Former astronaut Julie Payette to be Canada's next governor general

336 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

JKR wrote:
The Queen has often expressed strong support for Christianity and for Jesus in particular. Most people don't mind that she hasn't remained neutral about her religious beliefs.

It's fine for Payette to be openly atheist. There is absolutely no reason for her to hide it. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/06/27/canadians-would-...

The Angus Reid Institute found that an astonishing 80% of the population would have no problem voting for a party led by someone who’s an atheist. (By comparison, Gallup found in 2015 that only 58% of U.S. voters were comfortable supporting an atheist from their own party for President.)
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/06/27/canadians-would-...

I'm not saying we can sit back and relax but atheism is not under threat in Canada.

NorthReport

Religions have been dealt in an exceptionally tolerant manner, but unfortunately it is often not reciprocal. Maybe it is time to force religions to be more tolerant of others, and I wish to commend our new GG for her recent remarks

Rev Pesky

Maybe it's time to relieve the religious of their tax exemption. Either that, or provide the same exemptions for atheists and others.

From 6079_Smith_W:

In case it isn't clear, my biggest criticism of Dawkins's work isn't that it is impolite (that's for those who are offended by our governor general telling it like it is) but that it is so dumb.

Well, that's a cogent criticism. Dawkins is 'tone deaf' and his book is 'dumb'.

Pardon me for my chuckle. 'Tone deaf' is a term like 'gaffe'. It's used by those who don't have an argument, but wish to disparage something. As far as calling something 'dumb', that is just plain childish.

In fact it was a book that stimulated an enormous amount of debate. Dawkins was defended by PZ Myers, a professor of biology. courtesy Wikipedia 'The Courtier's Reply:

American Professor of Biology PZ Myers coined the term Courtier's Reply in a December 2006 entry on his blog, Pharyngula. Myers was reacting to some of the criticism leveled at the 2006 book The God Delusion, in which author Richard Dawkins argues against the existence of a supernatural creator. Critics argued that Dawkins' lack of qualifications in philosophy or theology called into question a number of his arguments. Myers responded to this criticism by making an analogy, comparing Dawkins to the boy at the end of the fable The Emperor's New Clothes, who is the only reasonable voice that recognizes the Emperor is naked. Myers satirized the aforementioned critics as follows:

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat.

We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

In any case, no one has to take my word for it. Go to the library, or a book store and pick it up. Then you can decide whether it's dumb.

 

6079_Smith_W

I was responding to cco, who implied that my objection is about Dawkins not being polite enough. That isn't my objection; Dawkins fails because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Problem is, many people assume that because he is a scientist the book is a scholarly work rather than what it is - a polemic. I didn't think that clarification required an essay, especially since this thread is primarily about the governor general.

And of course people should read it and make up their own minds whether he is talking about real people or caricatures. It should be clear I agree with you there.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No, I don't think as many would have complained because references to god aren't as threatening to as many people. We are used to hearing that stuff every time they play the anthem.

That just means that 2000 years later, they've finally just worn us down.

But religions don't mince their words.  If you don't believe as they do, you're wrong and foolish and will suffer an eternity of unholy torment in a lake of fire.

The good news is that "the Good News" isn't mocking atheists, just warning them.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The good news is that "the Good News" isn't mocking atheists, just warning them.

What difference does it make?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Beats me.  You're the one suggesting this is all just too horrible for words because "mocking".  And I was actually suggesting there's no real difference.

 

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Religions have been dealt in an exceptionally tolerant manner, but unfortunately it is often not reciprocal. Maybe it is time to force religions to be more tolerant of others, and I wish to commend our new GG for her recent remarks

Nobody has to be tolerant. Everyone has to follow the law.

I doubt you would be commending her for mocking people if you were one of them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I doubt you would be commending her for mocking people if you were one of them.

And I doubt you'd really be so worried about her mocking them if you weren't.

 

NorthReport

It's called Bible Belt hypocrisy

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I doubt you would be commending her for mocking people if you were one of them.

And I doubt you'd really be so worried about her mocking them if you weren't.

 

No need to question people's allegiances.

There are also doctrinaire types who also think she should just keep her mouth shut (again, something Urback said she thought was a good idea); not just religious people. Just as their are religious people who think what she said was entirely in order and consider the notion that it is an insult to be ridiculous.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Problem is, many people assume that because he is a scientist the book is a scholarly work rather than what it is - a polemic.

It is a polemic, but that doesn't prevent it from being scholarly. In fact it is scholarly, and Dawkins did a lot of research to bring his case.

At the same time, it was intended as a book for a general audience, so he did what he is justly know for, that is present his argument in a way that is understandable by the average citizen, and enjoyable to read. Otherwise, what's the point?

I suggest you go back and read it again. You might find it different than you did the first time. Even I, who liked it from the beginning, have found a lot more this time around than the first time. That may be because I'm more used to the overall concept now than I was then.

And  criticisms of works should normally have something more than just a 'it's dumb' or 'he doesn't know what he's talking about'. That, by itself, suggests to me that you have no real argument.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Beats me.  You're the one suggesting this is all just too horrible for words because "mocking".  And I was actually suggesting there's no real difference.

Strawman argument. I haven't suggested it is "horrible", just that it is something the Governor General shouldn't do because it is counter to her job description. I think it is an isolated incident that won't happen again. If it does happen again it would be an indication to me that she isn't willing to the the job she was appointed to do and is very well paid to do.

cco

I checked, and nothing on the "role" page of the GG's site includes "making creationists feel warm and fuzzy". There is a "Bring Canadians Together" page, but that's just photos of the GG showing up at various events around the country. Sort of like the Rick Mercer Report, but less funny and more tax-funded. I'd recommend Mercer be the next GG, but I can only imagine how disrespectful and mocking the religious types would find it to have a gay man reading the throne speech.

6079_Smith_W

You know Rev, the thing about telling people they should read something and make up their own minds about it is that you need to recognize that some aren't going to see it your way, and that your perspective is not the only valid one. It isn't the case that if we all read it enough times we would agree with you. And I am not the only person who has found Dawkins's arguments off-base and lacking in substance, and in some cases bigoted and (in the case of his meme theory) absurd.

What makes it not scholarly isn't only that his field isn't religious studies, or history, or psychology, but that he obviously didn't study his subject matter, and in fact bragged about it. As for his philosophy doctorate I am torn between thinking that he should have known better, and that it might explain why his arguments are so divorced from reality.

And I didn't suggest anything; I said clearly it was a response to someone implying I thought he was too insulting; it didn't require a lecture. What I didn't say is that I know ahead of time that neither of us is likely to convince the other, so it is a pointless exercise I'm not really interested in.

Perhaps you should just accept that some of us don't agree with him. I'm not trying to tell you what to think.

Funny, in a reverse way some of these dogmatic anti-theist argument remind me of the outrage against Payette and the refusal to recognize either the context (at a science conference), or the rhetorical nature of the point she was making. Part of the reason why I like Michael Coren's refreshing response as an illustration that theists and atheists alike can think for themselves, appreciate nuance, and not be at each others' throats. In fact a great number on both sides want no part of this stupid fight.

 

 

 

Pondering

cco wrote:

I checked, and nothing on the "role" page of the GG's site includes "making creationists feel warm and fuzzy".

So according to you EVERYONE who believed God created mankind, even though evolution, is a Creationist and mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them.

You're wrong on both counts.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Funny, in a reverse way some of these dogmatic anti-theist argument remind me of the outrage against Payette and the refusal to recognize either the context (at a science conference), or the rhetorical nature of the point she was making.

Of course she made the mistake because she was at a science conference. She forgot that she can't just speak as a scientist at public events she must also realize that she is speaking as Governor General at all times when in public. Had she been speaking at a higher profile event, or had it been during a slow newsweek, there would have been more outrage. As it is I think it has pretty much flown under the radar. That to me is evidence of how mainstream atheism has become in Canada.

Of course it was rhetorical. Isn't everything in a speech rhetorical in nature unless you are trying to rev. up the crowd?

6079_Smith_W

Well clearly the meaning of my comment flew under someone's radar too. I'll just add, in some ways these groups kind of deserve each other.

cco

Pondering wrote:

So according to you EVERYONE who believed God created mankind, even though evolution, is a Creationist and mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them.

We went over this upthread, so I'll keep it concise: Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicating organisms. If you believe God directed the outcome and just made it look random, you're a creationist, even if not the six-day variety.

I certainly don't believe mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them. I do like it to be allowed, though, and nothing in the GG's job description says her speech violated it. If you think the flurry of editorials, panel discussions, and incensed declarations about this speech was so small that it proves the 5% of Canadians who are atheist are now "mainstream", we live in pretty different worlds.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I kind of look at the design proof as being a bit like the game mousetrap.  You build a framework for the universe and set a ball rolling and humans come out at the end - cuz that was the plan.  The power of evolution is included in designing the framework.

And of course good is rewarded and bad is punished in 'this the best of all possible worlds' (to quote Voltaire).

6079_Smith_W

In theory I agree.

In practical terms I look at it more through the way it actually rose to prominence, which is as a tactic of the religious right to force religion into schools after the courts stopped them.

Because although there are older versions of it, it sure isn't what they were pushing until it was the only option they had on the table. After all, any less dogmatic believers who just left that question up to mystery, or unanswered sure as hell weren't pushing to have god-driven evolution taught in school.

That, more than anything, is why I have no problem with Payette's comments. Whether she indended it or not,  it isn't just a defense of evolution; it is a defense of secular education.

 

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W said:

You know Rev, the thing about telling people they should read something and make up their own minds about it is that you need to recognize that some aren't going to see it your way, and that your perspective is not the only valid one. It isn't the case that if we all read it enough times we would agree with you. And I am not the only person who has found Dawkins's arguments off-base and lacking in substance, and in some cases bigoted and (in the case of his meme theory) absurd.

What makes it not scholarly isn't only that his field isn't religious studies, or history, or psychology, but that he obviously didn't study his subject matter, and in fact bragged about it.

You know, Smith, one of the things about suggesting people do their own reading is it allows them to make up their mind about what is written. 

I'm pretty confident that anyone with a reasonable grasp of the issues will find the book interesting and informative, even if they don't necessarily agree with all the points made. On the other hand, you seem worried that without your 'reviews', consisting of 'dumb', 'tone deaf', and 'just plain stupid', people might read, and actually agree with it.

As far as 'meme', it is not a theory. It is only a word used to describe a phenomenon. So to say it's an absurd theory is completely incorrect.

And as far as the scholarship in 'The God Delusion', there are an enormous number of quotes directly from theologians, which are then examined. Sometimes I think that's the problem theologians have with the book. They don't like it when their own words are examined. Given their own complete lack of scholarship, I'm not surprised.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

So according to you EVERYONE who believed God created mankind, even though evolution, is a Creationist and mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them.

We went over this upthread, so I'll keep it concise: Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicating organisms. If you believe God directed the outcome and just made it look random, you're a creationist, even if not the six-day variety.

I certainly don't believe mocking people is the sole means of criticizing them. I do like it to be allowed, though, and nothing in the GG's job description says her speech violated it. If you think the flurry of editorials, panel discussions, and incensed declarations about this speech was so small that it proves the 5% of Canadians who are atheist are now "mainstream", we live in pretty different worlds.

I just quoted statistics that said 80% of Canadians would vote for an atheist. Here are some more statistics.

In 2011, a survey conducted by Ipsos-Reid showed that 47% of the Canadian population believed religion does more harm in the world than good, while 64% believed that religion provides more questions than answers.[4] A 2008 Canadian Press Harris-Decima telephone survey of just over 1,000 Canadians found 23% were willing to state they do not believe in any god.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Canada

The GGs job is to unite Canadians and represent us diplomatically. Mocking some Canadians is not unifying. The job description isn't going to specify "not mocking" or "not swearing" or "not insulting the Queen".  If you look at the chart on that page irreligion is growing very fast. We are winning the battle against religion. In my opinion we are winning because we rely on science and education not intimidation, brainwashing and insults.

If the GG mocked gays or trans people I don't think you would be okay with that. I think you would be saying the GG shouldn't be mocking Canadians regardless of their status.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If the GG mocked gays or trans people I don't think you would be okay with that.

I would be OK with it, if gays or trans people were doing anything nearly as stupid and mock-worthy as believing that the first ingredient in evolution is "magic".

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
That, more than anything, is why I have no problem with Payette's comments. Whether she indended it or not,  it isn't just a defense of evolution; it is a defense of secular education.

Mocking people isn't a defence of evolution or secular education. It's a declaration of failure.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If the GG mocked gays or trans people I don't think you would be okay with that.

I would be OK with it, if gays or trans people were doing anything nearly as stupid and mock-worthy as believing that the first ingredient in evolution is "magic".

Is that because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Is that because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?

Is that a false binary, or a false dichotomy?

Do we mock "flat earth" folk because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?  Please don't pretend you stop and listen when a flat-earther speaks.

How about Obama birthers?  Anti-vaxxers?  Those Queen St. goths who believe, in their "unbeating heart" of hearts that they're really a "vampire"?  Where can we draw the line where we really just don't have to care any more about someone's feelings just because they really believe something?

 

NorthReport

This thread has me thinking about, Ralph Nadar of  'Unsafe at any Speed' fame, approach to intolerant people. I was at an automobile insurance convention in Montreal where Nadar was a Speaker. Following his talk he asked the audience if there were any comments or questions. One individual actually had the courage to get up and challenge him. When he was finished, Nadar totally destroyed the man using a combination of facts (i.e. science), mocking, and ridicule in front of his peers. Nadar then asked if there was any other comments or questions and their was total silence from the rest of the cowards (sales people) in the room. Maybe it is time to use the Nadar approach because by going against science you can be endangering both your own, and your co-citizens, lives.

I am also following the Senate campaign of the holier than thou Fundamentalist Christian accused molester Roy Moore's run for office.

 

PS And no mocking is not necessarily a failure as Nadar's efforts removed the unsafe Corvair from production. It actually saved lives!

6079_Smith_W

Sure, except that Payette didn't give someone a verbal dressing down in public, it was an honest statement to a science audience about acceptance of evidence .

I think the "mocking" charge is something spun by extremists on both sides of this and accepted by others without actually considering what she was saying and where. I am in the camp that doesn't see it as mocking at all.

NorthReport

I am not suggesting Payette was mocking anyone, just that sometimes it is a good approach when dealing with anti-science folks.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, that what lots of people seem to be reading into it, is my meaning.

Personally I don't think people who simply believe that deserve to be mocked, and I don't see that as her intent. She was talking in general terms about these attitudes undermining evidence-based understanding, with damaging results.

As for those who get all righteous about it and choose to be offended... they are the ones who can have a second helping as far as I am concerned, because they are the ones pushing it in schools, along with pushing the rest of their values on other people.

Coren actually said she was being unfair in comparing religious believers to horoscope followers. I expect he was joking and not joking, but really, most horoscope believers are also benign enough too. Really, it wouldn't be an issue except for those who push it on others and into public policy.

Ultimately, it is an issue of values and how far people push them, not theism. Plenty of climate deniers do so simply because of greed, and plenty of those who opt for treatments that don't work do so because of a mistrust of the medical system.

 

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Is that because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?

Is that a false binary, or a false dichotomy?

Do we mock "flat earth" folk because mocking people is an effective educational tool or because ignorant people deserve to be insulted?  Please don't pretend you stop and listen when a flat-earther speaks.

How about Obama birthers?  Anti-vaxxers?  Those Queen St. goths who believe, in their "unbeating heart" of hearts that they're really a "vampire"?  Where can we draw the line where we really just don't have to care any more about someone's feelings just because they really believe something?

Again, there is a difference between a representative of the government doing it and someone doing it as an individual.

No I wouldn't mock anti-vaxers or anyone else who geniunely believes in something that is false because they have fallen for false information or have been brainwashed. Maybe they can be educated, maybe not, but mocking is more likely to do damage than help. I don't see any reason to not care about someone's feelings unless they have deliberately harmed another person.

 

NorthReport

Good.

Let's have much more of this!

And FWIW I attend church. 

A Respected Scientist Comes Out Against Evolution – and Loses His Wikipedia Page

Attempts by proponents of ‘intelligent design’ to save German paleontologist Günter Bechly’s entry backfires, highlighting how Wikipedia struggles to keep scientific content clean of politics
 

https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/1.823247

6079_Smith_W

I think deleting it was a mistake; they could have just put a lock on it. People would want to know about the controversy, and really wikipedia not having that information just makes them look like censors. The guy is still a scientist.

Besides, former U of W prof Tim Ball still has a wikipedia page, and is still recognized as a professor of climatology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball

Would they delete Isaac Newton because he was an alchemist?

 

NorthReport

That's even a better solution Smith

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I agree they need to get a handle on partisans who want to manipulate a site, but if they can manage to do that in something much bigger, like the war in Ukraine, what is the problem here? What sets alarm bells for me is them being able to question his credentials as a scientist. It sets a bad precedent, as it is their job to be an encyclopedia, and by censoring basic information they are undermining themselves.

Pondering

Only his Engish language page was deleted.

https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia...

The following new taxa were named after Günter Bechly:

Read the page. There is no valid excuse for censoring this information.

6079_Smith_W

Funny that didn't come up for me. In any case, his german page also has a summary of this whole dispute, so I am not sure what the problem is. Except perhaps that wikipedia are volunteers, and therefore shouldn't necessarily be expected to waste their time with this shit.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't see any reason to not care about someone's feelings unless they have deliberately harmed another person.

I doubt I'd mock someone who avoids a black cat, or doesn't schedule something important on Friday the 13th.

But while perhaps not directly, I think that silly-ass creationism nonsense (and the silly-ass 'birther' movement, and the silly-ass anti-vax movement) DO harm.  Promoting them does harm.  It's as "neutral" or "non-partisan" as saying "But can mere humans really change the climate?  Watch this YT video just to make sure you've got all the information".

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't see any reason to not care about someone's feelings unless they have deliberately harmed another person.

I doubt I'd mock someone who avoids a black cat, or doesn't schedule something important on Friday the 13th.

But while perhaps not directly, I think that silly-ass creationism nonsense (and the silly-ass 'birther' movement, and the silly-ass anti-vax movement) DO harm.  Promoting them does harm.  It's as "neutral" or "non-partisan" as saying "But can mere humans really change the climate?  Watch this YT video just to make sure you've got all the information".

I don't need to watch a video to know all those things are very harmful. That is why it is so important to educate people. When "the left" or "the liberal elite" or "progressives" mock people they do the opposite of educating. People who mock lose the respect of those they are mocking. That leads to the election of people like Trump and Ford to stick it to the mocking elites. It leads to disrespect for academics not the advance of science.

PS aim at the 1% not the 99%

NorthReport

I can't thank Payette enough for her dead-0n comments.

This is gobbeldygook religion and the medical staff should have had the right to overrule her.

Jehovah's Witness 'within rights' to refuse blood transfusion

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42002996

 

6079_Smith_W

No they should not, and you can thank those people for doing a lot of the leg work and court work that gave us our charter of rights.

Furthermore, if there is any community that this should not come down on it is them, because unlike many more powerful religions they have gone out of their way to have nothing to do with our politics and society; they don't even vote. For that, they got nothing but persecution, until they started to fight for their rights. To continue to violate their rights here would be no different than those who are trying to ban what people want to wear on their faces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_Ca...

This isn't about belief. It is about power and influence.

 

 

cco

In theory, I don't have a problem with an adult individual JW refusing treatment. In practice, the JWs have "committees" that go to hospitals and threaten their members with eternal damnation should they accept treatment (refuse to commit suicide), which, somewhat ironically, is exactly the situation the religious right was freaking out about when the assisted dying bill was being debated. There's also the issue of JW parents blocking their infants from receiving treatment. But at least they helped give us the Charter, establishing the freedom of every religion to rack up its own body count.

6079_Smith_W

She had a right to make that choice, just like anyone has a right to refuse treatment, or end their lives.

Neither she nor her religion are the ones trying to push their dogma on our governments and our school boards.

So unless we want to start making associations with body counts of anti-religious regimes (and I am not doing that) maybe we should make a distinction between the actions of organizations, and the rights and beliefs of their followers.

cco

I thought I was doing exactly that. She has the right to refuse treatment, and I'm a supporter of the right to suicide, as well. I'm less keen on the JWs coercing their members to do so. In my ideal world, those committee members would be charged under this section, but I'm sure they'd have an ironclad Charter defense that counselling suicide is okay so long as it's religious counselling.

6079_Smith_W

Actually what it is is beside the point.

But I am kind of used to having conversations about people's rights getting distracted by argument that the religions are the real villains, not the governments trying to force them to take off niqabs and turbans.

Or in this case, not. Because sad as it is, she has every right to refuse treatment.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
which, somewhat ironically, is exactly the situation the religious right was freaking out about when the assisted dying bill was being debated.

I support this woman's right to make her own choices.  And realistically, sometimes refusing established treatments IS tantamount to suicide (and I still support it).

But I'm glad that cco mentioned this, because he's right.  Isn't that one of the big "problems" with assisted suicide?  The family members (who want their inheritance now) or the hospital boards (who could save a thousand dollars) or the public (who find sick people uncomfortable) pressuring someone to end it?

Ya, it is kind of funny that a religion could mobilize some troops to visit a sick person and urge them -- on pain of hellfire and brimstone -- to make the "right" choice, but we shouldn't worry about that?

6079_Smith_W

Um. Not that we shouldn't, if it happened.

But in a conversation about the possibility of her being restrained and having a needle jammed into her arm (which is what was suggested) it is a distraction from the point. Same as the distractions we get from some when talking about clothing bans.

The difference is of course the power of religions to coerce versus the powers of governments to force. And even in cco's personal examples it ultimately comes down to governments infringing on matters of conscience, and ability to run for office. Not religions.

And is there any evidence that the woman was shamed or intimidated by a gang into making this decision about her own body? And it not, then why are we even talking about it?

What we are really doing is undermining her conviction that she was willing to die for, and refusing to accept that someone would make that decision on their own. Seems kind of a backhanded way of respecting her rights.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Speaking just for me, I don't know anything about this particular woman's situation and I'm not alleging anything.

I also don't disbelieve cco when he talks about JWs pressuring members to refuse life-saving treatment, and the obvious analogies between that and the "death panels" that so many folk assume will be deciding who lives and who dies (or, less formally, the greedy inheritors who will surely 'pressure' Grandma to end it so they can inherit her Hummel figurines).

6079_Smith_W

Far from "not disbelieving", I am aware they exist. I don't like their capacity to pressure people either. Many hospitals have policies about how to deal with those situations, and with people refusing treatment.

But let's not mistake our disagreement, and difficulty in understanding this woman's decision for an assumption that she was coerced. There is no evidence she was. So far as we know it is a strong personal conviction that she was willing to put her life on the line for.

And again, let's not let it distract from the actual point, which was the government forcing decisions on people against their will.

 

Pages