The spiritual side of health from a solid foundation of creation teaching.
Fake News vs. Faith News: How Biblical Principles Can Expose the Truth through Investigative Journalism
Journalists, particularly those who do investigative reporting, tend to annoy people in powerful positions. Some people might think that Christians are supposed to be soft and acquiescent rather than muckrakers who hold the powerful to account. But what I do as an investigative reporter is consistent with what the Bible teaches. The mission statement of ProPublica, my employer, says we want to use the “moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform.” If you go through my work, you may sense a bit of “moral force.” The Bible teaches that people are made in the image of God and that each human life holds incredible value. So when I learned that medical mistakes are one of the leading causes of death in America, I called attention to the problem. The Apostle Paul points out that God comforts us so that we can be a comfort to others. So since 2012 I’ve moderated the ProPublica Patient Safety Facebook group, so people who have been harmed by medical care have a place to turn. The Bible rebukes deception and unfair practices. I’ve shown how our nation’s health care system is rife with schemes that are unfair to patients. The biblical mandate is to tell the truth. But some conservative Christians don’t seem to understand that. I started out in the Christian media and had run-ins with editors because of my interest in reporting about Christian leaders, even if it made them look bad. Administrators recently censored student journalists at Liberty University, a conservative Christian institution, for, in their view, making the school look bad. But God calls us to publish the truth, not propaganda. The biblical prophets were the moral conscience of God’s people. Today, in a nonreligious sense, journalists are the moral conscience of the wider culture.
Belgium legalized lethal-jab euthanasia in 2002. Since that time, medicalized homicide has grown increasingly radical. Now, MercatorNet has published a story based on a translation of the “Belgium Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia” — the nation’s official report on patient-killing by doctors. It makes for very chilling reading.
Child Murder or “Euthanasia”? Belgium Legalizes Physician-Assisted Suicide for All Ages – 3 Minor Children Die
A report published earlier this month (July, 2018) by Belgium's Federal Commission for Euthanasia Control and Evaluation states that doctors assisted with the "suicides" of three minor children since the country's parliament voted to lift age restrictions on euthanasia. The minors were 9, 11 and 17 years old, according to the report. Their conditions ranged from muscular dystrophy to brain tumors to cystic fibrosis. The conditions of all three were determined to be terminal, and euthanasia was approved unanimously by the Belgium's euthanasia committee. In 2017, a doctor resigned from Belgium's euthanasia commission, alleging that the committee had euthanized a demented patient who had not formally requested to die. This begs the question, can a minor child, especially a handicapped one, be expected to make such an important decision as to end one's own life? Or are these "physician-assisted" suicides simply a way to murder children who are deemed not useful to society?
Young children perceive intuitively that the world is designed. In 1929, child psychologist Jean Piaget called children “artificialists” who tend to regard everything as “the product of human creation.” Piaget’s claim that young children’s minds are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between human and nonhuman causes was controversial, and subsequent studies have shown that he was wrong. Yet he was right in saying that children start out with the intuition that the natural world was made for a purpose. In 2004, child psychologist Deborah Kelemen suggested that young children are thus “intuitive theists” who are “disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman design.” By the time they are adolescents, many children have suppressed their intuition of design. This suppression is largely due to influences from the community, especially from parents and teachers striving to acculturate children to a secular society, often in the name of “scientific literacy.” “Intervention” usually refers to an action taken to help someone give up an abnormal addiction. For these psychologists, however, it means convincing children to give up a normal intuition. Thus education becomes indoctrination.
Richard Dawkins lashed out at Pope Francis for the latter’s comparing modern eugenic efforts to Nazi precedents that sought to “create a pure race.” Dawkins fumed, “Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of individual human suffering.” The Daily Wire observes: As noted by LifeNews, the “human suffering” that Dawkins refers to here is disingenuous, considering that many parents of Down children report loving their children and having much joy in their family. Dawkins advised such families to just “Abort it and try again” in 2014 when one Twitter follower asked what to do about her Down syndrome diagnosed baby. “It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice,” he said. The atheist lamenting about what’s “immoral” makes little sense. In Denmark, only four Down syndrome babies were born in 2016. In the neighboring country of Iceland, the eradication of Down syndrome babies has reached near 100%. France has gotten in on the race, too; most recently, the country banned a television commercial featuring Down syndrome children because it upset the mothers who previously aborted them.
In the new political science that developed in the Progressive Era, study of what constitutes wise opinion was dropped. The new political scientist was to abandon the supposedly played out mines of political theory. Progress, you would have thought as an intellectual in that period, must proceed on “scientific” principles. Max Weber’s “fact/value” distinction meant that facts alone could be submitted to scientific inquiry, while issues of right and wrong (“values”) could be examined only from outside their own assumptions. Here, then, is partly where we get our present day intellectual prejudice against crediting what politicians say they are doing and our constant suspicion that the real truth must be something else. It arose in Germany as an element of the “science of the state” (Statswissenschaft) and the “general theory of the state” (Allgemeine Staatslehere). And it fit well with the new science of politics, Politische Wissenschaft. With the new method, known states were compared historically, with perfection of the state as the goal. In the latter half of the 19th century, these ideas entered the United States in the heads of young Americans who, lacking domestic graduate schools in public law, embarked on studies in Germany. In time the concept of eugenics gained force in the Second Reich — decades before the Nazis employed it. When, in 1904, the German Empire exterminated almost the whole race of native Hereros in German Southwest Africa, it was publicly justified in terms of Darwinism. There were few protests. A generation earlier, the first American convert to Teutonic ideas of political science and the founder of its U.S. version was John W. Burgess. Dazzled by what he found in Germany, Burgess, back home, proclaimed the ultimate end of the state to be “the perfection of humanity; the civilization of the world; the perfect development of human reason, and its attainment to universal command over individualism; the apotheosis of man.” German-trained instructors, helped shape the America field of political science over the next generation. From political science at Johns Hopkins, meanwhile, came a number of historicist scholars, including Woodrow Wilson. We can chart the Progressive Era from the 1880s because of the work of Wilson. In America today, Darwinism’s triumph in something called “political science” continues to batter at the philosophical foundations of republican government.
New Documentary “Human Zoos” Shows How African People Were Brought to the U.S. and Displayed in Cages as Less Than Human
When one thinks of the concept of "eugenics" most people think back to the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the genocide of ethnic cleansing during the Hitler regime. What most Americans do not realize is that the "scientific" field of study known as "eugenics" originated in the United States, being inspired by Darwinian evolution, and is responsible for terrible social and racial injustices here in the U.S. before Hitler's atrocities that occurred during WWII. And the "scientific" field of eugenics is still alive and well today, even though the term "eugenics" is no longer popular. Part of America's dark eugenics past is the story of how indigenous African people were kidnapped from their villages in the early 1900s and brought to America as "freaks," displayed as "missing links" to Darwin's theory of human evolution, and displayed to the public in cages at Public Fairs and Zoos. The Discovery Institute has produced a new documentary about this dark period of America's past called "Human Zoos." Here is a synopsis: "In September 1906, nearly a quarter of a million people flocked to the Bronx Zoo in New York City. Many came for a startling new exhibit in the Zoo’s Monkey House. But it wasn’t a monkey they came to see. It was a man. His name was Ota Benga. A pygmy from the African Congo, Ota Benga was exhibited in a cage along with monkeys. Benga was not alone. He was one of literally thousands of indigenous peoples who were put on public display throughout America in the early twentieth century. Often touted as “missing links” between man and apes and as examples of the “lower” stages of human evolution, these native peoples were harassed, demeaned, and jeered at. Their public display was arranged with the enthusiastic support of the most elite members of the scientific community, and it was promoted uncritically by America’s leading newspapers. Human Zoos tells the horrifying story of this effort to dehumanize entire classes of people in the name of science."
The name “Christian” carries a wide range of meaning and understanding today, as it has throughout history. It is obviously related to “Christ,” which is from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “Messiah,” and refers to the person of Jesus Christ. A general definition of “Christian” then would be someone who follows the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus Christ are contained in the Bible, but how they are understood and what kind of people should bear the name “Christian” is highly debatable, and by no means universally accepted or understood. It is interesting to note that the followers of Jesus during his lifetime on earth and shortly after did not refer to themselves as “Christians.”
It was the day before Christmas Eve, and as I drove to a city where I was to meet my sons for lunch, it was hard to find a parking spot, as so many people were out and about on the last shopping day before Christmas. Everyone seemed to be in a good mood in this upscale downtown area where I was meeting my sons for lunch. Many were dressed in their holiday best, and there were families everyone; children giddy with glee as they undoubtedly were looking forward to opening presents soon. Since I had to park quite far away from the restaurant where I was to meet my sons, I had a few blocks to walk. At one corner, a woman who was sitting down by herself and talking caught my eye for just a moment. She was on the other side of the street, so I did not get a close look at her. "Why is she talking when she is all alone?," I quickly thought, but I was late for lunch and I pushed the thought to the back of my mind thinking "she probably has an earbud on and is talking on the phone to someone." Later, as we were finishing up our lunch on a table that was outside in front of the restaurant (the restaurant was very busy, and the only table available was outdoors as it was quite cold out), a woman walked by that caught my eye. She was not neat - she was dirty, carrying a backpack, smoking a small stub of a cigarette that I guessed someone had discarded, and had multiple layers of clothing and jackets on, well worn and dirty. I later learned she was in her mid 40s, but she looked older than that. She noticed me looking at her, and said to me: "God bless you! Jesus has redeemed me, and God is the God of second chances." I replied: "Amen! He certainly is the God of second chances. God bless you too." We began a short conversation, and I was waiting for and expecting the imminent request for money - but it never came.
Today is a holiday of "Thanksgiving" for many people in the United States. However, I think it is important to understand that this is not a day of Thanksgiving for many people, but a day of mourning. Dr. Gary Kohl has reminded us that Native Americans are not fond of Thanksgiving. Here is the text of a plaque that overlooks Plymouth Rock, the site where Puritans first landed on Native American soil that explains why Thanksgiving has only negative connotations for non-whites: "Since 1970, Native Americans have gathered at noon on Cole's Hill in Plymouth to commemorate a National Day of Mourning on the US Thanksgiving holiday. Many Native Americans do not celebrate the arrival of the Pilgrims and other European settlers. To them, Thanksgiving Day is a reminder of the genocide of millions of their people, the theft of their lands, and the relentless assault on their culture. Participants in a National Day of Mourning honor Native ancestors and the struggles of Native peoples to survive today." If you are fortunate enough to be able to spend Thanksgiving with family members, you truly do have something to be thankful about. But for multitudes in the United States today, holidays like Thanksgiving are simply grim reminders of crimes committed against them that destroyed their families. It is very easy to look at the condition of our culture today, to see the injustice and abuses occurring on a daily basis, and lose hope. Why should one be thankful in the face of terrible injustice, where evil flourishes with seemingly no end in sight, and where it appears that there is no way to fight the corruption that is now the norm? Yet, there is still reason to be thankful...