When politicians create a "social valuation of life"

 I highly recommend reading this article by Amanda Achtman at Public Discourse. She discusses the development of "euthanasia centers" in Nazi Germany where the "unfit" were killed and the methods for the genocide of Jewish people were "perfected." 

These,

"euthanasia memorials do not receive nearly the volume of visitors that flock to the more notorious death camps; most people are unaware of the links between them."

We must remember this history lest we repeat it as more and more nations accept the notion of "euthanasia." 

Here is an excerpt, 

The medical records of the euthanasia victims list such things as: “congenital feeble-mindedness,” “social nonconformity,” “anxious relational psychosis,” “unable to work,” “incurable,” “danger to the public,” “unstable and dishonest,” “sullen and unapproachable,” “senile dementia,” etc., as conditions that obviously warranted death.

Ambiguous as these criteria are, they were used to reduce people to conditions that disqualified them from belonging in the world. The person with a name became the mere instance of a type. Doctors would refer to patients by their illness, disability, or inner struggle as a kind of shorthand that eclipsed the person. This is a particularly insidious form of dehumanization, when a person’s entire identity is reduced to a diagnosis, prognosis, or accessibility aid.

In short, a consensus arose around a social valuation of life, which became difficult to dispute. The rationale for killing people became entrenched under the guise of general agreement. The precedent became part of the argument. If the general presumption becomes that the rationale is logical, if there is a sense that fungible criteria are legitimate, then people are susceptible to being classified within them, regardless of whether they would have put themselves in that category.

Today we might instinctively look at Nazi criteria for death as utterly baseless, but at the time seasoned medical professionals regarded them as reasonable. To have a sense of history is to grasp the arbitrariness of such criteria. When it comes to killing patients, there is no way to get the criteria just right because the stamp of medical approval sends a social message that there is a category of persons who should not exist.

Perplexed then greatly astounded

In this Sunday's reading from Mark 10:17-31, Jesus teaches us about how we attain eternal life

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ They were greatly astounded and said to one another, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.’

 Peter began to say to him, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you.’ Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.’

I noticed the tension growing as the disciples were first perplexed and then greatly astounded at Jesus' words. 

The real astounding moment is when Jesus explains that for God, passing a camel through the eye of a needle is easy.

 

"Floods came and the wind blew"

We are still cleaning up from hurricane Helene, but the Pewster-in-law's place in Florida is in the bullseye for the next storm. They are snow birds and are only there in the winter so they are safe in their summer primary home. My friend on Sanibel Island has evacuated. 

I was born on an island that was wiped out by a hurricane over a century ago, and I grew up in hurricane country riding out many in my childhood home which was seriously shaking during one storm. My father taught me how to prepare, and to never buy a house in certain flood prone areas or to own a beach front home. 

I feel for people like my friend who live on or near the beach, but I remember my father's advice as well as the words of Jesus, 

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.  And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.  And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.  And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Matthew 7:24-27

Still, we build on sand anyway, and the floods will come some day to wash it all away.

So as to not leave you on a sour note remember,

"Many waters cannot quench love,

    neither can floods drown it." - Song of Solomon 8:7a

Let the floods come, God loves us and watches over us. We just would do better if we followed his advice. 

God's plan or yours?

 While this Sunday the Revised Common Lectionary cuts out a large part of Hebrews chapter 1 and a slice of Hebrews chapter 2, I looked at the Gospel reading and was left wondering how the revisionist preacher would handle it.

Mark 10:2-16

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’

 People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.’ And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

I imagine that the typical revisionist preacher will avoid talking about the first two paragraphs altogether and focus on the third one, or he/she/it will not even touch the Gospel reading and instead focus on where he/she/it took the grandchildren last week.

 When Jesus talks about human sexual relationships, he goes back to the beginning, a time before sin, and God's design for us. 

When the revisionist talks about human sexual relationships, he/she/it must push things to the present and humanity's designs, so he/she/it has to ignore Mark chapter 10 among other things.

Who will you follow, God or man?

Medical Necessity?

Power was finally restored on Monday afternoon, and we are cleaning up from the damage done by hurricane Helene. We are still waiting for the flood waters to recede. Estimates are that things should be back to normal levels by October 9. 

Meanwhile, the rest of the world remains upside down as trans craziness continues.

From Fox News,

A federal judge has ruled that it would be unconstitutional for an Indiana prison to deny a transgender inmate sex reassignment surgery following the inmate's lawsuit against the facility.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the Indiana Department of Corrections last year on behalf of a transgender inmate, Jonathan C. Richardson, also known as Autumn Cordellionè, who was convicted of strangling his 11-month-old stepdaughter to death in 2001.

Indiana law, however, prohibits the Department of Corrections from using taxpayer dollars to fund sex reassignment surgeries for inmates. However, the ACLU argues in the lawsuit, filed on Aug. 28, 2023, that the law is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."

The surgery for Richardson, who is serving out a 55-year prison sentence for reckless homicide, "is a medical necessity," according to the ACLU lawsuit.

Judge Richard Young agreed with the ACLU's claims and ruled in favor of Cordellioné last week.

"Specifically, Ms. Cordellioné has shown that her gender dysphoria is a serious medical need, and that, despite other treatments Defendant has provided her to treat her gender dysphoria, she requires gender-affirming surgery to prevent a risk of serious bodily and psychological harm," the ruling states.

The DOC must now take "all reasonable actions" to ensure Cordellioné undergoes sex surgery, according to the order.

Since when is a "gender-affirming" surgery a medical necessity? 

The Medicare definition of medically necessary is, 

Health care services or supplies needed to diagnose or treat an illness, injury, condition, disease or its symptoms and that meet accepted standards of medicine. 

 The insurance company Cigna is more specific,

• "Medically Necessary" or "Medical Necessity" means health care services that a physician, exercising prudent clinical judgment, would provide to a patient. The service must be:
• For the purpose of evaluating, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, disease, or its symptoms
• In accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice
• Clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site, and duration, and considered effective for the patient's illness, injury, or disease
• Not primarily for the convenience of the patient, health care provider, or other physicians or health care providers
• Not more costly than an alternative service or sequence of services at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of that patient's illness, injury, or disease

For these purposes, "generally accepted standards of medical practice" means:

• Standards that are based on credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed, medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community
• Physician Specialty Society recommendations
• The views of physicians practicing in the relevant clinical area
• Any other relevant factors

I know there are physicians who would testify that this man's surgery meets the Medicare definition, but an equal or greater number would argue that it does not. 

Cigna would turn him down because of the lack of 

"credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed, medical literature..."

This murderer may get away with murder at the expense of the taxpayers. 

I guess if it keeps him from impregnating any female prisoners if he is in a (female prison) then it might be reasonable. 

But if he is in a male prison..

I don't want to think about that.

Thanks be to God

 Because of hurricane Helene, we are dealing with a twisted knee, a barked shin, flood waters, downed trees, no power, and no internet except using phones at present so I am typing this short post on my mobile app listening to the generators and chainsaws around me. 

The Psalm for today reminds me that if not for the grace of God, things could be worse. 

124 Nisi quia Dominus

1 If the Lord had not been on our side, *
let Israel now say;

2 If the Lord had not been on our side, *
when enemies rose up against us;

3 Then would they have swallowed us up alive *
in their fierce anger toward us;

4 Then would the waters have overwhelmed us *
and the torrent gone over us;

5 Then would the raging waters *
have gone right over us.

6 Blessed be the Lord! *
he has not given us over to be a prey for their teeth.

7 We have escaped like a bird from the snare of the fowler; *
the snare is broken, and we have escaped.

8 Our help is in the Name of the Lord, *
the maker of heaven and earth.

Our house is high and dry, but the waters have risen through our boat house and the waves from 60 mph winds carried away our neighbor’s pier and parts of ours. Many of our neighbors are on lower ground and will have more problems so pray for them.

We are fine because our trust is in the Lord.

Queer Theory Going Atomic

The LGBTqrsetc movement used some bizarre arguments when they worked to revise traditional interpretations of Biblical sexual morality. These revisionist ideas caught on with certain denominations. Those denominations are currently in a death spiral.

Where will the LGBTqrstetc forces strike next? Well they dropped a bomb in the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" when they published last year, "Queering nuclear weapons: How LGBTQ+ inclusion strengthens security and reshapes disarmament." 

Read it all if you dare. Here is an example, 

Queer identity is also relevant for the nuclear field because it informs theories that aim to change how officials, experts, and the public think about nuclear weapons. Queer theory is a field of study, closely related to feminist theory, that examines sex- and gender-based norms. It shines a light on the harm done by nuclear weapons through uranium mining, nuclear tests, and the tax money spent on nuclear weapons ($60 billion annually in the United States) instead of on education, infrastructure, and welfare. The queer lens prioritizes the rights and well-being of people over the abstract idea of national security, and it challenges the mainstream understanding of nuclear weapons—questioning whether they truly deter nuclear war, stabilize geopolitics, and reduce the likelihood of conventional war. Queer theory asks: Who created these ideas? How are they being upheld? Whose interests do they serve? And whose experiences are being excluded?

...Queer theory is also about rejecting binary choices and zero-sum thinking, such as the tenet that nuclear deterrence creates security and disarmament creates vulnerability. It identifies the assumptions and interests these ideas are built on—and imagines alternatives that serve a broader range of interests, including those of the invisible and resource-stripped.

Indeed, queer theory helps us not only see the bad of a world with nuclear weapons, but also imagine the good of a world without them. It envisions using the resources freed up by nuclear disarmament to build structures that tangibly increase people’s safety and well-being through healthcare, social housing, etc. In this scenario, the more than $100 billion that nuclear-armed states spend on nuclear weapons every year could be used to address the climate crisis, which could kill up to 83 million people by 2100. 

Disarmament, tied to climate change.. genius!  

If we follow this reasoning, we are doomed to the same fate as those denominations I referenced earlier. 

 The arguments are so weak and such a stretch that I hope that no one other than the authors take them seriously. 

These people are a few cans short of a six pack.

I think the "troll" that tweeted, 

“They should not allow mentally ill people near weapons of mass destruction.”

in response to a December 2022 panel discussion on LGBTQ+ identity in the nuclear weapons space was probably right.