Jehovah's Witness have Right to State Funding

[Bob]

http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sweden-jehovahs-witnesses-have-right-to-state-funding/

 

This is interesting in Sweden, as our freedoms were "limited" because we did not accept Blood Transfusions, particularly in the case of minors. Their equivalent of the US Supreme Court overruled them and said that our freedoms cannot be limited unless their is compelling reasons. Sweden previously said that our refusing Blood Transfusions  did not support the country's "fundamental values". However, those "values" included the rights to refuse medical treatment as pointed out the Court, so the contradiction is painfully obvious.

 

So citizens can refuse any virtually any medical treatment they want, even proven life-saving ones, but not blood transfusions?

 

Seems like a clear case of religious discrimination and I am happy it appears to be getting resolved.

 

Thoughts?

[Alexa]

James 2:14 Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?  15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day,  16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? Brother Bob  

[Adelin]

Sweden is popular for its stance regarding children care. Many agree that they have gone into extremes in this regard.

BTW, do we accept state funding in Sweden?

Edited March 1, 2017 by Adelin

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Adelin said:

Sweden is popular for its stance regarding children care. Many agree that they have gone into extremes in this regard.

BTW, do we accept state funding in Sweden?

 

I don't know about the funding thing, but I have to say I do not agree with your conclusion. I'll accept that Sweden cares about children and may have gone to extremes at times, however, since blood transfusions were singled out from the countless forms of medical treatment available to be refused,  it appears targeted at us since we are the only religion that officially rejects blood transfusions.

 

The higher court probably saw through the ruse of Child Protective care and deemed the restriction discriminatory. I agree that it was discriminatory.

4 hours ago, Alexa said:

James 2:14 Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?  15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day,  16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? Brother Bob  

I'm sorry, but I don't not follow your point.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Bob

[Adelin]

I just meant it's not surprising that there is a great issue about children. Maybe, in this country, it's the greatest possibility of  losing your child if some people report you for some reason. There were many news reports in our country about people losing their child (to the Swedish state) for various reasons (some of them are ridiculous).

[Bob]

2 hours ago, Adelin said:

I just meant it's not surprising that there is a great issue about children. Maybe, in this country, it's the greatest possibility of  losing your child if some people report you for some reason. There were many news reports in our country about people losing their child (to the Swedish state) for various reasons (some of them are ridiculous).

I don't disagree there. And mind you, I didn't say you were wrong, I just didn't agree with you. What you pointed out plays a HUGE role, however.