As has been happening at a concerning and increasing rate over the last several years, the Russian Federation continues with its persecution and crackdown on Jehovah’s Witnesses. This can take the form of raids as happened in 2019, as reported by Human Rights Watch in “Persecution Against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia Escalates.”

It happens in home searches, interrogations, and harassment, as covered in “Russia: Sweeping Arrests of Jehovah’s Witnesses” by Human Rights Watch once more. Kudos to their efforts in covering human rights violations.

According to the Moscow Times reportage in “Russia ‘Escalating’ Jehovah’s Witnesses Crackdown – HRW” on some of the persecution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with the labeling by the Russian Supreme Court of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as an “extremist” organization in 2017, 313 people had been estimated, by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to have been charged or convicted (circa January 10, 2020). There are a lot of stories of persecution and damage to lives coming out now, whether towards the Jehovah’s Witnesses from crackdowns, or from the Jehovah’s Witnesses towards child abuse survivors from members followed by cover-ups or deaths following from theological policies on blood transfusions.

In late June of 2018, Rachel Denber, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses are simply peacefully exercising their right to freedom of religion… The Jehovah’s Witness faith is not an extremist organization, and authorities should stop this religious persecution of its worshipers now.”

Denber is right; the Jehovah’s Witnesses are correct to practice religion freely. The moral sentiment seems just now. In that the human rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses are violated as a community of belief and practice, one largely keeping enclosed, though with some proselytizing, when Russian authorities come and raid worshippers, harass believers, and label them as an “extremist” group carte blanche.

As per the international rights frameworks of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of belief. The crackdowns coming from the Russian authorities during peaceful gatherings for worship violate these rights. At the same time, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have garnered a mixed reputation. Internally, many hopefuls wish for Armageddon. For others who have left, there is a different view, whether a more modern scientific and rationalistic viewpoint or another ancient supernaturalistic religious take on reality. Those different views can come in a variety of forms, including prominent voices.

As seen in some of the anti-Watchtower writings of former Jehovah’s Witness Mark O’Donnell, also known by the pseudonym John Redwood (who left the faith at the age of 46), at JWSurvey who has covered some of the child abuse examples and sexual abuse instances within court cases [Ed. “Jehovah’s Witnesses Reject Plasma Injections for COVID-19” updated with the source, author, article title, and hyperlink to relevant quotation on June 8.]. Or the general cases of blood transfusion leading to the deaths of thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses (see “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy” by Lee Elder”), or in the exposure work of Douglas Quenqua in The Atlantic article entitled “A Secret Database of Child Abuse” (Kimberly O’Donnell/Kimmy O’Donnell & Mark O’Donnell are covered here, too), the complaints have been numerous from a wide range of actors on the issues within the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As with any religious group with supernatural beliefs, the behaviours within the community and with the natural world can be eccentric, e.g., belief in the supernatural or the coming of an Armageddon, and, sometimes, damaging to the health of community members, e.g., rejection, by and large, of blood transfusions. Although, there are some groups such as Advocates for Jehovah’s Witness Reform on Blood (AJWRB) led by Lee Elder (Director) who work towards reform, which, probably, comes with significant backlash and condemnation against him and the AJWRB.

With blood transfusions, one can see some of the statements on the Jehovah’s Witnesses website under the article entitled “Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?” The article points to what they deem myths and facts. One of those stipulated as a myth is not believing in medicine or medical treatments. However, within the frame of the article on blood transfusions themselves, the denial of blood transfusions is a denial of a medical treatment, not all, obviously. Thus, it is a self-defeating article (once again, grounded in theology).

The justifications given are not scientific or medical. They are religious. This is posed as a medical issue, at root, rather than the reality of the presentation of biblical quotes making this really posed as a religious issue. Thus, the denial of a medical treatment, which is a denial of medicine in part, emerges out of a theological or a religious doctrine, or background, with quotations from a religious series of storybooks, i.e., no better than air on matters of empirics and science, especially in the modern world.

“Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood,” the website states, “(Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.”

Even in the article “What Does the Bible Say About Blood Transfusions?“, the medical orientation on the blood transfusions of the Jehovah’s Witnesses becomes theological once more, i.e., theological posed as scientific or as medical science, which isn’t how medicine or science work. As they state:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.

Leviticus 17:14. ”You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.

Acts 15:20. ”Abstain . . . from blood.” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.

…God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

If we quoted books from Mormons or the Scientologists, would this make the practice any more substantiated? Even on the issues of simple medical treatments, the references in “Can a Christian Accept Medical Treatment?” come back to a series of sacred texts or storybooks comprised of miracles and tall tales, which was written and re-written in a truly pre-scientific era without the proper comprehension and application of medicine and medical technology seen in the modern day. The collection of books is, at a minimum, outdated and, thus, completely ill-equipped to provide medical and scientific recommendations.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses in “Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?” assert the following myth and fact dichotomy:

Myth: Many Witnesses, including children, die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions.

Fact: This statement is totally unfounded. Surgeons regularly perform such complex procedures as heart operations, orthopedic surgery, and organ transplants without the use of blood transfusions. * Patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions. * In any case, no one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood or will live because of accepting it.

One can ignore the general biblical prescriptions or interpretation of the Bible asserted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses from before in this myth and fact presentation. In that, there can be the application of some of the rigorous scientific examinations of the health or mortality outcomes of individuals who function in accordance with the medical (theological) recommendations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is, at least, better because it is on more substantive grounds than simply quoting the Bible.

AJWRB Science Adviser Marvin Shilmer and Dr. Osamu Muramoto, M.D. (AJWRB Medical Adviser) examined some of the medical evidence. It was presented in “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy” by Lee Elder. He looked at the deaths caused as a result of the blood policies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses based on the expert analysis of Shilmer and Muramoto (Numbers below.)

Elder, in response to the same “myth and fact dichotomy” note, stated, “What evidence does the Watchtower point to in support of this claim? Beyond some studies about bloodless surgery, none that we could find.”

So, the major issue is not simply the dramatic life-and-death circumstances of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in medical circumstances. Those dramatic moments of medical peril. Rather, the issues come from “severe trauma, childbirth complications, and chronic diseases of the blood for which no effective substitutes for a blood transfusion exist,” as Elder described, “…the major killer of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are observing Watchtower’s blood policy is anemia. It is an inescapable fact that when the cells of the body fail to receive oxygen for more than just a few minutes, cell death begins to occur. Jehovah’s Witnesses are very misinformed about this, with most believing that blood and blood products amount to dangerous, even reckless medical treatment.”

People could get blood transfusions, do not, and then, because of some who adhere strictly to the theological tenets on blood, die. While Elder notes the Watchtower Society considers the position on blood transfusions as biblical, we should admit the obvious and glaring fact of the matter: These issues would not arise if we simply chalked the Bible up to storybooks rather than the holy scripture of the Lord of Lords, King of Kings.

The best medical treatments – completely unknown and unavailable at the times of the biblical authors – would simply be brought into a more comprehensive series of considerations. “Do no harm” could be more adequately applied in these circumstances, because biblical justifications would not impede the potential for consideration of the full arsenal of medical science to save lives over decades (How many? See below.).

Indeed, if we did not have to contend with some forms of selective religious fundamentalism, many patients in desperate need with some of the aforementioned chronic cases would be alive today. But they aren’t; they’re dead. The Watchtower position is based on air or a series of quotations from an ancient collection of interesting books asserted as God’s truth. Duly note, there can be a significant element of coercion within fundamentalist religious communities, too. (Also, if one wishes to see some more research on destructive cults, they can investigate the work of Steven Hassan, Robert Jay Lifton, Rick Alan Ross, and the late Margaret Singer.)

As Elder stated:

… they offer nothing substantive to support their partial ban on blood beyond vague scriptural references to not eating blood. Members are required to support whatever the current policy is, and JW children are also taught the importance of compliance from a very young age. Even non JW family members may be compelled into following Watchtower’s policy, and indoctrination is so complete, there is often significant levels of compliance among former JW’s.

Additionally, failure to comply will result in extreme shunning by other JW members, and lifelong friends who will be prohibited from eating a meal or even speaking to the non-compliant JW who does not follow the policy, or even questions it for that matter. This intrusion into the personal lives of members amounts to coercive control or undue influence, and makes free and informed consent practically impossible… Well meaning physicians and hospitals often fail to comprehend these complex issues, and unwittingly participate in JW’s martyring themselves, and their adolescent children.

Even in spite of the deserved empathy for Jehovah’s Witnesses for the non-sense committed against them by the Russian Federation authorities following from the decision of the Russian Supreme Court, and their right to exercise freedom of religion and freedom of belief based on secular international rights frameworks, there are justifiable condemnations based on the long-term cover-up of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, for decades as represented in the work of Douglas Quenqua and Mark O’Donnell (including survivors like Kimmy O’Donnell), and the staggering number of deaths following from purported prescriptions or normative biblical principles of God.

Elder, once more, in “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy,” stated, “As noted above, Dr. Muramoto rounded down the actual increase in mortality from 1.4% to 1%. If we use the 1.4% mortality rate (the actual conclusion reached by Kitchens) this results in casualties that are 40% higher: 1708 deaths caused by Watchtower’s blood policy in 2016, and a total of 46,544 deaths between 1961-2016.”

46,544 people needlessly dying (more, in fact, since it’s middle of 2020). 313 needlessly charged and convicted based on Russian crackdowns – more harassed, raided, and so on. Numerous child abuse survivors without justice for decades.

State autocracy crushes religious freedom while theology trumps medicine, again. Both should be reversed in substantive ways, i.e., respecting international secular human rights, in the former, and leaving science and medicine to science and medicine rather than vague scriptural references and theology, in the latter.

Photo by Sean Foster on Unsplash

Related article:

Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In the last session, we covered some of the basic definitions and metrics of intelligence. Let’s touch some more on some of these things, also, for those who do not know, as of only a 2 or 3 years ago, you score 185+ S.D. 15 on one of the two most reliable and valid mainstream general intelligence tests in the world. First, what was the test? Only one other person on a mainstream test with a listed score at 185 S.D. 15 on the World Genius Directory is Kirk Kirkpatrick. So, alternative tests are the norm rather than the exception, which should raise caution for the general public too. Never believe a claim as to the highest IQ score in the world; however, certainly, one can keep in mind the highest measured on this or that test, or among the highest at some cut-off. The Titan Test of Dr. Ronald Hoeflin has been considered the or among the most rigorous high-range tests in existence. Kevin Langdon is respected by Dr. Hoeflin based on statements to me, in a public interview. Rick Rosner earned a perfect score on it. However, there are far more other real-world proxies for high-intelligence with more practical or pragmatic use, of course.

Christian Sorenson: I have never been interested in intelligence measurements since I feel that I have more important things to spend my time on, nor do I need to prove something to myself, neither anything to anyone else. Besides, I have heard enough from my childhood regarding that “I am great genius.” In fact this last, “is a phrase” that my mother was very scared of, because she was already told about it, from the pediatrician and my nursery school teachers, onwards. Indeed, I was tested a couple of years ago, for circumstantial reasons, with David Wechsler’s Intelligence Scale of General Intelligence for Adults Form R (WAIS-R). For example, Evangelos Katsioulis was also tested with exactly the same test (WAIS-R), and earned on it 180+ sd15 [Ed. This is true, thus two names with Katsioulis and Kirkpatrick. I have interviewed both.]. Regarding me, I earned “a perfect score,” of 185+ sd15, which means that my IQ in function to this standard deviation is above 185, that’s to say without knowing exactly “how much above” of it, it is.

Jacobsen: What was the context of prior test scores and this test score?

Sorenson: Prior, it was in school during 3rd grade, and also with Wechsler’s Scale, but for children (WISC). I earned also “a perfect score” with 180 sd15. The context at that time, was because the school headmaster talked with my parents, since they wanted that I finish high school before being ten years old. Regarding my last evaluation a couple of years ago, it was because my wife asked me to.

Jacobsen: What is the statistical rarity of this score?

Sorenson: For over 185 sd15, is at least about one each two hundred three million persons.

Jacobsen: What are some comparable statistical rarities for such a score?

Sorenson: For example, profound mental retardation with an IQ score less than 20 sd15.

Jacobsen: If we take into account this rarity, we can add a plus (“+”) sign after it, as you hit the ceiling of the test, i.e., any reliable measurement beyond that point is mere extrapolative uncertainty about the general intelligence score for you. However, with this sense of outlier in the extreme nature on a mainstream test, what has this meant in academic and personal life for you? Also, the coming to terms with the world, which will think slower and less comprehensively and, more often, come to incorrect conclusions about the nature of the world within relevant expertise. While, at the same time, high-IQ can lead to particular forms of irrationality based on some more recent research, which can come with more robust or elaborate justifications for bizarre theoretical frameworks. Based on personal observation, one can see this in some Jesuit intellectuals with abstract theological hypothesizing based on ancient storybooks called The Bible.

Sorenson: Being straight with my “personal appreciation,” what I would first of all dare to say, is that “academic and intellectualoid” environments or settings, are not pleasant to me, since “I get bored with them,” and “they give me a big headache,” with “their simpleton mental approaches” to the world of knowledge, and with “their bragging and childish competitiveness,” for trying to show off “academic degrees and  clumsy levels of basic brilliant intelligence.” In life in general, my extreme intelligence, has brought me more problems than anything else, among other reasons, because usually others perceive me as someone strange, and my supposed “scathing and ironic attitudes” makes them pissed off. Jesuit intellectuals actually don’t surprise me at all, since I believe that “instead of writing something reasonable,” they are more concerned to write things “for not being understood by anyone.”

Jacobsen: There is a longstanding tradition of wanting to catalogue and mark out genius and high intelligence in history and in the present. There are many, dead and alive, individuals acknowledged as highly bright if not unassailably brilliant, including the late technology giant Paul Allen, the late hybrid and perseverant cripple Stephen Hawking, the late forced prodigy John Stuart Mill, the late Francis Galton, the eccentric Rick Rosner/Richard Rosner, Judit Polgar or the Polgar sisters altogether, model-chess grandmaster Magnus Carlsen or his teacher the great Garry Kasparov, the practical and reasonable advice-giving greatest living philosopher of the everyday Marilyn vos Savant, the Greek former wunderkind with the formerly super long hair Evangelos Katsioulis, the isolationist mathematician Andrew Wiles, the former prodigy Edith Stern, the heir to Einstein Edward Witten, the scientific skeptic Tim Roberts, the prodigy Jacob Barnett, the titan – so to speak – of the high-range test creator world Ron Hoeflin/Ronald Hoeflin or another person who earned respect with tests Kevin Langdon, the tragically anti-Semitic Bobby Fischer, the high-range high-scorer Mislav Predavec, the dual-Nobel Prize-winning Marie Curie, the only other mainstream 185 S.D. score on the World Genius Directory American Kirk Kirkpatrick, the Republican Mega Society member John H. Sununu, Kevin Langdon, the polymath Steven Pinker, the brilliant author Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, the late ancient heavy-hitter critic of religion Hypatia, the awkward and ultra-bright mainstream physicist Christopher Hirata, the late polymath Leonardo da Vinci, the great potentially arrogant composer Mozart, the greatest architect of sound (Glenn Gould assessment) Bach, the degree-based prodigy Michael Kearney, the tragic William James Sidis, the late Solomon Golomb, the multi-certified former prodigy Sho Yano and his sister Sayuri Yano, the unpleasant math-mind plugged into the mechanics of the universe Isaac Newton, or the more pleasant Einstein, the stratospheric Goethe, etc., and a wide range of others of some prominence or not. There is a common sentiment of wanting to catalogue. When I worked with Manahel Thabet on a variety of projects, it was a similar sentiment. Her colleague in Dubai who, in fact, originally came from British Columbia, where I live, was working on and developed his own listing of the brightest in the world. Why is this such a robust trend?

Sorenson: This “strong tendency” to “catalog and study geniuses,” brings in mind the image of “hominumlogics,” similar to the zoo, that existed in times of Leopold III, during early nineteenth century in Brussels. At that time, they brought “specimens” of Congo “for placing them in cages,” in order to be visited by “Victorian public, who was avid to browse” the behavior of “these exotic animals in captivity.” Leaving aside “bars and cages,” it seems to me that it is quite familiar to “morbid feelings” that exists toward geniuses.

Jacobsen: What is the point of counting a point here or a point there at the upper limits of human intelligence to differentiate in a micro fashion at the hardest to differentiate levels?

Sorenson: In my opinion, this “measuronditic syndrome” or tendency, does not make any sense, except that of many evaluated individuals “to exhibiting their superior micro-intelligence differences “in relation to others.” In “qualitative and methodological terms,” the fundamental theme in order “to differentiate intelligence degrees,” is regarding “its range,” and not in relation to their “discrete values.” Actually I believe, that this “exhibitionist-voyeurist phenomenon” that is expressed by many, is attributable in its etiology to “a penis neid.”

Jacobsen: Obviously, with more cognitive horsepower, there is more mental room to carve out unique mental landscapes. So, we will have more eccentric and strange outcomes or outputs, behaviourally and mentally, from the minds at the highest levels. What are typical ways of these minds going awry?”

Sorenson: I feel they are “mental rides” that go in “a simple opposite direction of logic” and in addition through an “unexpected way,” but that nevertheless “makes sense,” and for that reason “surprises.”

Jacobsen: How can societies foster excellence at the highest levels?

Sorenson: Improving “genetic crosses.”

Jacobsen: What would a future society incorporating all manner of genius require to flourish?

Sorenson: That kind of “Sanhedrin,” would be “a unique society,” since it should be the closest thing to “an empty set.”

Jacobsen: As noted before, for those who want a community, Mensa International, Intertel, Triple Nine Society, Prometheus Society, and Mega Society are listed as the most reliable high-IQ societies via Wikipedia filtration. Yet, most of societies’ talented never go well-used or even flourish in some minimal level – let alone self-actualize, whether individually or in some larger sense noted before within a larger communal context. Many have noted the mostly failure of the high-IQ societies and most acting as a form of social club (nothing wrong with that!). What can the public keep in mind in being cautious with fake, disingenuous, inflated, and cult-like or outright cult genius?

Sorenson: I think that first of all is necessary “to put an eye” in those communities that have “extremely high” cut-offs, and numerous members with “stratospheric scores.” Secondly with ones that do “shameless business” with fees and others, and thirdly in some that are sustained by presidents who are “amateur psychometrists” or psychometrist due “to infused science” and therefore publish high-range tests as if they were “spores.”

Jacobsen: What is the future of genius in a high-technology, advanced app/software, and artificial intelligence-infused world in which genius and high-intelligence becomes externalized and enhanced, i.e., becomes cheap and commonplace in some sense?

Sorenson: With regard to individuals with “high intelligence” I think that with the development of technology, in fact they will be transformed into “cheaper and more expendable or replaceable resources.” Maybe this “moderately gifted” could “be up-graded” thanks to artificial intelligence, and therefore become in what “they crave the most,” that is to say into “geniuses.” Anyhow, in relation to “geniuses,” and leaving aside what could be a “romantic pink novel,” I do not believe that the situation will change much in function “to what history has been up to now.” In this way, they will continue to be “socially marginalized,” and probably will keep on going through this world “without leaving any trace.” Society since human being decided “to be gregarious” and live “in community,” has transformed itself into “a closed system,” and for this reason, like any other system with “hermetic characteristics,”  will always perceive “change in depth” as “a threat,” and therefore “will resist to accept it,” by developing  “compensatory mechanisms” and through “removing” what puts “its stability at risk.”  “Geniuses” for their part, regarding society, do not know how to do anything other, but to “constructively criticize” it mediating “unique innovative contributive solutions.” In consequence in my opinion, it is “logically” and “metaphysically” impossible, that they could reach now or in the future, other else than “a virtual space,” and to be “reasonably valued” in society, since both of them “operate with diametrically opposed dynamics,” and for that reason are “incompatibles” between each other.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Christian.

Sorenson: Thanks to you for your “acoustic tolerance.”

Image Credit: Christian Sorenson.