One particular religion that does not accept certain forms of medical treatment are Jehovah's Witnesses. In particular, they are widely known for refusing blood transfusions, even in life-saving circumstances. The following analysis of this position is an excerpt that can be found at the Catholic Answerswebsite:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Jehovahs.asp
4. [For Jehovah's Witnesses], "Taking blood into the body through mouth or veins violates God's laws." The Jehovah's Witnesses are perhaps best known to other Americans as people who won't allow themselves or their children to have blood transfusions. In fact, they will go so far as to allow a loved one to die rather than accept a transfusion, as they believe transfusions are a gross violation of God's law. They support this notion with these verses: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen. 9:4). "You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28, 29).
There are several problems with interpreting these verses to mean that transfusions are forbidden, not the least of which is the fact that the context is referring to animal blood, not human blood. Moreover, there is a great difference between eating blood and receiving a life-giving blood transfusion. Eating blood was wrong because it profaned the life of the animal. But for a person to willingly share his blood intravenously in order to share life with someone does not profane anything. Indeed, even ultra-Orthodox Jews, who strictly observe the Old Testament kosher laws, recognize that blood transfusions are not prohibited by the command not to eat blood.
The Witnesses must avoid other problematic passages that deal with God's prohibition of eating blood because these passages include a prohibition against eating fat. Witnesses do not believe eating fat is wrong, and would see no problem at all with someone munching on fried pork rinds (i.e., deep-fried pieces of pig fat) or sitting down to dinner and enjoying a nice fatty cut of prime rib. But their vehement opposition to eating blood, when contrasted with their approval of eating fat, presents a serious problem for them. Why? Because Leviticus, the book they go to in order to substantiate their prohibition of eating (and receiving transfusions of) blood, contains, in the same passages, prohibitions against eating fat.
Consider these examples: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (Lev. 3:17). "The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it. For every person who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people. Moreover you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people'" (Lev 7:22-27).
These verses and others like them are difficult for Witnesses to explain, given that they lean heavily on the prohibitions against eating blood. It's totally inconsistent to maintain that God's "perpetual statute" against eating blood must be observed, while his "perpetual statute" (that appears in the very same context) against eating fat can be safely ignored. On this subject, as on many others, the Witnesses are highly selective and must ignore much of the Bible in order to make their beliefs seem "biblical."
Also, the Old Testament dietary laws simply don't apply to Christians today (cf. Col. 2:16-17, 22), and the ones given at the Council of Jerusalem passed into disuse as Jewish conversions to Christianity became uncommon toward the end of the first century and the Church became mainly Gentile. They weren't immutable doctrines, but disciplinary rules.
*****
Christian Scientists do not believe in medical treatment either.
Christian Scientists acknowledge that medical doctors exist but by and large they do not avail themselves of medical treatment.
Jehovah's Witnesses do avail themselves of medical treatment however they refuse blood transfusions.
Eddie Griffin has not publicly disclosed his religion.
non-denominational Christian :)
An athiest is a person who doesnt believe in god/gods. So no, they don't have a religion.
Hulk Hogan's daughter. she is also a supermodel/singer/"reality" T.V. star.
Because He doesnt believe in Kaddish and Kaddish is a god that they recite in there religion.
Apparently he doesnt have an religion :)
I am Muslim and in our religion we do believe in ghosts as "Gin" they do exist and we do believe in them. It is in our religion.
It doesnt.
Patricia S. Hurley has written: 'Religion & medicine' -- subject(s): Bibliography, Indexes, Medicine, Religion and Medicine, Religious aspects of Medicine
He doesnt have one. Or, he is agnostic which means he has no religion.
actually they dont have one, their lead singer is born of non-religious parents and he only sings about germanic paganism, doesnt believe in it
The concept of religion is a set of one's personal beliefs. If you believe that religion is make believe, that is your religion. Religion does not necessarily have any ceremonies attached.