child wants to imitate what it sees as good.
I could go on forever, with what shapes that child, but this is not a place for a story or novel.

The point however, is that children who are more observant, and absorbent, when they are youngest, when given the opportunity to have frequent interaction both at home, and out and about, become better children all round.
The love, empathy, and feeling they develop for people, makes them pleasant, and a blessing to be around.
This is actual results from parents who give what they have, by way of Knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

So in conclusion, if children are raised by godly parents, who live by godly standards... of course, and teach these to their children, they do the child a favor. Not only do they protect their children, and prepare them for the future, they also raise the most pleasant, loving people in society.
That is one reason why most JWs are loving and pleasant people when they come to your door, or you meet them on the street.
Most are good company.

The parents did not have to learn from mistakes made through ignorance. They know that godly wisdom works. They proved it.
Children learn best from what they see.

 

[sealchan]

I think we should just teach our kids to be wary of the word true and investigate what people claim to be true.

Absolutely!

But children will find a great deal of things to believe in for our society is absolutely littered with fictions and we are built to consume them with a passion.

I have come to a place where I have a happy balance between my love of science and my passion for story. I use this to guide my interactions with my grandson who is like a son to me. I nourish his passion for fantasy as well as his craving for science.

He follows the holidays closely looking for traces of reality in myth at every turn. He built leprechaun trap for St. Patrick's day. I helped him build it, but I did not claim or deny the reality of leprechauns.

He recently professed the literal reality of God, but I said that is fine so long as you dont say other peoples way of seeing God is wrong.

I point out how the various characters on different fantasy animated shows like Slugterra or Rescuebots come with different attitudes and characteristics but can be made to work together to solve problems.

We went to Legoland California together with the family. He wanted to go to a robotics workshop. I sat with him as he worked through the computer instructions just as I had many times with him building lego kits. He sees that if you follow instructions you can build things that work and even obey the commands you give it. But also one logical misstep and there are consequences.

My grandson is a fan of science, he is curious and has a passion for knowledge and for mystery. He has the tools to pick one up when needed and exchange those tools as well as the situation dictates. I think I can trust him with that.

 

[sealchan]

I 100% agree that this is probably the case. I also believe this to be one of the largest among the problems that such belief brings to bear.


This is all well and good, but one of the things that has most fostered human development along ease-of-survival and longer-term viability is our ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants" as it were. That is, the ability we have to assimilate our forebears' knowledge into current society and take it those extra few steps further during our relatively short life-spans. And this is the crux of the matter. Have we found a "better" mode of thinking than the one that encompasses all of these antiquated, fictional stories? Should we be "standing on the shoulders" of our philosophical giants and advocate that we all move forward into the modes of thinking that have proved most fruitful? Or should we allow a great many of us to remain children? Should we be fostering the idea that many people simply need to hold onto their "Santa Claus?" "Need" is such a strong word, and in a context such as this it is completely and utterly misused.

The point is that we all come to belief and if that belief is seriously pursued we all come then to disbelief. Unless we grow comfortable with this process even a scientist who falls for a given paradigm may be left behind when a new paradigm comes along and out grows the old one. We want our future scientists to outgrow literalism in all its forms.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I think a parent can only give what they have, and if one deliberately holds back what they have, they have to live with that until they die.
I also think parenting starts from the time of brain development in the womb, so a child is really an unborn.

This may be slightly long, for the purpose of making the point.
What I mean...
If a parent lacks an understanding that a child is vulnerable, helpless, and dependent, then their actions will reflect that, and result in neglect of that child's needs - whatever those needs are.
For example...
A parent may neglect protecting their child from the dangers of sexual predators, dangers of running into the street, drowning in a pool of water, suffocating on a plastic bag, choking on an object... the list is endless.
This is due to the parent's ignorance to a degree. They can only give what they have. After the damage is done, they learn their mistakes.

On the other hand, a parent that understands the needs of the child, is in a position to fulfill those needs - They give what they have.

The point...
Parents who recognize that a child should be protected, prepared / prepped for the future, take the necessary steps to do so. Those steps depend on what the parents have - their knowledge, their understanding, their wisdom.
These differ from parent to parent.

The application...
A parent may see another parent doing something which seems odd (by odd, I am not including crimes against children which is clear cut), and that parent may consider the other parent's actions as wrong, but keeping in mind that each parent is giving what they have - their own knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, which one is in a position to determine who is wrong?
Each parent has the responsibility to take the steps they consider right, in protecting, and preparing their child.

At this point, I will give a personal experience.
I have witnessed, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, that parents who take their children out in the ministry from very early age - when they are weaned - on a regular and consistent basis, raise the best children I know.

Although they are people who think this is wrong, I have found those children to be the most pleasant, polite, loving, well mannered, all the virtuous qualities with an A+ (personal experience).

What contributes to that?
They interact with all kinds of people of all ages, personalities, races, and conditions.
For example, meeting an elderly individual, the child picks up on the empathy the parent shows. They observe the reaction on the face of the elderly person, in response to the attitude and action shown by the parents.
The child can also pick up on negative reaction - like meeting an angry householder, who isn't happy to see the JWs at all. However, seeing how the parents respond, the child learn though not understanding, what kindness involves. Later as it grows, and observes, along with the teaching from the parents, the child wants to imitate what it sees as good.
I could go on forever, with what shapes that child, but this is not a place for a story or novel.

The point however, is that children who are more observant, and absorbent, when they are youngest, when given the opportunity to have frequent interaction both at home, and out and about, become better children all round.
The love, empathy, and feeling they develop for people, makes them pleasant, and a blessing to be around.
This is actual results from parents who give what they have, by way of Knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

So in conclusion, if children are raised by godly parents, who live by godly standards... of course, and teach these to their children, they do the child a favor. Not only do they protect their children, and prepare them for the future, they also raise the most pleasant, loving people in society.
That is one reason why most JWs are loving and pleasant people when they come to your door, or you meet them on the street.
Most are good company.

The parents did not have to learn from mistakes made through ignorance. They know that godly wisdom works. They proved it.
Children learn best from what they see.

So I agree with most of what you just said. However, this could be achieved without adding in the harm religion can bring.

Now, please forgive meas I'm no expert on JWs and don't want to make my next point without checking my knowledge first. Do you guys allow for things like organ donation, blood transfusion and vaccinations etc?

 

[Dan Mellis]

Absolutely!

But children will find a great deal of things to believe in for our society is absolutely littered with fictions and we are built to consume them with a passion.

I have come to a place where I have a happy balance between my love of science and my passion for story. I use this to guide my interactions with my grandson who is like a son to me. I nourish his passion for fantasy as well as his craving for science.

He follows the holidays closely looking for traces of reality in myth at every turn. He built leprechaun trap for St. Patrick's day. I helped him build it, but I did not claim or deny the reality of leprechauns.

He recently professed the literal reality of God, but I said that is fine so long as you dont say other peoples way of seeing God is wrong.

I point out how the various characters on different fantasy animated shows like Slugterra or Rescuebots come with different attitudes and characteristics but can be made to work together to solve problems.

We went to Legoland California together with the family. He wanted to go to a robotics workshop. I sat with him as he worked through the computer instructions just as I had many times with him building lego kits. He sees that if you follow instructions you can build things that work and even obey the commands you give it. But also one logical misstep and there are consequences.

My grandson is a fan of science, he is curious and has a passion for knowledge and for mystery. He has the tools to pick one up when needed and exchange those tools as well as the situation dictates. I think I can trust him with that.

This is 100% what I mean if my son were to profess to be a fundy christian, the only things I'd want to ensure is

A) he's done his research and isn't in over his head or unsafe (i.e. he understands what it means and he's not in a cult)

B) He won't use his belief to impede the rights of others.

Past that, I wouldn't be thrilled about it but I'd be entirely supportive.

 

[David T]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

It appears to me we beleive we are obligated to get them all goofed so then they can spend their adult lives unraveling nonsense. Or we can allow them to create there own goofedness and then turn around and unravel that!!! Either way it seems adulthood has a lot to do with being goofed regardless.

 

[Dan Mellis]

It appears to me we beleive we are obligated to get them all goofed so then they can spend their adult lives unraveling nonsense. Or we can allow them to create there own goofedness and then turn around and unravel that!!! Either way it seems adulthood has a lot to do with being goofed regardless.

I'd argue that adulthood is learning how to guard against the goof but I see your point

 

[David T]

I'd argue that adulthood is learning how to guard against the goof but I see your point

When i was a youth i sought mentoring from "older wiser", folk. They informed me they werent goofed and by all normal measurements that would appear to be true. None were of any real value and only when i was beginning to become more elderly i finnally ran into that elderly mentor i was seeking on mt neahkanie on the oregon coast. It was me.


Extended periods away from the disneyland of linguistics language culture can bring some clarity that words only confuse. Breathing is way under appreciated.

 

[Willamena]

I think we should just teach our kids to be wary of the word true and investigate what people claim to be true.

Nah. The word 'true' rocks, properly used.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The mechanism of parenting is full of unhealthy contradictions. It comes down to heart more than logic. Logic is impossible without emotional stability. You are your child's natural jailer, too. Whatever you want for them they will have to be able to resist in order to be whole people. At the same time if you don't discipline them, then they don't sense their boundaries or learn to be whole, either. Kids look right into your eyes, repeat back what you just said to them then file it. They'll believe that they understand enough when they don't.

 

[nPeace]

So I agree with most of what you just said. However, this could be achieved without adding in the harm religion can bring.

Now, please forgive meas I'm no expert on JWs and don't want to make my next point without checking my knowledge first. Do you guys allow for things like organ donation, blood transfusion and vaccinations etc?

May I ask, exactly what do you mean by "adding in the harm religion can bring"?

I appreciate your asking, rather than going by hearsay from "third parties".
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES THE SURGICAL/ETHICAL CHALLENGE
I encourage you to please read carefully so as to not miss important statements, or misunderstand points made. Such has commonly occurred.

For more, see this page.

 

[arthra]

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

In my family my wife and I raised four children. We are Baha'is and we accept that there is truth in the major religions. If I visited a Mandir (Hindu temple) or a Mosque or a Buddhist temple, Synagogue, Churches they accompanied me so I wanted them to be exposed to a variety of religions to appreciate the truth rather than be ignorant about them.

When children in Baha'i families reach their fifteenth Birthday they reach an age of spiritual maturity and they are responsible. They begin to assume more responsibility for their spiritual lives.

All our children have remained in the Faith... Some more active than others and contributing according to their skills.

 

[Dan Mellis]

In my family my wife and I raised four children. We are Baha'is and we accept that there is truth in the major religions. If I visited a Mandir (Hindu temple) or a Mosque or a Buddhist temple, Synagogue, Churches they accompanied me so I wanted them to be exposed to a variety of religions to appreciate the truth rather than be ignorant about them.

When children in Baha'i families reach their fifteenth Birthday they reach an age of spiritual maturity and they are responsible. They begin to assume more responsibility for their spiritual lives.

All our children have remained in the Faith... Some more active than others and contributing according to their skills.

By "more responsibility" do you mean they can choose to remain in the faith? If so, thats all well and good but it's somethig of an illusion of a choice. If you're raised told that something is true, the likelihood of you believing otherwise as an adult is low.

Apart from the whole homophobia thing (which I accept is probably not as big an issue in baha'i groups as other religions), there are way more harmful religions to follow though so there's that at least

 

[Dan Mellis]

May I ask, exactly what do you mean by "adding in the harm religion can bring"?

I appreciate your asking, rather than going by hearsay from "third parties".
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES THE SURGICAL/ETHICAL CHALLENGE
I encourage you to please read carefully so as to not miss important statements, or misunderstand points made. Such has commonly occurred.

For more, see this page.

Rejection of logic and critical thinking, extremism, homophobia, violence, ostricising of family etc etc. I'm not inferring that religion always brings these things, just that it can whereas humanists and secularists would find it much harder to find a reason to do these things using their philosophy.

Thanks for sharing that. I did read the statement in its entirety, and I have a real issue with this. The dogma which is taught to JW children can cause them real, life threatening harm in the long term. They grow up rejecting life saving treatment. The rejection of blood transfusion should be legal for adults who can choose for themselves but not their kids.

As for the little tidbit near the end "many surgeons see it as a challenge," I'm sorry, but what absolute horse sh*t. We should be making their jobs as easy as possible - losing a life on your table is not by any means an easy thing to do. Its not as though they'll go "ahh well, it was a good test. I'll do better next time." These people go home to see their families, knowing fine well that someone has lost part of theirs during the surgery that was meant to bring them home.

Risking your life, your kids lives and the mental wellbeing of others based on an (extremely) tenuous interpretation of an unreliable source is just incomprehensible to me. JWs who come to my house to offer my family the same treatment will get sent packing with a verbal bashing from now on - I won't tolerate such ridiculousness anywhere near my house.

If there was ever a case for antitheism, I think the Jehovah's witnesses would be central to it.

This wasn't intended as a personal attack - I don't think you're necessarily a bad person. You've just been convinced of some terrible things.