On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:09:04 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
crossing buttons come into this category? Of course, some Christian
nutters would rather die than accept a life-saving blood transfusion,
and they inflict this on their children, too.

Yup. Jehovahs witnesses are evil scum. End of.

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:09:04 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
crossing buttons come into this category? Of course, some Christian
nutters would rather die than accept a life-saving blood transfusion,
and they inflict this on their children, too.

Yup. Jehovahs witnesses are evil scum. End of.

I'd like to see JWs charged and convicted of murder or manslaughter if the
child dies, and negligence or child abuse if it survives, in this case. Why
should doctors have to jump through hoops (using non-blood substitutes) if
parents refuse treatment? Refusing treatment for yourself is fair enough,
but
foisting that on someone that you are responsible for is very different.

On Oct 3, 12:09*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"NM" wrote in message



On Oct 3, 11:02 am, "GT" wrote:

This is silly - removing the button doesn't help them to avoid
breaking their law: The religious law prohibits them from using
electricity or operating machinery on the Sabbath. What exactly do
they think the green man is powered by?!!

Sweetcorn? * * * *I hope none of them are fitted with heart
pacemakers. *:-)

I think the made-up religious rules are conveniently relaxed for
live-saving medical technology (Jerusalem hospital work seven-days a
week, after all) -- maybe someone should have deemed that pedestrian
crossing buttons come into this category? *Of course, some Christian
nutters would rather die than accept a life-saving blood transfusion,
and they inflict this on their children, too.

I know a Jewish scholar who goes on at length about the ridiculous
interpretations put on Jewish Law regarding the Sabbath. The problem
seems to be that getting two individual rabbis, sects or synagogues to
agree on one point of law without generations of debate, is a bit like
herding cats. As he said to me one, if Jews followed the instructions
exactly, none of them would be able to go to synagogue on the Sabbath,
as they wouldn't be able to operate the door handle to get out of the
house.

Neill

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 04:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
neill wrote:
I know a Jewish scholar who goes on at length about the ridiculous
interpretations put on Jewish Law regarding the Sabbath. The problem
seems to be that getting two individual rabbis, sects or synagogues to
agree on one point of law without generations of debate, is a bit like
herding cats. As he said to me one, if Jews followed the instructions
exactly, none of them would be able to go to synagogue on the Sabbath,
as they wouldn't be able to operate the door handle to get out of the
house.

Its all how many fairies on the head of a pin really isn't it.

B2003

On 03/10/2011 12:23, neill wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:09 pm, wrote:
wrote in message



On Oct 3, 11:02 am, wrote:

This is silly - removing the button doesn't help them to avoid
breaking their law: The religious law prohibits them from using
electricity or operating machinery on the Sabbath. What exactly do
they think the green man is powered by?!!

Sweetcorn? I hope none of them are fitted with heart
pacemakers. :-)

I think the made-up religious rules are conveniently relaxed for
live-saving medical technology (Jerusalem hospital work seven-days a
week, after all) -- maybe someone should have deemed that pedestrian
crossing buttons come into this category? Of course, some Christian
nutters would rather die than accept a life-saving blood transfusion,
and they inflict this on their children, too.

I know a Jewish scholar who goes on at length about the ridiculous
interpretations put on Jewish Law regarding the Sabbath. The problem
seems to be that getting two individual rabbis, sects or synagogues to
agree on one point of law without generations of debate, is a bit like
herding cats. As he said to me one, if Jews followed the instructions
exactly, none of them would be able to go to synagogue on the Sabbath,
as they wouldn't be able to operate the door handle to get out of the
house.

Another silly thing is these instructions are "fences around the law" -
they're there to prevent you getting close to breaking the actual rules.

In message , Recliner
writes
"NM" wrote in message

On Oct 3, 11:02 am, "GT" wrote:


This is silly - removing the button doesn't help them to avoid
breaking their law: The religious law prohibits them from using
electricity or operating machinery on the Sabbath. What exactly do
they think the green man is powered by?!!

Sweetcorn? I hope none of them are fitted with heart
pacemakers. :-)

I think the made-up religious rules are conveniently relaxed for
live-saving medical technology (Jerusalem hospital work seven-days a
week, after all) -- maybe someone should have deemed that pedestrian
crossing buttons come into this category? Of course, some Christian
nutters would rather die than accept a life-saving blood transfusion,
and they inflict this on their children, too.

There are nice exemptions for being able to eat pork and bacon if it is
a "medical emergency". More difficult to engineer than it should be
(engineer being the fail word too - naughty)

That said, hypothetically speaking, if you do fall of the bandwagon, it
does mean that eating pork and bacon becomes more pleasurable than most
Christians/other peoples will ever be able to appreciate eating the same
food (due to the knowledge that one is eating prohibited food).

And, just about, slightly on topic. There's a very good all night
beigel bakery on Brick Lane between Liverpool Street Station and
Shoreditch High Street Station. I recommend their salt beef beigels.
The shop is not certified kosher, so that reduces the potential cost by
50%.

--
Paul G
Typing from Kentish Town

"Huge" wrote in message

On 2011-10-03, Paul G wrote:
In message , Recliner

There are nice exemptions for being able to eat pork and bacon if it
is a "medical emergency".

Actually, there is a blanket exemption for all the rules of Judaism if
there's a life threatening situation. Not just medical emergencies.

Wouldn't crossing a busy road count as a life threatening situation?

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:02:31 +0100, "GT" lied:

wrote in message
...
Though I heard about this on LBC this morning too so I suspect it isn't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...strian-crossin
g-devout-Jews-cross-road.html

http://percyweller.wordpress.com/201...every-90-secs/

I would suggest that if these religious nutters really are so hamstrung by
their interpretation of their religion they just stay inside instead of
everyone else being inconvenienced - including probably the large number
of
ordinary jews that live in that area.

B2003

This is silly - removing the button doesn't help them to avoid breaking
their law: The religious law prohibits them from using electricity or
operating machinery on the Sabbath. What exactly do they think the green man
is powered by?!!

Your ignorance is showing again, liar. You don't understand the jew
sabbath laws. They are not allowed to *initiate* the use of
electricity.

wrote in message
...
Though I heard about this on LBC this morning too so I suspect it isn't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...strian-crossin
g-devout-Jews-cross-road.html

http://percyweller.wordpress.com/201...every-90-secs/

I would suggest that if these religious nutters really are so hamstrung by
their interpretation of their religion they just stay inside instead of
everyone else being inconvenienced - including probably the large number
of
ordinary jews that live in that area.

This idea stinks. No-one should foist their religion on other non-believers
by expecting special treatment from the law. If they *choose* not to press
buttons to permit them to cross the road, then it's very simple: they
*choose* not to be able to cross the road safely.

Anyone who puts religion *before* day-to-day living, and chooses to let it
rule their lives is a nutter. For me, religion is a servant, not a master.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:15:25 +0100
"Mortimer" wrote:
This idea stinks. No-one should foist their religion on other non-believers
by expecting special treatment from the law. If they *choose* not to press
buttons to permit them to cross the road, then it's very simple: they
*choose* not to be able to cross the road safely.

Anyone who puts religion *before* day-to-day living, and chooses to let it
rule their lives is a nutter. For me, religion is a servant, not a master.

Yup. The way a lot of religious people talk you'd think they were being forced
to observe whatever silly rules or laws they adhere to rather than it being
a matter of choice on their part. And as you say , if they choose to stick
to these rules for whatever reason there's no reason other people should be
inconvenienced because of it. But then try telling that to whatever tree
hugging right-on liberal dreamed up this idiocy.

B2003