Very well said, Eleleth.

Is there, can there, be a separation of church and State!? (or Province, or Crown) Really!? Religion wants freedom from, and yet the secular community expects the right to, decide what is best for the whole of it's citizens to do, by law. So while a JW may claim the right to refuse transfusions for their babies, the authorities have the right to step in and save them, by a higher law. It may be imagined, but it's not true. There really is no separation of church and government, when government can trump those of the church.

Case in point, this issue and the gay couples equality vs. catholic church adoption policy, in the UK. Notice how the challenge is being set, as to which has the higher authority to govern their own people?! Ultimately the citizen is a citizen first, before they are a faithful member of any faith. And , at least in the U.S. the church is in some contract with the government, anyway. Tax exempt status, via the IRS. As well as being liable for property taxes, where their religious buildings stand. It's almost like there is a separation allowance, as long as it doesn't try to supersede secular authority. So really, what freedom of religion is there, except the choice to have faith!? When government can tell you how far it's allowed to go, before they step in?! What is freedom as we know it anyway, but that which we're allowed to do by law?!

well gw,

the domesticated human is like the domesticated animal. It does not just define its freedoms through its limits, but depends upon them at a core level. Very very few ever understand freedom as anything more than that confined within the parameters by which they define themselves, which are borrowed from their social constructs. the horse conditioned to live in a fenced in field may feel free to run within his confines, and comfortable/secure knowing his terrain.

The "restriction" most definetly needs to be addressed. If we take all relative perspectives of morality away and take the religion out of the issue. Is there one case scenario where refusing this blood transfusion would be deemed the right choice by any of us?

Say it was looked at in the context of battle of the fittest. Where as to have 6 babies and 3 or four of them need blood transfusions the law of "natural selection" might dictate to allow the weaker ones to perish and put all concentration on the stronger babies. The mother's attention, her milk, and food resources are spent on the stronger babies while the weaker die. This ensures a stronger offspring and a stronger gene pool.

If it was viewed as ensuring the survival of a bloodline and the strength there of, is allowing the other babies to perish a bad thing?

So then that would make freedom relative!?

Great responses Eleleth and Hyper. I had the same response when reading the topic post. And the 'knee-jerk' reaction by some responders -that hyper alluded to, made me think... if they would react the same in regards to abortion? But of course, through other threads, I know that answer. But, the overriding theme or title of the article IMO should be-- Government Control--When is enough, enough? Unfortunately, we the people let it happen, government has become an organized religion. Canada, can be a lesson (guinea pig) for Americans from which to learn what not to do. We aren't far off, there is still time to change that course, as long as emotional 'knee-jerkers' aren't elected there is a chance.

I happened on an old episode of the series: "Law and Order". In that one of the characters/scientists said America is becoming like unto a Panopticon. What with all the big brother camera's in most community area's. Not to mention all the rights that have been suspended or augmented to defer to government discretion, America is becoming like a giant prison. But I think if one looks around the world, they'll see a great many panopticon's popping up. One world of confined populations. Who's communications, modes of travel, all resources to escape or circumvent that allocation, are controlled by those that would seek to erect the prisons, from the beginning. Government. Therefore, it would seem that old saying holds a lot of merit, in such circumstance:


So then, what if all the religions that stand under the umbrella of government permissions, like that tax exempt status that bonds the two camps inextricably, what if religion is just the salve the government allows to exist so that, while in the midst of the real world politics, there's something to hope for!?
Marx said religion is the opium of the masses. What if government is the dealer, in a certain measure!? Hey! That would mean only the agnostics and atheists are really free. Nah, just kidding. We're in it up to our hips, to.

What I find amusing is that this case will go to court to figure out who is "right". Amusing because child services did exactly what they are there to do, even though in many cases that dont make the news they fail to do their jobs, and the JW family did exactly what they do. Both right or both wrong lol? So two opposing perspectives have run into each other and everyone is throwing in their own perspectives on the subject, us on internet forums, media mouths and politicians all throwing how they see it out there. So lets take it to court to see whos right they say, lets take it to our imagined deciders of right and wrong to see who wins I hear. Lets argue which imagined moral set sits higher on the imagined moral hierarchy, is it the state or is it religion? Only the law, the imagined moral authorities can decide. Humanity awaits anxiously for the verdict so we can continue living knowing the right thing was done.... and so we can argue our perspectives on the verdict, if it was right or it was wrong lol.