Letter From America (About Theresa May)

Theresa May and the Return of One Nation Conservatism

The new UK prime minister has a powerful center-right message.

James Pinkerton
The Federalist

1. The Conservative Ideal of “One Nation”

Theresa May, the new prime minister of the United Kingdom, has been in office for just three months, and yet already she has emerged as a consequential figure—and not just in Britain. Americans might take careful note of the way that she articulates a powerful center-right message.

Inevitably, as only the second female PM in British history, such side issues as her fashion style—including the inevitable comparison to Kate, Duchess of Cambridge—have attracted much attention. Following her footwear seems to be an almost fetishistic obsession with the Brit media.

Yet what really matters are May’s ideas, and those are sure to echo into the U.S., because she is seeking to create the sort of national majority that American Republicans have been striving, unsuccessfully, to create for the past quarter-century.

Of course, the hottest issue in the UK is Brexit, which Britons approved on June 23. And while that issue is specific to the UK, the larger implications of the vote have reverberated into every country that is confronting unaccountable multinational organizations—that is, all countries.  . .

Moreover, in establishing a new tone for the Conservatives, May has gone beyond Brexit; she has put forth a vision of Britain at home as “One Nation.”
That’s a venerable conservative concept, neglected of late, that reaches back to the 19th century, to the era of one of her greatest Tory predecessors, Benjamin Disraeli.

Today, “One Nation” is just as important, even if—more precisely, because—the venerable verities of nationalism and patriotism are colliding with two new and horrendously bad ideas from the left:

  • First, that nations should be submerged in multinational superstates such as the EU and the UN;
  • Second, that nations should be divided into constituent identity groups, based, mostly, on ethnicity or gender affiliation.

In other words, the left, on both sides of the Atlantic, is pursuing a simultaneous agenda of supra- and sub-nationalism. That is, nations ought to be subordinated in some new kind of EU-like bureaucratic empire, and, simultaneously, the peoples within a nation ought to abandon patriotism and solidarity in favor of a new vision of multicultural groupthink.

In the meantime, many on the political right have quietly imbibed this same post-nationalist thinking: if the left is openly disdainful of patriotism, many “conservatives” have been quietly dismissive, preferring to subsume national identity in an idealized global “free market.” Yet either way, the result is the same: we get not only sovereignty-submerging trade deals, as well as open-borders arrangements, but also—whether conservatives want them or not—economically catastrophic “climate change” agreements.

For her part, May has staked out a position in opposition to both the globalist left and the globalist right. The clearest expression of her views came on October 5, when she spoke to the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, England, saying Britons should “reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right and … embrace a new center ground.” And she added tartly, “If you think you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.”

Continuing, she promised “a country that works for everyone.” And May then spelled it out; it would mean fairness for all, regardless of wealth or status: “Everyone plays by the same rules and … every single person—regardless of their background, or that of their parents—is given the chance to be all they want to be.”

Okay, that might sound like an all-purpose, all-party political platitude. Yet to clinch her argument, May immediately got down to brass tacks, addressing the watershed issue of 2016, Brexit. When Britons voted for Brexit, she declared, they voted for change: “And a change is going to come … as we leave the European Union and take control of our own destiny.”

Moreover, she said, Brexit was a harbinger of a “quiet revolution.” And here an American might add an aside: “quiet revolution” sounds a bit like “silent majority.” That latter phrase, of course, was Richard Nixon’s 1969 formulation describing the American middle class. We might further remember that the “silent majority,” and all the understated bourgeois virtues that it evoked, was a key to Nixon’s thumping 49-state landslide reelection in 1972.

Meanwhile, in the Britain of 2016, May proclaimed that Brexit was not just a vote to change Britain’s relationship with the EU; it was also a vote “to change … the way our country works—and the people for whom it works—forever.”

If Brexit goes according to plan and is finalized in 2019, the UK will indeed have been massively changed for the better. For example, there will be no more European Court of Justice issuing sovereignty-busting dictates. (That court, incidentally, is not to be confused with the separate, and equally imperious, European Court of Human Rights.)

Perhaps most importantly, once Brexit is achieved, Britain will face no more risk from the “free movement of peoples”—that being the epochal self-inflicted wound within the EU, most disastrously in Germany. The open-borders ideology, we might add, seems to be the sine qua non not only of the EU, but also of the American left. . . .

Indeed, if one had to pick a single issue that unites the whole trans-Atlantic elite, from Washington, DC, to Paris, to Berlin, it would be just that: an unshakable belief in open borders.

Yet for her part, in London, May has grasped that real people—that is, the governed, as opposed to the governors—don’t share that anti-nationalist, pro-migrationist ideology. And so in her speech, May addressed directly this top-down mismatch, this ineffable arrogance of the ruling class: “Just listen to the way a lot of politicians and commentators talk about the public. They find your patriotism distasteful, your concerns about immigration parochial, your views about crime illiberal, your attachment to your job security inconvenient.”

May’s willingness to confront the ruling class—make that the sneering ruling class—was the most powerful point in a powerful address. In getting inside the heads of the snobby condescenders, May expressed the justifiable anger that tens of millions of Britons have been feeling. And then she went even further, directly addressing the public:

If you’re one of those people who lost their job, who stayed in work but on reduced hours, took a pay cut as household bills rocketed, or—and I know a lot of people don’t like to admit this—someone who finds themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration, life simply doesn’t seem fair. . . .

Speaking to her fellow Conservatives, May offered a different vision—a positive vision of unity: “We are a country built on the bonds of family, community, citizenship.” And so we might stop and savor that last word, “citizenship.” Here May is making a point that globalists can no longer bring themselves to make: citizens of a country ought to have greater rights and privileges than non-citizens.

Yet at the same time, of course, citizens also have duties. Invoking populism as well as nationalism, May cited the importance, no fewer than four times, of rich people, and of big corporations, paying their fair share of taxes. And she also declared that every citizen has an obligation to cooperate with the authorities to “fight terrorism.” Thus we can see: in May’s view, it’s impossible to have a solid country if certain groups get to play by a different set of rules than everyone else. As Rudy Giuliani said when he was mayor of New York City, there should be “one standard.”

May is attempting to follow through: the new home secretary, Amber Rudd, citing the threat to the middle class of “cheap foreign labor,” has pledged administrative measures to stop foreigners from “tak[ing] the jobs that British people should do.” Yet Rudd’s proposal generated a sharp reaction, and so its status is now unclear; the emerging compromise policy seems to be restrictions on the immigration of unskilled workers only. That will be disappointing to some, but it still rates as progress. . . .

2. The Crisis of the Multiculturalist and Globalist Left—and May’s Opportunity

Needless to say, all this talk of standing up for British citizens has raised plenty of hackles on the left. In September, a prominent Labour Party member of Parliament, Diane Abbott, told a cheering leftist crowd that Brexit “added another turn of the screw to rising racism.”

And on October 6, Jeremy Corbyn, the harder-than-hard-left leader of the Labour Party, tweeted out, “Conservative Party leaders have sunk to a new low this week as they fan the flames of xenophobia and hatred.” Thus we see the left’s label for everything the right wishes to do on behalf of citizens: racism.

Indeed, much of the worldwide media is on board, too, with this left-wing line of attack. Reporting on the May-Rudd effort to crimp the hiring of non-citizens, Bloomberg News used the words “Nazi Flashback” as a subheadline.

All this precious PC notwithstanding, it should be glaringly obvious that no country can have open borders and still be a country. And yet mostly because of the Republican grip on Congress in the last few years, the Democrats in America, fevered as they are with open-borders enthusiasm, have managed to avoid that rendezvous with geopolitical reality. Still, Democrats might yet get their opportunity to implement their open-borders “dream,” as Hillary Clinton has said.

Meanwhile, in her Birmingham speech, May took the promise of One Nationism even further. After hailing such great Tory prime ministers as Disraeli, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher, she also offered praise for a Labour prime minister, Clement Attlee, who served from 1945 to 1951. Attlee is best known for establishing the National Health Service (NHS); as May generously said of him, he had “the vision to build a great institution.”  . . .

In the meantime, ideology aside, we can pause to admire the political genius of May’s rhetorical stroke: her embrace of Attlee is exactly the sort of big move one makes to win the middle, and even to win over voters from the other side.

Indeed, as the left-leaning New Statesman headlined it, “Theresa May’s Tory interventionism should terrify Labour.” The magazine added, “In her speech, she shrewdly embraced what voters like about Labour while condemning what they don’t.”

Moreover, as The Telegraph, the leading right-of-center newspaper in Britain, observed, “The most appealing parts of Labour’s programme reach back into folk memories of Attlee and the world of unionized factories.” We might quickly observe that for various reasons, including automation, it’s a certainty that neither Britain nor the U.S. will ever see a return to the hulking factories of yore. And yet at the same time, we can readily see the sentimental appeal of the old forms of comradeship and solidarity. And we can see that even today, ordinary people are still clutching for something solid to hold on to, however much it must be refined and updated. So the question is, which party will make that offer of comforting solidity and security to the voters? On behalf of her party, May has an answer: the Tories will.

In the meantime, we might note, Attlee’s party, the Labour Party, is moving way-y-y to the left under Jeremy Corbyn, who is, to be blunt about it, more of a communist than a socialist. Thus it’s even easier for May to occupy the vital center. And yet of course, if Corbyn loses the next general election, now set for 2020 (although it could be sooner), it’s possible that Labour will rebound to the middle. And yet if May’s party has already occupied that middle, Labour will still be frozen out. . . .

3. The Legacy of Nigel Farage, and New Challenges to May

Yet the greatest hero of Brexit isn’t even a Conservative at all. That would be, of course, Nigel Farage, former head of the UK Independence Party, or UKIP. Over the last two decades, Farage held up the torch of British sovereignty and built UKIP into a genuine force; its candidates earned almost four million votes in the 2015 national elections.

Moreover, UKIP still has a vital role to play. For starters, it can keep up the pressure on May for Brexit—no backsliding! If one visits the UKIP website, one sees the key message, “Help us ensure that ‘leave’ means leave.”

Indeed, since the Brexit vote, there’s been a fervent debate, egged on by the UK MSM and big business, over the merits of a “hard Brexit” or a “soft Brexit”—which is to say, the more “enlightened” classes want the soft option, keeping the border open to both trade and migrants and thereby depriving the populist-nationalist meanies of their victory. In particular, The Economist, that uber-globalist London-based magazine with international ambitions—it long ago endorsed Hillary Clinton—will never cease seeking to reverse Brexit completely. Sample headline from October 11: “Brexit is making Britons poorer, and meaner.”

In addition, the basic question of whether or not there’s to be a Brexit at all has flared up: the UK Parliament has insisted on, and will get, the right to scrutinize Brexit, and perhaps even vote on Brexit. As prime minister, May by definition possesses a majority in the House of Commons, and she’s not likely to lose it so soon in her premiership. And yet, as students of history know, anything can happen in the pressure-cooker of a legislative chamber.

So it’s at least possible that Parliament could vote “no” on Brexit, thereby throwing May’s government into crisis and perhaps forcing new elections. May and Brexit would probably prevail in such an extended struggle; it’s hard to believe that the case for staying in the EU has grown stronger in recent months, as the myriad political miscalculations of that leviathan have come home to roost: Britons, too, can see that some parts of Paris have turned into third-world-style tent cities under the onslaught of the immigration that the EU favors, and in October, Otmar Issing, the first chief economist of the European Central Bank and a major player in the creation of the Euro currency which is at the heart of the EU, said bluntly, “One day, the house of cards will collapse.”

So the EU seems even less enticing than it did on June 23, when Britons voted for Brexit. Still, May’s leadership is facing a severe challenge, as opponents seek, at minimum, to convert a “hard” Brexit into a “soft” Brexit.

So we can see: the work of the UK Independence Party is nowhere near done. Indeed, it’s worth pointing out that if everything goes according to May’s plan, the actual moment when the UK is no longer a part of the EU is still some two-and-a-half years away. In the meantime, as another British prime minister, Harold Wilson, famously observed, “A week is a long time in politics.” So even if we concede that May has the best and most sincere intentions concerning Brexit, Brexit-minded Britons are fortunate to have UKIP on the scene as a watchdog.

Interestingly enough, Raheem Kassam—a former top lieutenant to Farage, now editor of Breitbart London—is now running for the leadership of UKIP. As Kassam told the BBC, “I will carry on Farage’s legacy.” Later, in an op-ed, Kassam added these words of warning about May’s government:

Think you can trust the Tories with no one looking over their shoulder but Jeremy Corbyn? Britain has made that mistake too many times before. Theresa May might talk a good game, but she was Home Secretary for six years—the same six years in which we saw record immigration into the UK, legal and illegal, and of course an issue very close to my heart: a rise in Islamic extremism. Britain needs UKIP more than any other Party.

Some will say, of course, that Kassam is being too hard on May, because she has become a convert to the Brexit cause, and maybe always was a quiet Brexiter. . . .  Britain confronts other issues too, of course. And here we should bear in mind that May has been in office for only a brief time; we don’t yet know how she will handle a crisis. . . .

Thus we come to the immediate question for Prime Minister May: What will she and her government do about . . . all . . [the] other Islamist inciters who are on the loose? For instance, what to do about whoever has been distributing leaflets at a London mosque urging the Islamic faithful to kill those who insult Mohammed?

To be sure, the British government is taking some bold actions that might be judged as distinctly illiberal by trendy American standards. For example, the government recently ordered the effective closure of a Muslim school that was teaching the beating of wives and the killing of gays.

Yet given the enormous dimensions of the problem—the affront to civilized values, as well as the jeopardy to homeland security—it’s still an open question as to whether May will consistently match deeds with words, taking decisive action against all the hideous Islamist threats Britain faces. So once again, we can see the enduring value of UKIP as a watchdog upholding a sturdy vision of populist nationalism—and public safety. . . .

In addition, in Britain, as in the U.S., there’s the reemerging problem of crime—which is sometimes, although certainly not always, connected to the issue of immigration. Here’s an October 10 headline from The Telegraph: “Killer of renowned scientist should not have been in country after overstaying his student visa, court hears.” The article details the case of an alleged murderer, Femi Nandap, born in Nigeria. Nandap came to the UK on a student visa, and, while overstaying that visa, was charged with possessing a knife and assaulting a police officer—charges that were later dropped. (And yes, this initial miscarriage of justice happened when May was home secretary in the previous government, although there’s no evidence of her personal involvement.)

In the meantime, while still on bail, Nandap returned home to Nigeria, where he was treated for mental illness—an illness apparently exacerbated by heavy marijuana smoking while living in the United States. Then he stopped taking his meds and returned to the UK; soon thereafter, he allegedly killed a 41-year-old scientist who was walking out of his front door to drop cards in the mail celebrating the birth of his first child. As the authorities seek to piece together the chain of mistakes that were made in this tragic case, the grieving widow was moved to say, “If such tragedies keep occurring, why has there not been concerted action to address this?”

Yes, that is the question: where’s the concerted action? For a while to come, May can blame such horrors on the laxity of her predecessors at Number 10. Yet soon enough, the street-crime problem, along with the jihadi-radical problem, will both become her problems. Then we’ll find out if the prime minister’s actions match her promising rhetoric.

But for the time being, May has the stage with her message of Brexit plus One Nation. Americans seeking the same sort of nationalist emancipation should wish her well.

James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel
Go to Source to Comment


Daily Devotional

Increasing Vigilance

“He began to wash the disciples’ feet.”  John 13:5

Charles H. Spurgeon

The Lord Jesus loves his people so much, that every day he is still doing for them much that is analogous to washing their soiled feet. Their poorest actions he accepts; their deepest sorrow he feels; their slenderest wish he hears, and their every transgression he forgives. He is still their servant as well as their Friend and Master. He not only performs majestic deeds for them, as wearing the mitre on his brow, and the precious jewels glittering on his breastplate, and standing up to plead for them, but humbly, patiently, he yet goes about among his people with the basin and the towel.

He does this when he puts away from us day by day our constant infirmities and sins. Last night, when you bowed the knee, you mournfully confessed that much of your conduct was not worthy of your profession; and even tonight, you must mourn afresh that you have fallen again into the selfsame folly and sin from which special grace delivered you long ago; and yet Jesus will have great patience with you; he will hear your confession of sin; he will say, “I will, be thou clean”; he will again apply the blood of sprinkling, and speak peace to your conscience, and remove every spot. It is a great act of eternal love when Christ once for all absolves the sinner, and puts him into the family of God; but what condescending patience there is when the Saviour with much long-suffering bears the oft recurring follies of his wayward disciple; day by day, and hour by hour, washing away the multiplied transgressions of his erring but yet beloved child!

To dry up a flood of rebellion is something marvellous, but to endure the constant dropping of repeated offences–to bear with a perpetual trying of patience, this is divine indeed! While we find comfort and peace in our Lord’s daily cleansing, its legitimate influence upon us will be to increase our watchfulness, and quicken our desire for holiness. Is it so?
Go to Source to Comment


False Claims and the Salvation Army

Lies, Damned Lies, And . . . 
The Salvation Army has sadly morphed into an entity that is little more than a pressure group looking for the gummint to do something.  It joins a long list of social agencies that are fronts for the reigning statist ideology.  

Gone are the days when the Sallies relied upon door to door collections and free will donations to fund their once commendable work.  We recall many years ago the reverence in which the Sallies were held in the general community.  Our parents, whilst generally respecting the Christian faith, were non-church-attending nominal Christians.  In that sense they were like the vast majority of the population of that generation.  Yet they always spoke highly of the Sallies and the work they did.  In this they were typical.

Today, not so much.
 Today the Sallies are just one more  pressure group clustering with many other organisations chivying the gummint for more financial support and increased gummint spending upon their concerns–which is always the ultimate salvific act.  Today, the Lord, Jesus Christ scarce gets a mention, it seems.

The Salvation Army’s programmes of social work among the homeless, unemployed, addicted, imprisoned and other needy people were the most visible aspect of its work in the 2000s. Moving away from its earlier, strongly independent attitude, the Army worked closely with government agencies and other organisations. It also addressed the causes as well as the effects of social hardship, and regularly advised and lobbied the government on policies that affect the most vulnerable in society. [The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand  Emphasis, ours.]

The Army has “mainstreamed”.  As such it warrants no more loyalty and support from Christians than the IHC, Plunket, Womens’ Refuge, or Victim Support.  All of these organisations do good work, to be sure.  But all rely heavily upon taxpayers for their continued existence.  Therefore, these days, they ought to be more properly seen as agencies of the State.

Consequently, like any other agency of state, the Sallies should be roundly criticised when they are found guilty of superficial poppycock.  Here is a good example.

An “explosion” of immigrants is “crowding out” young Kiwis from available jobs, the Salvation Army says.  A report on youth unemployment by the army’s social policy analyst Alan Johnson, using Statistics NZ figures, says immigration of young people aged 15 to 24 has “exploded” from a net gain of 3217 in the year to June 2013 to a net gain of 22,064 in the latest June year.  Yet 74,100 young Kiwis aged 15 to 24 were not in employment, education or training (NEET) in the year to June – a number that has stalled since a drop from 87,000 in 2010 to 72,100 in 2014.

“The persistent numbers of 15 to 24-year-olds who remain outside of the workforce as total job numbers grow, and as young migrants enter New Zealand to take these jobs, suggest this immigration is crowding out more marginalised workers,” the report says.  It recommends tightening immigration rules further beyond last week’s Government decisions to raise the points required for granting residence to skilled migrants and close the parent category.  [NZ Herald]

Before we comment on the argument, let’s just note in passing that the NZ Herald’s Simon Collins, a walking sensation in search of a headline, has “massaged” the piece from the Sallies’ suggestion that immigration was crowding out jobs, to  An “explosion” of immigrants is “crowding out” young Kiwis from available jobs, the Salvation Army says.

It is at this point we are forced to rehearse that old canard about lies, damned lies, and statistics.  David Farrar at Kiwiblog writes:

I think the Salvation Army analysis is rather simplistic.  Yet net “migration” of 15 to 24 year olds has increased by the amount cited. But around 7,500 of that is fewer young Kiwis leaving. So inwards migration is up around 11,500.

But most of those will be students on student visas. They are counted as “migrants” as they will be in NZ for over a year but they have no entitlement to stay on once they finish study (and only 20% do qualify for residency), and they have limited rights to work (up to 20 hours a week only generally).

Selling education to overseas students has become a huge export earner for NZ Inc.  Its growth potential is limited only by suitable “production” facilities and capacities in New Zealand.  But the more it succeeds, the more it will appear that “immigrants” are taking jobs from young Kiwis.  Appear, that is, if one falls into the trap of hasty and superficial generalisations from (misused) statistics.

Simon Collins and the NZ Herald are beneath rebuke and correction.  The Salvation Army, however, ought to know better.  But veracity and integrity tend to wither on the vine when the organisation is just another petitioner seeking more money and support from the taxpayer.
Go to Source to Comment


celebrating the temporary

marmsky devotions pics October 2016 (27)


Leviticus 23:33-36

Lev 23:33 And Yahveh spoke to Moses, and this is what he said,
Lev 23:34 “Speak to the people of Israel, and this is what you should say, On the fifteenth day of this seventh month and for seven days is the Feast of Huts to Yahveh.
Lev 23:35 On the first day will be a holy convention; you will not do any ordinary work.
Lev 23:36 For seven days you will present fire offerings to Yahveh. On the eighth day you will hold a holy convention and present a fire offering to Yahveh. It is a solemn assembly; you will not do any ordinary work.

celebrating the temporary

The feast of huts gave the Israelites the opportunity to celebrate their transit in the desert on their way to permanence in the promised land. Those of us who are goal-driven need to stop and figure this out. We are accustomed to thinking of life as a search for the ultimate. God does have an ultimate destiny for those whom he has called to himself. But he is also very much interested in our next breath, and our next step. None of us have arrived at our ultimate destiny, but it is a comfort that God wants us to celebrate the present in addition to anticipating the future. It is all the same to him.

LORD, show us how to stop and celebrate our relationship with you today.


Letter From the Islamic Killing Fields

‘Women Survive. They Do Not Live.’

Sulome Anderson
Stuff: The Washington Post

A handcuffed man sits on a dirty couch in a small room. The walls are painted a sickly, pale yellow that is even less appealing in the harsh fluorescent lighting. Two fighters and an officer clad in green camouflage stand by, watching.  The prisoner is in his mid- to late 30s, relatively fair-skinned for an Iraqi, with curly auburn hair and light brown eyes.  According to the Peshmerga, the fighting force of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), he was the leader of an Islamic State intelligence unit.
His jailers explain that the prisoner was responsible for interrogating people in Islamic State-held territory, trying to gather information and root out any internal dissent.  Tell me about your wife,” I begin. “How did you treat her?”
“My wife completely covered her body and face and never left the house without me,” he replies sullenly.
 I don’t know how much encouragement he received from his captors before speaking with me, but he seems healthy and uninjured. “She is forbidden from going anywhere without me.”  The Islamic State prisoner says he left his wife in the town of Hawija when he was sent to set up a sleeper cell in Kirkuk, which is held by the Peshmerga.  She was going to follow after him, but he was arrested while trying to enter Kurdish territory with a group of refugees.
Now, he says, he’s been gone for more than four months – which, under the Islamic State’s understanding of sharia, means she is probably married to someone else.  “How do you think she feels about that?” I ask.  “[My wife] is just a woman, like every other woman,” he says coldly. “Women exist to be married and have children. In jihad, feelings do not matter. Women survive; they do not live.”
The brutal treatment of women living under Islamic State rule is no secret. Horrific accounts of rape, torture, and murder against women of all religious and ethnic backgrounds have been proliferating since the fundamentalist group emerged as a significant power in the region.
But if the evidence for these crimes is unimpeachable, the motives for them are much hazier. Why exactly do Islamic State members commit such vile atrocities against women? What mental processes do they go through that lead them to a place where women can be bought and sold like sheep? That is what I hoped to discover by interviewing imprisoned Islamic State members, as well as women who have fallen victim to their merciless ideology.
Through my interviews, it became clear to me that the Islamic State has perfected a process of dehumanisation that allows its members to indulge their misogyny, aggressive sexual tendencies, and need for power – all in the name of Islam. . . . 
Inside the house, the woman, whom I’ll call Farida, ushers us into a room away from her uncle and male cousin.  Cultural and religious restrictions in this part of the world often prevent sexually abused women from speaking freely about their experiences in front of men.
Farida is indeed beautiful, with flawless skin and shapely curves – but it is her eyes that immediately strike me. Though she is a perfect hostess, I can see the grief and rage roiling in them, barely restrained by her good manners.  “My sister is 16 years old,” she begins bitterly.  “They married her to seven men. She is still in Syria. . . . I saw a man rape four women in a row. I saw them rip a baby from his mother’s breast as he was drinking milk.  One man would marry me, then one of his friends would see me and like me, so he would marry me. I was sold to five men.” . . . .
Many people have suggested that Islamic State members are on drugs, Farida says, but she doesn’t believe that explanation. She never saw her captors take any such substances during her imprisonment.  “They are doing this freely and from their hearts. They eat, sleep, and breathe Islam. They are high on it. That’s what makes them crazy. It’s a sickness. Even their children are raised to be like that. I didn’t see a single one of them who didn’t have that mentality.” . . . 
I ask the auburn-haired prisoner about the Islamic State’s ideology concerning Yazidis, and whether he ever kept one as a slave. . . .  “I had one girl, but the doctor at our hospital saw her and liked her and he outranked me, so he took her,” he responds, not meeting my gaze.  “The Yazidi women are given to high-ranking IS members. The younger ones are valued most highly. . . . With the Yazidis, it is different from the wives, because they are slaves and spoils of war. They belong to the Islamic State, and we can do whatever we like with them.”
“What if that were your mother?” I ask him, trying to keep my voice even. “How would you feel about your mother being sold as a slave and raped, or even if she was Sunni, being married off to several of your friends?”  That gets a response. When he looks me in the face, the overwhelming hatred in his expression is utterly chilling.
“Even if it were my mother, that is Islamic sharia law and I would not mind because it would be for the jihad,” he says finally.  “We treat women the way we are required to by Islamic law, not human law. This is how they are supposed to live. They are second-class humans.”

Go to Source to Comment


Daily Meditation

Love’s Greatest Happiness

No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:29–30)

John Piper

The union between Christ and his bride is so close (“one flesh”) that any good done to her is a good done to himself. The blatant assertion of this text is that this fact motivates the Lord to nourish, cherish, sanctify, and cleanse his bride.

By some definitions, this cannot be love. Love, they say, must be free of self-interest — especially Christlike love, especially Calvary love. I have never seen such a view of love made to square with this passage of Scripture.

Yet what Christ does for his bride, this text plainly calls love: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church . . . ” (5:25). Why not let the text define love for us, instead of bringing our definition from ethics or philosophy? According to this text, love is the pursuit of our joy in the holy joy of the beloved.

There is no way to exclude self-interest from love, for self-interest is not the same as selfishness. Selfishness seeks its own private happiness at the expense of others.

Love seeks its happiness in the happiness of the beloved. It will even suffer and die for the beloved in order that its joy might be full in the life and purity of the beloved.

This is how Christ loved us, and this is how he calls us to love one another.
Go to Source to Comment


Christianity, confidence, and certainty

What degree of certainty or justification can we have in biblical truth? And how does this compare to our certainty in scientific truth, or the truth of our own experiences?

In a colloquial sense, I have complete certainty in the truth of Christianity. But I would tend to think of certainty in more rigorous terms, where it is a function of probability of error. To be 100% certain, in these terms, is to say that I could not be wrong; that Christianity is necessarily true and that its contradiction is logically or metaphysically impossible (ie, issues in a logical contradiction, or violates some way that reality has to be).

I think it’s obvious that Christianity is neither logically nor metaphysically impossible. For example, God could have created the world of Narnia instead of our world. (That is much of the point of Narnia as fiction.) The distinctive truths of Christianity could be false, and I could be deceived about them.

However, the general truths of theistic belief are of the kind that they must be true. If God exists, he exists necessarily—there is no possible world without him. That being so, I believe I can have 100% certainty, in the more rigorous sense, that a being broadly like Yahweh exists. So this strongly underwrites the certainty I have in Christianity.

That said, my confidence in Christianity is not primarily based on philosophical reasoning; nor is it even based on God’s word, per se. It is based on the simple knowledge that Christianity is true—a belief both imparted and justified by the indwelling Spirit (cf 1 Corinthians 2; John 6:37-44). The philosophical reasoning, the prophecies, the historical facts—these things all attest to the truth I already know. Or, put another way perhaps, the Spirit confirms to me (not by words, but simply by direct experience of knowing) that the Bible is the word of God, that it is powerful to save, and so on. When I was converted, I began to experience Scripture differently. I began to know that it was true, and this was not something produced from within me. The various other proofs of Christianity simply confirmed and cemented this knowledge—but they are critically important in this role, because they demonstrate that I am not merely self-deceived as, say, Mormons are with their experience of the burning in the bosom.

In terms of more general experience, I have as much confidence in it as I have in my experience that Christianity is true. I recognize that not every detail is infallible, but that the broad strokes are of such a nature that I cannot doubt them without doubting my own sanity. We should expect this, since God created us to live in, interact with, and rule over our world—which requires that we have an accurate perception of it.

However, what we experience, and how we interpret that experience, are not the same thing. Interpretation is often the issue. This gets not only to the issue of some kinds of theology, but also especially to the question of our confidence in science. I trust science a great deal, since I know that God created the world to be orderly and uniform and understandable—and that is what science is all about. (Indeed, atheistic science is incoherent because of this.) But having confidence in science as a method is not the same as having confidence in the application of that method to any particular case. Indeed, the history of science is the history of being wrong—that is how science works. The entire idea of science is about falsifying a hypothesis. And the more assumptions and the fewer direct observations are involved, the more tenuous the conclusions tend to be. So I have a great deal of confidence in, say, quantum theories that we rely on every day to publish blogs. I have much less confidence in speculative theories like evolutionary psychology, when there are equally plausible alternative explanations for the data which are merely excluded on the basis of philosophical assumptions (ie, naturalism).

This also gets to a serious question of the right approach to interpreting experience more generally again. Supernatural events are experienced frequently, by people all over the world (for example, I find particularly interesting sleep paralysis with a malevolent presence). Mainstream scientific explanations of these experiences simply fail, shoehorning them into neurological categories like dreams or pathological hallucinations, and bolstering these explanations with circular theories like the cultural source hypothesis. These are easily falsified. However, at the same time, a lot of Christians find these kinds of experiences troubling because they are not mentioned in the Bible (or they think they aren’t; cf Job 4:13-16). So they tend to take a secular, disbelieving approach to them. But our worldview needs to be flexible enough to take experience seriously even when it isn’t clearly described or predicted in Scripture—which means our understanding of the place of Scripture itself needs to be tensile enough to cope with this. We should be able to adjust our theology based on experience, even when that experience is unexpected or troubling—but we need to have some core principles in place at the same time to keep us bounded, or we will fall into error (I’m thinking especially of Pentecostalism here).

In other words, we need to be able to carefully and thoughtfully systematize and integrate real-world experience and scriptural data to form a coherent, consistent worldview that accommodates both without falling apart. That isn’t easy, necessarily, but I believe it is possible because I have confidence that Scripture is entirely true—and since truth is consistent, our true interpretations of veridical experiences will line up entirely with our true interpretations of Scripture.

Go to Source to Comment


Useful Deceits

The Short Answer is No
The “Climate Change” catastrophe has become boring.  It’s hard for folk to maintain a sense of deadly danger, as if perpetually perched on the edge of a cliff, adrenaline pumping through twitchy veins, whilst a maw of jagged rocks below awaits our flailing descent.   That kind of fear cannot be sustained.  Exhaustion quickly follows.  

So it has come to pass that the world finds itself exhausted over the “catastrophe” of climate change.  To be sure, the climate isn’t helping us.  There’s plenty of ice at both polar caps.  Temperatures are all over the place.  Meanwhile life goes on.

We are now entering the theatrical phase of the fight against anthropogenic global warming.  Governments all around the world are reduced to going through the motions of trying to get rid of carbon dioxide.
 Many countries have signed up to the Paris accord; every country (apart from the dwindling zealots) privately confess they are merely players on a pantomime stage.  Every government has now become a nominal believer in global warming.  They say the words; they are unable to do anything of significance about it–nor do they intend to.  They are “doing enough” just to maintain a scintilla of credibility in case neighbouring countries accuse them of hypocrisy.

And then there are the zealots.  These folk are playing a helpful role in that they are telling us how useless and pathetic we all are.  We offer you Exhibit A–George Monbiot, the Guardian’s resident Chicken Little.  The UK government has been considering the extension of the runway at Heathrow Airport, and alternatives.  Monbiot insists that the only right solution is to shorten every runway in the world.

There is only one way to prevent aviation from wrecking the planet. We need to fly much less.  The inexorable logic that should rule out new sources of oil, gas and coal also applies to the expansion of airports. In a world seeking to prevent climate breakdown, there is no remaining scope for extending infrastructure that depends on fossil fuels. The prime minister cannot uphold the Paris agreement on climate change, which comes into force next month, and permit the runway to be built.  [Emphasis, ours.]

There you have it.  Not much wriggle room in George’s world.  But the irony is that George sees things pretty clearly.  He has looked into the future.  He realises that the UK is involved in a gargantuan sham, a mass con.  George knows that the dumb rubes (the general population) are simply not prepared to pay the price for climate perfection.  But that will not stop the government’s charade going on.

The alternative strategy [to reducing air travel] is a carbon tax. The commission is remarkably evasive about what this entails, and its reckonings are opaque, contradictory and buried in remote annexes. Perhaps that’s unsurprising. An analysis by the Campaign for Better Transport suggests that the tax required to reconcile a new runway with our carbon commitments is somewhere between £270 and £850 for a return flight for a family of four to New York. . . .

As the commission doubtless knows, no government would impose such charges, or shut down northern airports to allow Heathrow to grow. Having approved the extra capacity, the government will discover that it’s incompatible with our commitments under the Climate Change Act, mull the consequences for a minute or two, then quietly abandon the commitments. It’s this simple: a third runway at Heathrow means that the UK will not meet its carbon targets. Hold me to that in 2050.

Yup.  The commitment to the Paris Accord is a con.  George finally gets it.   And what the UK government is doing, every other government is, and will be, doing.  That’s the charade.  That’s the pantomime.

George’s cynicism has even got to the point of acknowledging the gods have deserted us.  He has looked into the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Dagon.  Lo, and behold, there is nothing there.  Only sham, make-believe, and tricksy tricksyness.

As for the international framework, forget it. Two weeks ago 191 nations struck the world’s only agreement to regulate aviation emissions. It’s voluntary, it’s pathetic, and it relies on planting trees to offset aircraft emissions, which means replacing a highly stable form of carbon storage (leaving oil in the ground) with a highly unstable one vulnerable to loggers, fires and droughts. The meeting at which the deal was done probably caused more emissions than it will save.

The Potemkin fight against global warming is entirely understandable because global warming is itself a Potemkin threat.  Virtually every nation state in the world understands this.  It is a faux threat: a faux cause, requiring a faux fight.  Government folk have been prepared to play along because it represented globalism, internationalism, and the lust for Babel’s rebuilding.  But at another level, they all know it’s a charade.

But George–well, spare a thought for him.  Whilst he well knows the attempts to roll back global warming are deceits and pretences, he himself is a genuine acolyte, a true believer.  And so, like a secular Jeremiah, he pours forth  his lamentation:

But reason has taken flight. The moral compass spins, greed and desire soar towards the stratosphere, and our conscience vanishes in the clouds. Will anyone confront this injustice?

The short answer, George, is, “No!”   Thank goodness.
Go to Source to Comment



marmsky devotions pics October 2016 (26)


Leviticus 23:26-32

Lev 23:26 And Yahveh spoke to Moses, and this is what he said,
Lev 23:27 “Now on the tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Reconciliations. It will be for you a time of holy convention, and you will discipline your souls and present a food offering to Yahveh.
Lev 23:28 And you will not do any work on that very day, because it is a Day of Reconciliations, to provide reconciliation for you in your God Yahveh’s sight.
Lev 23:29 Because every soul who is not disciplined on that very day will be eliminated from his people.
Lev 23:30 And every soul who does any work on that very day, that soul I will destroy from among his people.
Lev 23:31 You will not do any work. It is a permanent prescription throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Lev 23:32 It will be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you will discipline your souls. On the ninth day of the month beginning at evening, from evening to evening will you keep your Sabbath.”


As much as we might want to deny it, words like these cause us inner turmoil. As much as we proclaim our devotion and loyalty to God, there is an impulse within every soul that dares to defy him — to insist on our own sovereignty over ourselves. That inner self is enraged that anyone would dare to tell it that it must stop working for someone else — even God. That inner self laughs at the notion that some other precept is more important than personal liberty.

My point is not that all believers are obligated to keep the festival of Yom Kippur: we are not. Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled that festival as a prophecy. To attempt to keep that festival as a Gentile is to deny the gospel. My point is that in spite of this fact, these words still haunt us, because we still have an impulse to respond to them as many of the Israelites did — with contempt.

LORD, we repent again of the sin of self-sovereignty


Appeals to Pity Are Deceptive

Legalise Euthanasia, and Compassionate Society Dies Too

Paul Kelly
The Australian

If you love your parents, respect your children, care for your society and think compassionately about your world then it is time to open your heart and brain to what happens when a jurisdiction legalises killing or, as it is called, euthanasia.

The justification for euthanasia lies in human rights, individual autonomy and relieving pain — all worthy ideas, and that may prompt the question: why then is euthanasia still opposed by most nations, most medical professional bodies around the world and the Australian Medical Association?

The reason is not hard to find. It is because crossing the threshold to euthanasia is the ultimate step in medical, moral and social terms. A polity is never the same afterwards and a society is never the same. It changes forever the doctor-patient bond. It is because, in brutal but honest terms, more people will be put at risk by the legislation than will be granted relief as beneficiaries.

The argument against euthanasia has endured for many years: it leads, on balance, to a less compassionate society that creates a new series of moral and practical hazards for itself. It is a disproportionate response to the real problem of patient pain that needs more care and money. It is because a society that legalises killing has to change fundamentally in terms of the ethics of its doctors, its medical ethos, its family relationships and its principles of human life. Belgium, having legalised euthanasia in 2002, offers a tragic picture of what can happen to a country just a few short years later.

In this debate the principle of individual autonomy is vital. Adults, as much as possible, should be able to exercise choices over their medical treatment. That means declining treatment that can keep them alive. There is no real dispute about that.

Euthanasia is different: it is an act that terminates life. It is, therefore, by definition not a private affair; not just about a patient’s right. It is a public and society-wide issue because it involves the state legalising killing subject to certain conditions. That is a grave step and it concerns everyone.

AMA head Michael Gannon tells Inquirer: “The current policy of the AMA is that doctors should not involve themselves in any treatment that has as its aim the ending of a patient’s life. This is consistent with the policy position of most medical associations around the world and reflects 2000 years of medical ethics.”

There are three foundational points in this debate. First, in relative terms the proportion of people dying in acute pain is declining because palliative care methods have been enhanced. There is wide agreement among experts that most physical pain at life’s end can now be managed — this is a critical trend but cannot conceal the fact painful deaths still exist and become the main argument for legal change. But euthanasia should not be seen as a substitute for palliative care — that would be a medical and moral blunder.

Second, where euthanasia is legalised the record is clear — its availability generates rapid and ever expanding use and wider legal boundaries. Its rate and practice quickly exceeds the small number of cases based on the original criteria of unacceptable pain — witness Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Oregon. In Belgium, figures for sanctioned killings and assisted suicide rose from 235 in 2003 to 2012 by last year. In the Netherlands they rose from 2331 in 2008 to 5516 last year.

These figures come from Labor MLC Daniel Mulino’s minority report in the recent Victorian parliament committee report recommending euthanasia. His conclusion is that “the negative consequences arising from legislation far outweighs the benefits arising in that minority of cases”.

Experience in other jurisdictions leads to the unambiguous conclusion: the threshold event is the original legalising of euthanasia. After this there is only one debate — it is over when and how to expand the sanctioned killings. Claims made in Victoria that strict safeguards will be implemented and sustained are simply untenable and defy the lived overseas experience as well as political reality. There are many questions. If you sanction killing for end-of-life pain relief, how can you deny this right to people in pain who aren’t dying? If you give this right to adults, how can you deny this right to children? If you give this right to people in physical pain, how can you deny this right to people with mental illness? If you give this right to people with mental illness, how can you deny this right to people who are exhausted with life?

Third, culture and values will change to justify the death process. Consider the situation of one of Belgium’s most famous doctors, Wim Distelmans, applauded as a human rights champion. Having killed more than 100 patients, he is a celebrity, gives talks around the nation and is lauded as a man who “cannot stand injustice”. He told Der Spiegel that giving a lethal injection is an act of “unconditional love”.

In Belgium, because so many are killed, the act must be converted into the exemplar of moral and medical compassion.

“Who am I to convince patients that they have to suffer longer than they want?” Distelmans said in one of the most astonishing articles of our time (“The Death Treatment” by Rachel Aviv, The New Yorker, June 22, 2015).

It is the story of how an adult son, Tom Mortier, sought justice after Distelmans killed his mother without Mortier’s knowledge. Distelmans was appointed chairman of the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission, whose job is to assess that doctors have complied with Belgian law. He told The New Yorker: “We at the commission are confronted more and more with patients who are tired of dealing with a sum of small ailments — they are what we call ‘tired of life’.”

Though their suffering derived from social as well as medical concerns, Distelmans said he regarded their pain as incurable. The article reported that 13 per cent of Belgians who were euthanised last year did not have a terminal condition. In Belgium euthanasia and suicide march together — it also has the second highest suicide rate (excluding euthanasia) in western Europe.

The most chilling aspect in a chilling story was Distelmans’s moral superiority in dealing with Mortier, prompting Mortier to write later: “I loved my mother for more than 30 years and I wanted her to live; Dr Distelmans loved her so much — ‘unconditionally’ — that after a few brief consultations over six months he gave her a ­lethal injection.”

Once you sanction euthanasia you open the door to euthanasia creep. The human heart will ­always respond to the incentives of the law. Cross the threshold and doctors will be encouraged to think it is their job to promote the end-of-life. Sick people, thinking of families, feel obliged to offer up their deaths. Less worthy people exploit the death process for gain. In Belgium children can now be euthanised. Would this have been acceptable when euthanasia was legalised in 2002? No way.

The article quoted a professor of psychiatry at the University of Leuven, Dirk De Wachter, calling euthanasia a humanist solution to a humanist dilemma. “What is life worth when there is no God?” he asked. “What is life worth when I am not successful?”

There are an infinite number of similar questions: what is life worth when you are lonely or depressed? De Wachter said he had recently ­euthanised a woman, not suffering from clinical depression but in a condition where “it was impossible for her to have a goal in life”.

Pro-euthanasia advocates in Australia are split when dealing with Belgium and The Netherlands between defending their practices or saying they are not relevant to our debate. The latter is false. These countries are highly relevant — as classic studies in how the euthanasia culture takes grips of a nation’s moral sense. It is sanctioned in terms of love, liberation and compassion — the ultimate service one human can render another.

The recent Victorian parliamentary report Inquiry into End of Life Choices recommended that people be assisted to die by being prescribed a lethal drug to be taken by themselves or administered by a doctor. It outlined a series of strict guidelines as eligibility criteria — approval by a primary doctor and a second doctor only for patients suffering at the end of life. The condition must be serious and incurable. The ­request must come from the ­patient and be free of coercion, be properly informed and be made three times: verbal, written, then verbal again.

There is significant support for euthanasia in the Victorian cabinet and in the opposing frontbench. A bill is certain in the life of the present parliament. Expectations are that it will be passed.

The AMA’s Gannon says the association is conducting a review of its euthanasia policy. He says this is “routine” and not prompted by “recent events”. He highlights the paradox of euthanasia. “It is only a rich country issue,” Gannon says. “There is no one in the developing world talking about terminating the lives of patients.” The AMA review will be completed in mid-November.

The pro-euthanasia group within the AMA hopes to shift its policy from opposition to neutral, mirroring the shift made in Canada — and that would be a significant step. In its evaluation the AMA must focus beyond the issue of patient autonomy to confront the question of doctor-patient ­relations and how they would change under euthanasia.

A critical feature of the Victorian report is the belief that a small number of people seeking euthanasia can be helped without any significant downside for ­society. It seeks to achieve this through robust eligibility criteria and the repudiation of any “slippery slope” problem with euthanasia in jurisdictions such as Oregon, The Netherlands and Switzerland.

Such optimism is heroic and typical of the euthanasia debate. It is echoed in nation after nation, year after year. It testifies to the deepest humanist conviction that mankind and wise governments can introduce euthanasia regimes with the necessary legal safeguards and the necessary regulatory protections to manage the promotion of death to ensure only net gains for the social order.

It is surely extraordinary that people sceptical of the ability of governments to get trains running on time fool themselves into thinking they can confidently manage a regime that sanctions the termination of human life.

The minority report from Mulino provides statistics showing there has been a sustained increase in deaths in all ­jurisdictions, no evidence that growth rates are plateauing with compound annual growth rates ranging from 13 to 22 per cent, which Mulino says has to be ­regarded as “extremely high”. He says the total number of cases in Belgium has increased by 756 per cent over 12 years and in Oregon is 725 per cent higher across the 17 years since initial legislation.

What sort of society is evolving if these growth rates continue? Why cannot we rationally confront and answer these questions? What drives the rise in deaths?

Munilo says the evidence ­reveals euthanasia and assisted suicide regimes “come under ­immediate pressure as soon as these schemes are enacted”. First, there is pressure to widen the law and second is the pressure to ­interpret more generously its implementation. And we think Australia is exempt?

There are many examples. In Canada, there are advisory group recommendations to extend the law to children. In Belgium ­extending euthanasia to dementia patients is under examination. The Netherlands is considering allowing patients to make pre-­dementia declarations.

The trend and logic is unassailable: once legislated the principle of euthanasia is settled and the practice of euthanasia is widened, if not by law then by administrative laxity and de facto regulatory sanction. Of course, many euthanasia cases are never declared.

A 2012 report by the European Institute of Bioethics said: “Initially legalised under very strict conditions, euthanasia has gradually become a very normal and even ordinary act to which patients are deemed to have a right.”

Many advocates in Australia use the rights language. Once this takes hold, then holding back the tide is near impossible. The ­upshot in The Netherlands is that the type of patients seeking euthanasia has changed with a shift to those with psychiatric illness. ­Mobile clinics offering free lethal injections are now in operation.

Mulino refers to an Oregon Public Health Division report looking at 132 deaths and finding that 48 per cent listed being a burden on family, friends or caregivers was a concern. When the Belgian law was passed politicians insisted that patients with psychiatric disorders, dementia or ­depression would be excluded — yet the prospect now is for an ­escalation in these categories.

Vulnerable people are right to feel uneasy if Australia crosses the legal threshold. In truth, it is virtually impossible to ensure all acts of euthanasia are voluntary. The elderly, lonely, handicapped and indigenous need to think how such laws mat affect them and their self-esteem.

In short, the foundational claims in the majority Victorian report of no “slippery slope” and effective “safeguards” do not pass the test of evidence, experience or careful analysis. This goes to the question of whether Australia will legislate on false and misleading assumptions that reflect ideological and political propositions.

On the pivotal and related issue of palliative care, Australia suffers a moral and humanitarian failure — and the Victorian report has responded with a strong set of recommendations.

Palliative Care Australia chief executive Liz Callaghan tells Inquirer: “The practice of palliative care does not include euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, and palliative care does not intend to hasten or postpone death. PCA believes the Australian government needs to ­increase access to palliative care.

“Currently 70 per cent of Australians want to die at home but only 14 per cent do. We believe more needs to be done to ensure that this can happen. Access to integrated, comprehensive support and pain/symptom management is often inadequate, inequitable or may not meet patient needs.”

Callaghan says evidence is that pain management improved from 2011 to last year based on data collection from 115 spec­ialist palliative care services looking after 20,000 patients needing pain management. She says PCA believes more needs to be done to ensure people are better educated about their end of life care choices and palliative care. The PCA believes any ­request for euthanasia requires “a respectful and compassionate ­response”, with Callaghan saying euthanasia is an issue for parliaments.

It is ironic this week that more evidence has emerged about the shocking impact of suicide in this country, particularly for Australians aged in the 15 to 44 age group. How, pray, does legalising euthanasia help the campaign against suicide? The most bizarre notion this week was the suggestion that legalising euthanasia may lower the suicide rate.

In many ways this entire debate is about how to interpret love and care in the context of death. Hug the person you love. But realise this is also about deciding the degree of discretion doctors have dealing with death. It may be good for a doctor to follow a patient’s wish for a lethal injection but that must be assessed against the total social impact of a regime that allows life to be terminated.

If we proceed then life will change, there will be a “slippery slope”, your relationship with your doctor will be different, the vulnerable will have reason to feel uneasy, the push to make euthanasia a right will be inevitable, the frail will feel obliged to volunteer and our values as a community will shift more quickly than you appreciate.

Go to Source to Comment