Will progressives require doctors to kill?*

*From Wesley J. Smith….

Secularist threats against religious liberty are spreading like a stain. Thus, I was attracted immediately to Bruce Abramson's Mosaic column, How Jews Can Help Christians Live as a Creative Minority.

Abramson warns Christians that the space to practice their faith in the way they live is shrinking. Tell me something I don’t know, I thought. But my attention focused when Abramson (citing political scientist Peter Berkowitz) cast the trending secularist oppression we are witnessing as a clash between classical “liberalism” and contemporary “progressivism.”

Liberalism stands for “freedom and the rule of law,” he writes, “a system of ‘negative rights’ that no government may legitimately infringe (as in the U.S. Bill of Rights).” In contrast, progressives seek to ensure “equality and justice,” by guaranteeing these outcomes through the enactment of a series of “‘positive’ rights like housing, food, and health care” that someone must provide—be it government or the private sector.

Abramson’s description of the conflict between liberalism and progressivism explains the drive to promote “patients' rights” over the consciences of doctors and other medical professionals in the abortion, assisted suicide, prescription, and other contexts. In this regard, mere legalization of these procedures does not guarantee the free and open access to them deemed by progressives as a positive right. Achieving that goal will require coercion; that is, forcing doctors (and other medical professionals, such as pharmacists) to participate—even when it violates their religious beliefs and deeply held moral convictions.

This kind of progressive authoritarianism is aborning in Canada. Earlier this year, that country’s Supreme Court conjured a Charter right to euthanasia. The debate has now shifted to whether doctors with deeply-held religious objections to killing patients should be able to opt out.

The trends are bad news for physicians who believe it would be a grievous sin to administer lethal injections or assist suicides. The Ontario and Saskatchewan Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons have issued ethics opinions that would require doctors to perform every legal medical procedure paid for by the government’s socialized system upon demand—which will include active euthanasia when the Supreme Court’s ruling goes into effect next year. If the requested physician has religious or moral objections, the Colleges have determined, the MD's have a positive duty to find another doctor willing to do the deed to ensure that the patient receives the death she wants.

If a willing doctor cannot be found, the Saskatchewan College requires the dissenting physician to do the deed personally, “even in circumstances where the provision of health services conflicts with physicians’ deeply held and considered moral or religious beliefs.” To guarantee the positive right to die, doctors will be forced to kill. Ontario’s College even requires doctors to euthanize or refer if the person asking to die is not the doctor’s patient!

Demonstrating how thoroughly progressive thought—as defined by Abramson—has shattered classical liberalism in Canada’s medical ranks, 79 percent of the Canadian Medical Association doctors recently voted against conscience protections for physicians opposed to participation in euthanasia. In other words, in Canada, becoming dead when one is ill or disabled and wants to die counts as a positive right that trumps the negative right to “freedom of conscience and religion” enumerated in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

What about the USA? Our physicians currently receive conscience protections against required participation where assisted suicide is legal, provisions promoters understood as necessary to gain enactment. But that approach is in danger of erosion. Some assisted suicide boosters are already grumbling about the difficulty of getting doctors to participate in ending patients' lives where it is legal.

Moreover, the same progressive tide sweeping religious freedom aside in Canada is also flowing here. The Supreme Court has ruled that the “negative right” to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment does not prevent individuals from being coerced into obeying laws of general applicability when doing so violates their religious beliefs. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling—the law that protected Hobby Lobby from forced coverage of abortifacient contraceptives—is now opposed energetically by previously strong progressive supporters like the ACLU. If Washington is ever controlled again by political progressives as it was in 2009, expect efforts to repeal.

Not only that, the federal RFRA does not protect against state laws that infringe upon religious liberty, and state religious protections are now vociferously opposed by progressive political adherents and large corporations—as Indiana discovered recently when it was threatened with economic ruin for attempting to pass an RFRA that extended to the operation of businesses. Thus, the stage is already set for the creation of a positive right to die here that could, one dark day, subsume the religious liberty of doctors not to participate—as is occurring now in Canada, and afflicts pro-life doctors in Victoria, Australia regarding access to abortion.

The only guaranteed way to prevent medical martyrdom is to maintain laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia. If that wall ever crumbles, orthodox Christians (and others) here may, as their Canadian brethren will next year, be forced to choose between being a doctor and violating the Sixth Commandment.

It's time to attack sin, not guns

The only thing that brought the deadly massacre in San Bernardino to an end yesterday was when the good guys with guns showed up. Imagine if the workers at the social services building were allowed to carry guns (and had them with them). How much less bloodshed might there have been? 

Had it not been a "no gun" zone, chances are the Muslim employee and his accomplice wife would not have even attempted to shower his coworkers with bullets (ironically not long after his co-workers had thrown a baby shower for him and his wife).

Astoundingly, I still heard hot-air talking heads say if "we" would only treat Muslims better, we would not have these problems. Are you kidding me? Tell me where non-Muslims are systematically killing Muslims while they are at work, at a theater, a soccer game, or on a plane? And if throwing a baby shower for someone isn't treating them well, then I don't know what is. Enough of the brainless, politically correct spinelessness - it's exacerbating the problem by enabling the problem.

Also adding to the problem is our collective turning of the back on God. The New York Daily news sported the headline today "God's not fixing this" in response to Ted Cruz and other Republicans telling the victims of San Bernardino that they're in our "thoughts and prayers". 

Apparently only thoughts are allowed. But tell me, if you were facing some serious incident, what would you rather have from someone: their thoughts about you, or prayers for you? Once again, liberals want to put humans above God as having more power.

While they make the charge that "God's not fixing this," I've got news for the godless liberals: God's not causing this either. Nor is prayer or guns or republicans. Sin and sin alone is causing the sick violence in the world and until we start a very loud and unwavering assault on sin in whatever form of violence it takes, we will get more of the same. 

Of course the liberals will only use the astonishing violence that's coming our way as a limp-wristed excuse for demanding more gun control. They will ignore things like the fact that the shooter of church goers in South Carolina originally targeted another place for his rampage until he found out that concealed guns were allowed there. He then chose a gun-free church instead. The liberals will ignore the fact that the murderer at the theater in Louisiana back in July originally chose another theater location for his assault until it was determined that it was not a gun-free facility. He then handpicked a theater that had a strict no-gun policy. The liberals will also ignore that we have a serious radical Islam threat in our world today. All we need to do is treat radical Muslims better and radical Muslims intent on sinful jihad will not want to murder us, liberals say.

All I can say is, wake up, liberals. Enough is enough.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

Temperatures more dangerous than terrorism? Here's Obama's take...

President Barack Obama’s attendance at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris this week on the heels of the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks there is interesting considering he has blamed terrorism on climate change and sees it – not terrorism – as the greater threat.

Case in point, in his 2015 State of the Union address he said, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” and he told Vox earlier this year he "absolutely" believes the media "overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism: as opposed to "climate change."

Oh, really. Tell that to the people in Paris, Beirut, Mali and elsewhere as they flee gun-wielding, bomb-strapped terrorists.

The climate change movement does have teeth as evidenced by its support from virtually every left-leaning organization in the world. Then again, as a $1.5 trillion dollar-a-year industry, there’s a lot of financial incentive to back it. But is it really about concern for the planet considering there is only, at most, conflicting evidence of a threat, or are other motives, besides financial, at play?

Climate alarmists warn about melting glaciers, but ignore National Park Service data on glacier expansion in some parts, and they cite storms like Katrina and Sandy as evidence of global warming-induced calamities, but don’t acknowledge these weren’t even the worst storms in history (regarding intensity, not physical damage due to today’s denser populations/infrastructure).

Alarmists present global warming as unquestionable fact, but ignore National Climatic Data Center, NASA and other findings that temperatures have risen and declined regularly for the past 100 years as part of normal weather patterns that pose no threat and that any warming of the past century is virtually insignificant at 0.8° C, or that we may even be in a cooling trend.

And while Obama likes to cite NASA’s recent assertion that 2014 was the hottest year on record, he doesn’t mention that NASA also later admitted it was mistaken.

The bottom line is, findings are conflicting, making the issue debatable (a debate some climate alarmists want outlawed), whereas it’s indisputable that people really are dying at the hands of terrorists.

Nonetheless we spend about $22 billion annually on dubious climate threats that even scientists at the Climate Research Unit in England were caught saying was a hoax. But despite the enormous spending, former Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnel testified that “at best” all our climate efforts might reduce the global temperature by only “one hundredth of one degree.”

When asked in a congressional hearing about the benefit of this to the planet, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted, “The value of this isn’t measured in that way. It’s measured in showing strong domestic action."

At least McCarthy’s confession gets us a little closer to what the real motives behind the climate change movement might actually have been all along. As cited by Forbes, former US Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) said at the 1992 Rio Climate Summit, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we’ll be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy.” 

Former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Lucien Bouchard, told the Calgary Herald in 1988, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Adding their two cents, Mikhail Gorbachev said in 1996 that using the threat of an environmental crisis was key to unlocking a new world order, and in 2000, Jacques Chirac said France supported climate change initiatives as an instrument of establishing global governance.

Most recently, the UN's Christiana Figueres said in July 2015 about climate change objectives, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we’re setting ourselves the task intentionally…to change the economic development model that’s been reigning since the Industrial Revolution.”

Still believe it’s about the weather? Unfortunately, Obama is right on board with the agenda, ostensibly to protect future generations, while terrorism is impacting us right now.

He underscored his priority this past September at the UN Climate Summit when he said, “For all the challenges we gather to address this week…there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the growing threat of a changing climate.”

And he is using that unproven threat to explain away proven terrorism and other civil unrest. “Severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by Boko Haram,” he said about the terrorist group’s kidnapping of hundreds of girls, and he warned that climate change in general will cause more unrest around the world just as it has, by his assertion, in Syria.

So should we all start behaving immorally anytime our personal comfort level is not ideal? Talk about a recipe for civil unrest. Instead, how about we hold accountable those who are beheading Christians, raping and murdering children, burning and/or drowning men in cages, throwing homosexuals off rooftops, and committing mass murder at theaters, soccer games, sidewalk cafes and hotels –all in the name of jihad, by the way, not in the name of unpleasant weather.

Instead of focusing on reducing the planet’s temperature imperceptibly for the broader purpose of establishing some new world order, why not commit boldly to closing our borders and rooting out the murderous brutes who pledge to unleash their evil everywhere, including America? Why not at least put a moratorium on allowing astonishing numbers of refugees to enter our country, about whom FBI Director James Comey says it's impossible to vet for terrorist ties?

Even if Obama personally believes weather fluctuations are a future threat, his first obligation is to prioritize the immediate dangers of today, both in word and deed. Anything less is a dereliction of duty that can only serve to embolden those who seek to do us harm.

9th grade assignment: How to recruit ISIS members

Three things currently banned from public schools are God – or at least talk of Him, the Bible, or talk about it, and talk of Christianity by teachers lest they be guilty of promoting religion. So someone please explain to me how a teacher at Salem Junior High School in Utah felt it appropriate to assign her ninth grade students with the task of drawing Islamic State recruitment posters.

As part of the assignment, students were also asked to type the words “how to recruit for ISIS” in Google. I can only imagine what information this particular internet search exposed children to.

After a parent complained to the teacher and principal, the teacher called the parent to inform her the assignment had been cancelled and that the work of any students who had already turned in the project would be shredded.

From what I have been reading about public schools for a few years now, I can only say if I had children in public school, I would immediately remove them and look into either homeschooling or a well-vetted Christian/Judeo school.

What is being taught in some public schools is so antithetical to American and family values that I can only hope parents are closely scrutinizing their children’s schools for not only what is being taught, but also what the schools may be telling the children not to tell their parents.

The way the liberals are using the youth to achieve unholy goals is tragic. Just as historical figures, like Sun Tzu, have always stated that to destroy a society, all that’s needed is to brainwash the youth, we are seeing it manifested today in spades.

Vitamins, not ISIS, the real concern for Obama administration

Just days after the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut, and just hours after it's been confirmed that the Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt last month was brought down by a terrorist bomb planted on the plane - (ISIS claimed responsibility for all three murderous sprees) - Barack Obama still refuses to associate ISIS with radical Islam, and in fact, still refuses to admit there is even a problem with radical Islam. Instead he still insists that we continue the practice of bringing in non-vetted Syrian refugees, even though it's been proven that at least one terrorist posing as a Syrian refugee was behind the massacre in Paris.

Of course, Obama and his minions don't feel radical Islam is a threat. Instead, the administration's priorities were made clear today on what they consider worthy of our focus. Today, several federal agencies including Obama's US Department of Justice are set to announce criminal and civil actions related to unlawful advertising and sale of dietary supplements.

The exact nature of the actions or charges against dietary companies is unclear. Funny, how the actions of ISIS are so painfully clear, yet elicit no clear response from our president (except to blame terrorism, as does Bernie Sanders, on the global warming hoax). But some murky, unnamed problem with dietary supplements is enough for our federal government to take immediate action. 

When you have a president that is so determined to fundamentally transform America, compromise our safety and turn his back on our allies at the expense of global stability, is it any wonder he should focus on vitamins and phantom weather problems instead of the real threats facing our world? 

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary. 

How we can thank our Veterans

                                                                   

                 
                                 Thank you, Veterans!

Veterans Day doesn't get the pomp and circumstance of some other holidays. But every year on November 11, we as Americans take the time to recognize the heroes among us. They are the men and women who served in our armed forces. They are the veterans of the United States military.

But how do you say thank you to millions of people who have given up years away from friends and family, often in extremely challenging and perilous conditions?

I like the way President John F. Kennedy put it when he said, “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” 

May we all do that: not only express our gratitude but show it to living veterans and current military members. From public gestures like picking up the restaurant tab for a soldier, to the more silent acts like praying for our military members and their families, who also make so many sacrifices while their loved ones serve in dangerous parts of the world. From simply saying thank you when we meet a veteran or when we pass a uniformed soldier in the store, to demanding that our politicians adequately fund our military - which has been absolutely gutted - to ensure not only that their basic needs are generously met, but that they are well supplied with the ultimate protection while they fight the battles they dutifully fight. And at the very least, let's clean up our Veterans Administration, and especially focus on giving our veterans the quality healthcare and support they so richly deserve. It's a disgrace that we don't.

More than anything, let’s show our thanks by committing ourselves to living the values upon which this country was founded. The values of freedom and self-responsibility, while helping our neighbors in need; the values of faith, hard work and moral character. The values our brave soldiers have always fought and continue to fight to protect. 

Let’s not allow these values to slip away from our own hands while our men and women in uniform risk their lives to uphold the values that have made America exceptional. We’re all in this together, because as another famous saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.” Let’s stand behind our military as they stand up for us, and let's stand united for our country. Together, America thrives.

Thank you, veterans, past, present and future, and thank you, all active military. What a difference you have made and continue to make. God bless you all.

LGBT business owners get it right on religious freedom

More and more frequently, it seems, business owners with convictions – religious or otherwise – are being discriminated against by some states. But finally, homosexual owners of some businesses are coming to the defense of a Christian business owner who’s being forced to violate his religious beliefs.

Blaine Adamson, owner of a Lexington, KY, print shop called Hands on Originals, refused to print T-shirts for Lexington's 2012 gay pride festival. As a result of his refusal, he was found guilty of discrimination by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. Additionally, the print shop was ordered to serve future requests from LGBT activists.

The legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in to defend Adamson’s personal and religious beliefs and filed an appeal.

As reported in The Christian Post , “Fayette Circuit Court Judge James D. Ishmael Jr. reversed the Human Rights Commission's decision in April and stated the commission went above its statutory authority."

Unfortunately, this was not the final legal word since liberals never give up or give in. The commission, which ordered Adamson to print shirts and attend government-mandated ‘diversity training,’ has now appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.”

But in a turn of events, an unlikely group of printers has come to Adamson’s defense. LGBT-owned businesses, including BMP T-Shirts, expressed support for Adamson.

"No one should be forced to do something against what they believe in,’ said Diane DiGeloromo, one owner of BMP T-shirts, a lesbian-owned business. "‘If we were approached by an organization such as the Westboro Baptist Church, I highly doubt we would be doing business with them, and we would be very angry if we were forced to print anti-gay T-shirts,’ DiGeloromo said. ‘This isn't a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue.’

Her business partner, Kathy Trautvertter, added, “You put your blood and your sweat and your tears into your business and it's very personal. When I put myself in Mr. Adamson's shoes, I could see it from his side."

This point has been made many times, but bears repeating: No one – religious or not – should be forced to do business with anyone, especially someone whose message is contrary to one’s own.

Should a Jewish printer be forced to print signs for a neo-Nazi parade?

Should a print shop owned by a socialist be forced to print signs that say “Socialism is Slavery”?

Should a print shop owned by pro-abortionists and Planned Parenthood supporters be forced to print brochures denouncing abortion and Planned Parenthood?

Should a black-owned print shop be forced to print signs for a KKK parade? After all, as vile as the KKK is, citizens have the right to join that group, so wouldn’t a KKK member’s “civil rights” be violated if a black business owner refused to do business with him? Well, yes, according to the same logic put forth by homosexual activists. By their logic, the black man should be forced to provide services.

Commenting on the issue, Douglas Laycock, professor of law at the University of Virginia, stated, "The American solution to this conflict is to protect the freedom of both sides — not punish the side that dissents."

Amen.