Apparently they don't need ramps in the afterlife

[sqbr]

Just had some Jehovah's Witnesses come to the door and since I was bored I had a talk with them (the way I see it we both get a chance to refine our arguments with a polite determined advocate for the other team).

They were reasonable enough as evangelical doorknockers go, though they refused to believe me when I said the "We only use 10% of our brains" myth is bunk. (I mean, they refused to believe me about various creationist etc things too, but I was expecting that)

But when we got to death (eg "What will happen to my dead grandma?" and didn't I appreciate them latching onto that) I asked what would happen with my Grandad: will he be resurrected with his Alzheimers? If not, what happens to the person he is now, who is quite distinct from the person he used to be? "Well, he'll be resurrected as he was before he got the memory loss, because God will make him perfect."

When I asked about people who have "disabilities" like deafness that they see an inherent part of themselves the response was that they were wrong, because who wouldn't prefer to be able to hear? "Well then I would like to be taller. Would God make me taller?" No: that's a difference, not disability. I tried explaining my opinion that there's no neat dividing line between innocuous/positive difference and imperfection/disability but they had to go (yes, I won the game of chicken :D)

Some googling found me:

• a JW site How Disabilities Will End which tends to match the impression I got from the doorknockers.
  
• Living With a Learning Disability gives some to my mind relatively sensible advice for parents of children with learning difficulties, and I don't have too much of a problem with people following a theology with Unfortunate Implications if they act ok in practice.
  
• This post from a disabled people who met some really annoying Witnesses implies they don't always do that though.
  

Anyway, not meaning to pick on Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, I just found it interesting. It's funny how much disability related stuff I never noticed before (for certain definitions of "funny")

(nb pleas try and avoid unnecessary ranting about he Evils of Religion. I'd like this to be a conversation which reasonable Witnesses could engage with if any come along. And yes they do exist :P)

Comments

[ex_peasant441]

Maybe the difference is between those who see their disability as a disadvantage and those who don't. Heaven is after all supposed to get it right so if an individual prefers their disability then that is right for them and they surely will be allowed to keep it. Plus one would hope there was the opportunity to try out new things - give hearing a go for a while and then return to being deaf if you don't like it, etc.

Heaven should be the ultimate example of localism in fact - one heaven per person, constantly changing to meet that person's needs. That is part of what I understand by the 'many rooms'.

there's no neat dividing line between innocuous/positive difference and imperfection/disability
True. But I think there are still clear sets that most of us can perceive, even if they have fuzzy boundaries. You would be really pushed to find a hearing person who truly believed that deafness was not an imperfection and that the deaf person would not be happier if it could be cured - for most of us it is beyond comprehension why anyone would consider deafness acceptable if there was a choice. The same for most disabilities. We can I think admire those who have achieved self belief and acceptance without disregarding the basic understanding that disability means imperfection - a person in whom something is lacking compared to the norm.

[sqbr]

Heaven should be the ultimate example of localism in fact - one heaven per person, constantly changing to meet that person's needs. That is part of what I understand by the 'many rooms'.

Yes (well, I always feel weird as an atheist saying what religious people "should" believe. But that conception of heaven certainly makes sense to me)

Really I think my issue is less the general idea that God resurrects people to be the best they can be, and more the narrow way that idea is interpreted.

disability means imperfection - a person in whom something is lacking compared to the norm

But we're all imperfect. If you're going to cure Deafness, why not give everyone a genius IQ and perfect pitch and olympic athlete level fitness? Or Xray vision for that matter? (And if you are doing all those things, at least for the people who want them, then I think the situation is no longer ableist)

I also feel like there's something in here about people who feel their true physical form is a dragon, but I'm not sure what.

[ex_peasant441]

I never say what religious people should believe, just occasionally fantasise about what might be nice. I can't do the approach to religion that accepts whatever is handed down by some higher authority, but I am perfectly happy to make my own interpretations. None of it changes the fundamental fact that I lack both faith and belief, so it is all just a game.

But we're all imperfect. If you're going to cure Deafness, why not give everyone a genius IQ and perfect pitch and olympic athlete level fitness? Or Xray vision for that matter? (And if you are doing all those things, at least for the people who want them, then I think the situation is no longer ableist)

Well there is of course a difference between raising someone who is currently below the norm to achieve the norm and raising someone currently at the norm to be above it. But hey, it's all fantasy - if you want to be a genius with X-Ray vision in heaven, be my guest.

We are all imperfect according to a standard set by fantasy, but according to the real world standard of what a human can be when built to standard, some people have clear imperfections while others don't. It's splitting hairs to claim that because we all have the odd scar or whatever we are all imperfect - some things matter and are called disabilities, some things don't and are called normal. As I say, it all comes down to fuzzy sets, and even if the boundaries are fuzzy it is ingenuous to pretend they don't exist or don't matter, which I can't help feeling is what you are edging towards. If you are doing it for reasons of self-esteem (your own or other people's) that is understandable, but I always feel that in the long term true self esteem can only come from accepting the truth so it really grates for me.

[sqbr]

As I say, it all comes down to fuzzy sets, and even if the boundaries are fuzzy it is ingenuous to pretend they don't exist or don't matter, which I can't help feeling is what you are edging towards.

No, it's not. To give chronic fatigue as an example, obviously having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is horrible and disabling and given the option anyone who has it would choose not to. But lots of able bodied people have chronic fatigue in the sense of being tired a lot, and that's normal. So I see it as a continuum which goes from no fatigue (which would be abnormal) to "normal" fatigue (which varies dramatically depending on your job, other health issues, level of pollution around you etc) to serious chronic fatigue, and while I agree that CFS (and equivalent conditions) are definitely bad (and worse) I see no easy line to draw between "disabled" and "normal".

Which doesn't make much difference to treatment etc in the real world (there's no rule saying people with non-disabling levels of fatigue can't try to get it fixed too!) but makes me feel hinky at anyone saying there's a neat dividing line between "healthy and normal" and "disabled", where only the latter group need to change to be perfectly happy.