Jehovah's Witnesses

Of all the religions, Jehovah's Witnesses can be particularly annoying due to their frequent visits to homeowners' doorsteps. In the healthcare field, Jehovah's Witnesses can be problematic, because they refuse blood transfusions -- and it sometimes comes down to receive it or die?

In the article linked below, I would say the tone of the article is a bit misleading. There has always been a drive towards using less blood in surgeries. It is not Jehovah's witnesses driving this, but the shortage of blood, and the complications that come with blood incompatabilities. Maybe the Chronicle is giving Jehovah's witnesses a bit more good press, since they're here in droves for a series of conventions in the Cow Palace. Stanford, and most hospitals, try to honor and find ways to work with, rather than against various religious and cultural belief structures.

At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses are not the driving factor in reducing blood transfusions, but recalcitrant guinea pigs, since they are willing to die if the only thing between them and death is a blood transfusion. This means what could be a routine surgery becomes a harrowing gauntlet for medical staff -- first, will we actually need blood? (in some surgeries, it's nearly unavoidable); second, how close to death will the patient actually come without blood? (too close means it's too late); and third, will the patient or their family relent in their belief to allow transfusion to avert death at the last minute? (many do).

From the San Francisco Chronicle (announcement by way of American Association of Blood Banks newsletter):

Jehovah's Witness' religious beliefs have encouraged advances in "bloodless" surgeries and spawned a new push for bloodless medical programs at hospitals including Stanford University Medical Center, where transfusion experts note that the reliance on public blood supplies could be threatened during an epidemic or terrorist attack. San Francisco Chronicle (7/20)

The bigger picture here, though is that it is a hypocritical fad to say that we honor deeply held religious beliefs... that is, unless you happen to be a member of Al Qaeda ? We DO draw lines because we believe that some religions are just plain wrong. Of course, those are always "destructive beliefs of the enemy," never our own destructive beliefs.

Burning Man Religion ?

For many people, Burning Man has become a default religion of sorts. For those needing a cult figure, it has that, though for those who think that's ridiculous, bowing before Larry is not required.

Many people plan their seasons around Burning Man activities.

The best thing about Burning Man, though, is that it only dictates some basic core rules that will insure its survival. You don't have to "believe" in Burning Man, you can just participate, and they hope you will follow their basic rules. Breaking some rules will get you thrown out (but mostly only after stern warning). Breaking other rules is common (Leave No Trace), but there is enough social stigma to have some force, even among transient strangers.

Though some religions are extremely strict and require banishment for lack of following the rules, most religions are pretty lax about these things. In this respect, Burning Man LLC could just as well be Burning Man, a religion, however, the founders felt that forming an LLC was the best way to promote their cause and livelihood. Calling something "a religion" automatically turns many people off, for fear they will have to sacrifice their babies and turn over all their finances. The other notion is that if it's "a religion" the rules are automatically "top-down." What about a democratic, grass-roots, or bottom-up religion ? It could be possible. Burning Man is close to this paradigm.

Mormons

The Mormons have a few things right.

1. Promotion of a family unit (even though their version of the family is archaic).

2. Sending young adults on a "mission" to experience another part of the world/culture.

3. For those who need it, dietary guidelines and restrictions (no caffeine)...

Otherwise, they have a bunch of odd mystical stuff thrown in that makes no sense. But there's enough practical stuff in the mess that makes it a rapidly growing religion.

Am I Humanist ?

First, I should put out there that I was raised Christian, and now consider myself a Humanist.

That said, I am not really that impressed with Humanists, because as a group, they have a long way to go. They are primarily intellectuals out to prove how smart they are. To someone who believes in religion, they would rather say, "let me prove how you are wrong" rather than "let me help you transition to a better paradigm in life."

Perhaps my attitude towards helping others leave the hindrance of religious belief is based in my Christian upbringing. Here is an important point: religions serve valid functions, and to attack them without offering useful, fulfilling replacement will never work. Furthermore, a belief structure cannot grow if it only attacks without offering replacement.

I am not a Unitarian, because although I believe all the religions perform valid functions in their adherents' lives, I cannot embrace those religions; I can only look at them to see what positive aspects they may have. In this respect, the new amalgam would allow patently absurd belief structures, but only in the sense that they are experimental, and a periodic assessment of their usefulness would occur.