Ringing Hitler's Doorbell - The Troubling Truth of Euthanasia

In the past I have written about the immorality of euthanasia, (Suicide By Any Other Name ), so I won’t belabor the point.  However, I must comment on the story about a 17 year old Belgian teen who was recently euthanized.

The details are limited, but the young man apparently had a fatal diagnosis and determined, with parental consent, to have a physician kill him.

Folks, we have to get a grip here.  This is emphatically not a good idea.  The baby step from “allowing” people to kill themselves to “deciding for them” will be on a ballot near you in the very near future.

Again and again I have warned in this blog about the danger of secular dogmatism, which has no rational limits.  My fear is that as people acclimate to “assisted suicide,” especially for someone who the law deems “incompetent” (which legally typically means those of limited mental capacity, convicts, and children under 18 years old), the step of deciding that as a society we can no longer afford to keep certain people around will become ordinary.  We are already willing to wipe out anyone who is within their mother’s womb with impunity.  Why is it not logical, by secular thinking, to conclude that the old, infirm, mentally and physically disabled serve no valid function and should be eliminated?

Yes, some will laugh off such suggestions as absurd. The same way friends of mine in 2011 laughed off the idea that it might soon become illegal for me to preach the gospel freely because of the LGBT agenda.  Yet in 2016 we find agencies and laws in Iowa and Massachusetts overriding First Amendment free exercise rights in the name of tolerance and diversity for sexual liberties and demanding churches get with the program or suffer the consequences.

Where will it start?  It will start with people like my dad, who has severe dementia.  He cannot function without significant care from my sister, mother, and other care givers.  He receives an Air Force pension for his almost 30 years of service.  I’ll bet the government would love to end that payment right now.  What better way than to say, well, he’s really just taking up space and he’s not “productive” so we’re going to determine that he doesn’t get to live any longer.  Secular “reasoning” says that such a determination is perfectly acceptable.  My guess is a large percentage of Americans would likely find this reasonable.

The problem, of course, is no matter how you try to make this work, the line between who should go and who should stay will never make any true sense.  What kind of health or other problems would result in “mandatory” assisted suicide?  What about people on dialysis who need kidney transplants?  Do they get five years (or whatever time frame is deemed acceptable) then out go the lights?  What kinds of cancer patients will be terminated?  Do we only terminate adults, or do we get rid of children as well?  Who gets to make such decisions (some government board, no doubt)?  What about children with Down’s Syndrome or other such genetic mutations?  What if a parent says they’ll take responsibility?  Do we take that right away from the parent in the name of some other, allegedly greater, good?  What is that “greater good?”

While it is, of course, true that just because decisions are hard to make, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be made, it’s also true some decisions shouldn’t be made.

 

We are wandering into dangerous territory here.  This notion we are in control and can actually “weed out” undesirables puts into the hands of mere humans the kind of power few of us believe is sensible, reasonable, or rationale.  Yet, we’ll embrace it as “humane” and “kind” and “the loving thing to do.”  Those, like me, who will fight against it, will be labeled as dogmatic, insensitive, ______ist, _________ist, ___________ist, and _____________ist (fill in your own words – I’ve grown awfully tired of the trite way in which such words get thrown around these days).

How far is it from one teenager in Belgium to thousands or even millions?  One opinion from the United States Supreme Court - Roe v. Wade anyone?[1] 

In a world where we are merely by products of the random waves of universal physics, chemistry and biology, then one can argue either way on this issue.  But that’s just the point – it makes no more sense to claim killing people off is better than saving them, since none of it matters anyway.  Yes, there is always the economic argument that we’re using scarce resources to help maintain these “undesirables” but who says those scarce resources will necessarily be put to better use elsewhere?  Moreover, don’t we all eventually fall into the undesirable category as we age?  Yet how many of us will simply go willingly? 

As a Christian, I see the world from a different vantage point.  People are not mere byproducts of universal activity but are creations of the very God of the universe.  Thus, all people, even those with whom I have the most bitter disagreements, matter.  Some people will tell you that Jeffery Dahmer (a villainous serial killer known for saving parts of people to eat later) converted to Christianity before he was killed in jail.  If he could be converted, then can’t anyone?  Romans Chapter 11:33 – 36 says in part that God is inscrutable and we are in no position to judge his motives.  God operates on a wholly different level, yet he has provided us sufficient insight from his word, the Bible, to let us know that we are insufficient to make these kinds of decisions about who should live and who should die. 

We wring our hands about Hitler, yet here we are on Hitler’s doorstep, ringing the doorbell asking if Dr. Mengele can come out and play.  We do not want to go there – we will regret it . . . . . . if we live long enough to regret it.

---

[1] 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Numbers, Race Relations, and Humanity

For a moment, let’s pretend that we all are willing to set aside our emotions and look at two sets of raw numbers. Set one:  330,000; 60,000; 1,200.  Set two: 330,000; 1,100, and 1. 

Each set contains the following: first, the number of a group of people, second, a subset of those people, and, third, the number of fatalities as a result of an activity in which the second group has engaged.  Which set of numbers bothers you more?  For what’s it’s worth as you consider this, note that the activity in which the 60,000 engage is 1,200 times more likely to cause a death than the activity in which the 1,100 engage. (You can do the math for yourself – I think I got it right).

What’s the point of these numbers?

If you change the first set to 330,000,000, 60,000,000 and  1,200,000 you get the number of people in America, the rough number of women of childbearing age in America, and the number of abortions each year.  If you change the second set to 330,000,000, 1,100,000, and 1,000 you get the number of people in American, the rough number of law enforcement officers in America, and the number of people killed by police officers each year.

Now, let’s factor in some other issues.  Not every fatal shooting by a police officer is of an innocent victim.  I think we can agree that some percentage (probably a substantial one) of police shootings occur because someone shot at the police first.  Not every fatal shooting by a  police officer is of a black person.  In fact, more white people die from police shootings every year in the United States.  (Of course, this should be expected in light of the much larger percentage of white people in the country).  Whatever the reasons for police shootings, no police shooting occurs because of “convenience.”

Every abortion kills an innocent child who has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to start the killing.  No child in the womb does anything to his or her mother to require firing back.  Second, it is well known that the abortion rate among blacks is significantly higher than among whites – whatever the reasons this is simply true.  (Again, because there are many more white people in the United States white abortions represent a larger number of overall abortions).  Third, 93% of all abortions occur because of convenience.

If you are serious about looking at numbers and you are willing to leave emotion out of it, abortion is a much more serious problem in the United States than police officers shooting people.  In particular, if we assume that half of police officer shootings are justified (self-defense or to protect another person from being harmed), then the number of relevant fatalities goes down to about 500.  I don’t know what the true number of “justified” police shootings is, but having known many police officers who spent whole careers without ever discharging their firearm at anyone, it just seems highly unlikely to me that even half of police officer shootings are of “innocent” victims, however defined. 

My point isn’t to debate whether specific instances of police conduct are wrong.  That is something for the justice system to work out.  If a police officer shoots someone he or she should be investigated just like anyone else would be if they shoot someone.  If the officer wantonly shot someone for no legally justified reason, then the officer should face the full penalty of the law.

We cannot let emotion rule the day, however.  The numbers simply do not indicate that police are on some kind of nationwide killing spree of black people.

The abortion numbers, however, present a different story.  Black abortions account for more black deaths than any other cause every year.  About 4,400,000 black babies have been aborted since 1973.  Even if every one of the 1,000 people killed per year by police was a black person, that would mean 43,000 since 1973, or 1 percent of the number killed by abortion (and that assumes the number of police shootings has held steady at around 1,000 per year – I don’t know if that is correct or not, but even if it were 5,000 per year, it would be staggeringly smaller than the abortion numbers).  Which of these is an epidemic?

We can rightly and appropriately feel sorry for people shot by the police, even when they have acted in ways that some might feel were less than sensible.  For instance, we can feel sorry for the guy who was driving 100 mph and lost control of his car and killed himself, even though what he was doing was unreasonable.  Yet, feeling sadness because someone was killed doesn’t justify ignoring reality for the sake of engaging in an emotion laden but clearly false claim that young black men are somehow being targeted for death by the police.  To listen to the news, you’d think police were shooting young black men by the hundreds for no reason.  The above numbers show this simply isn’t true.[1]

Unfortunately, when a guy like me makes these statements, I am often simply branded a racist and ignored.  Then people who are angry about the situation complain because we aren’t having a national “conversation” about the “problem.”  We can’t have a conversation if we’re going to ignore reality in favor of scapegoating police.  Moreover, when 2/3 of the people in the country are white, they have to be included in the “conversation” even when they bring up uncomfortable and inconvenient facts like those above.  Branding people with labels that make them sound bad only serves to minimize conversation, not help it flourish.

If we really want to make meaningful headway in the racial conversation, we must first start by recognizing that all people are human beings who have dignity because they are made in the image of their creator.  There’s a lyric from a Sunday school song that little kids were often taught when I was young: Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.  The conversation can’t start with reprisals or with attacks or with arguments about white privilege, or police brutality, or even the past evils of slavery.  The conversation has to begin where God started it: human being to human being.  Second, we have to actually listen to what people are saying, even when we find it burdensome, irritating, troubling, or disconcerting.  For instance, it bothers me when I hear some people argue that all white people should pay reparations to blacks for slavery when I was never involved in slavery, had nothing to do with it, agree it’s deplorable and morally reprehensible, and in all ways reject slavery as an acceptable attitude of human toward human.  Yet, if I am to truly engage in a conversation about race, I must at least listen to those who make such arguments.  Perhaps there is something to what they say, perhaps not, but I should at least hear them out.  Only when I’ve actually listened do I have an ability to assess the reasonableness of an argument.  Finally, and as a corollary to the other two, we’ve got to stop the ad hominem attacks and the efforts to shut down those with whom we disagree.  As a Christian who is seeing more and more effort to simply shut down my voice by those who disagree, I do have some small understanding of what’s it like to feel your voice is being denigrated.  Yet, as I have argued elsewhere, the key to really, truly understanding others is to let them speak, not shut them down.  The best way to know someone is totally whacky is to let them speak out – they’ll be sure to show how absurd, rotten, pathetic, racist, mean-spirited, irrational, illogical, or unreasonable their arguments and statements truly are.  Thus, you don’t need to argue about the unreasonableness of the KKK or the Nazis – they do fine job of making clear just how insane they are.  Fools need no help proving themselves fools, they inevitably do it on their own.

The numbers don’t lie.  There is no epidemic of young black men being killed by the police in the United States.  That fact, however, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep talking.  There is an epidemic of young black babies being killed at abortion clinics.  That fact, however, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep talking.  But until we treat all human life with the respect and dignity human life deserves, it will be hard to have a meaningful conversation about only some of those lives.  And the death toll will climb. 

---

[1] By the way, I found all the relevant numbers by doing simple searches via Google.

The Wildebeest Stop Bleating: Why "Ought" Means God is the Source of Morals

Let’s admit that no matter what one’s political, religious, or philosophical bent, we all talk in oughts.  In this political season, politicians everywhere are claiming the moral high ground for their positions.  Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both speak about things the United States ought to do.  Partisans from all walks of political, religious, and philosophical life make demands as if their demands are self-evident.

In my last post, I suggested objective morals simply cannot exist in an evolutionary framework.  That should leave us wondering, why then do so many people seem to think they’re, well, right about so many moral issues? 

If morals have any objective basis, they can’t depend on perception or taste.  The sun exists – it’s an objective fact because it doesn’t depend on my perception.  If I can’t see, the sun is still there.  Sometimes the sun is hidden by clouds.  For many hours every day, the earth turns away from the sun and I don’t see it.  If I live underground my entire life, never coming above ground to see the sun, that doesn’t negate its existence.  None of these experiences mean the sun doesn’t exist.  My perception doesn’t alter the reality.

I like vanilla ice cream.  Really.  Just plain vanilla ice cream in a bowl – no fruit, no fudge, no nuts, no toppings of any kind.  This is simply a matter of taste.  No one can reasonably argue that my desire to eat vanilla ice cream is somehow morally inferior to their desire to eat jamoca almond fudge because this is just a matter of taste.  That said, whether one prefers vanilla or jamoca almond fudge, taste does not negate the reality that either type of ice cream in fact exists.  Taste doesn’t alter the reality.

Likewise, morals have to come from some other source than our perceptions and tastes.  Our perceptions are often incorrect and our tastes are not prescriptive.  From where, then, do morals arise?

Before answering, think about the following: no one likes it when someone cuts in front of them in line at the grocery store (or wherever they might be in line).  We don’t care for it when others lie to us.  If morals simply arise because of a “crocodiles eat and wildebeest bleat” kind of power over others to decide our morals then why does it seem that no one likes it when someone lies to them or cheats them or steals from them or even does something as simple as cut in line?  These moral “feelings” have to arise from somewhere, but their near universality indicates they’re not simply a matter of perception or taste.  These “feelings” live within our very souls.

All Ford automobiles have distinctive qualities that make them Fords – if nothing else, the word Ford appears on them.  How do we distinguish Fords from Chevrolets, from Chryslers, from Toyotas, from Hondas?  At bare minimum, the words on the cars, but more than that, each line of cars has distinctive features that people recognize as belonging to that brand.  These cars are created – they are designed and built to exacting specifications.  As a result we are able to recognize them as distinct.

Morals are a mark of our creator God.  That’s one of the distinctive marks of human beings.  We can (even if we don’t always do it) exercise restraint and remain in our place in line despite the temptation to cut.  We can tell the truth even when a lie seems more palatable.  We don’t need to cheat on the test or on our taxes and more often than not, even when we know the odds favor cheating without getting caught, we nonetheless don’t.  Why?  Evolution?  Are you kidding?  There are, of course, those who will try to make the rather weak-kneed argument that somehow, at some time long ago, under some circumstances of which we really aren’t fully aware, these traits helped perpetuate the species and thus made sense.  But if these traits helped perpetuate the species way back then, why wouldn’t they still work to do so now? 

The reality is that a creator God gave us an amazingly complex set of instructions known as genetic code which tells the material parts of us (the chemical and physical components) how to organize.  This code includes a moral component that contains things like empathy, sympathy, and honesty.  While, as a Christian, I believe this moral component was corrupted by the fall of humanity due to original sin, nonetheless significant vestiges remain.  Thus, even atheists get aggravated by lying, stealing, and cheating and, yes, even cutting in line.

Given that atheists, humanists, and “free” thinkers all claim some sort of monopoly on rationality and logic (at least as opposed to Christians), then the simple question boils down to this: if you think you can be moral, but morals are simply defined by those in power, would you still get mad if someone lied to you, cheated you, or cut in front of you in line even though those in power had declared all these actions morally acceptable?  Wouldn’t rationality and logic indicate that if those in power said so, then it would be reasonable and sensible to just accept it?  Yet, my guess is even atheists, humanists, and “free” thinkers would all argue against this.

The only meaningful answer to why this is true is because an intelligence lies behind our existence and put things into place in a meaningful and sensible way that helps us navigate through the stormy seas of life on this tiny blue planet.  That intelligence is the creator God of the universe.  He put his stamp on his creation, particularly human beings (we Christians refer to this as the imago dei).  He made us to be like him, although we are not exact duplicates.  Thus, we understand the concept of morals when no other creature on this planet does.

More importantly, as the creator, God gets to determine what is and is not moral, even when we think we know better.  Since we are less than the creator, this puts us in a position to accept that morals are an objective reality.  I suppose one could argue God simply has more power than anyone else, so my view is no different than the evolutionary view.  Almost true except for one unbelievably important reason: God instituted morals for our good and for our benefit.  Evolution never lifted a finger to help me or anyone else on this planet.  God also provided a means to satisfy the requirements of his moral code even when we have broken it in the worst possible ways.  Rather than punish us as we deserve for transgressing the moral code, God provided a uniquely perfect substitute to stand in our place: Jesus, the God-man, the king of the universe.  He lived a perfect life, was tortured on a Roman cross as punishment for the moral failures of all humanity, died for those sins, but was raised to life on the third day to provide us with hope.  All we must do is repent of our sins and believe that this is true.

God provides objective moral standards – the only reason so many reject those standards is because they cannot and will not live up to them on their own.  Jesus is the only possible way to solve that dilemma.  The wildebeest need no longer bleat.

Evolutionary Morality: Crocodiles Eat while Wildebeest Bleat

I am convinced we can draw a direct line from acceptance of evolution to much of our current moral, social, and political upheaval.  Am I mad as a hatter?  You be the judge.

What is evolution?  Probably better to say what it is not,  It is non-personal, non-logical, non-rational, and non-conscious.  Evolution is not an entity with a mind.  Evolution does not think.  Evolution cannot be located.  We cannot communicate with evolution nor can it communicate with us.  It is nothing more than a word that scientists use to describe a process – much like the word hurricane describes a meteorological process. 

Evolution has no consciousness because it isn’t a real entity.  Evolution doesn’t make any decisions, doesn’t promote one species over another, doesn’t demand anything of any species and doesn’t react in any way.  Evolution is just like a hurricane – it simply is.  Some scientists have taken to describing evolution as designing animals in various ways.  This is a logical absurdity.  How can a non-conscious, non-thinking, non-rational, non-entity design something?  Except for human beings, no other species on the planet designs anything.  Yes, I know, chimpanzees will use a stick once in a while to get some ants or honey – this hardly compares to designing the immeasurably complex systems humans have configured such as computers, cars, skyscrapers, and rocket ships. Despite our technological genius, the DNA of even the most simple species of animal on this planet contains significantly more complex information than even very sophisticated machines.  How then can we believe in this non-thinking, non-conscious, non-logical, non-rational “force” we call evolution and accept it somehow caused us to become what we are?  It defies logic and rationality.

           

If evolution is an accurate depiction of how we got here, then any claim objective morals exist is utter nonsense.  Our existence arose from mere chance and chaos.  Certain chemicals got mixed in just the right proportions with certain environmental factors and eventually, as various animals continued to breed, human beings arose.  Evolution teaches we are nothing more than animals – distinctly intelligent and immeasurably complex, to be sure – but mere animals nonetheless.  As a result, morals must mean only what we say they mean, when we say they mean something.  Chimps, dogs, mice, crickets, and bacteria are equally as moral, amoral, or immoral as we are, depending on our definition.  This opens us up to proclaiming different morals for different people.  As a result, one group has one set of morals, one has another.  Maybe their morals meet, maybe not. 

But who cares, right?  I mean we all have our own moral compass and we have to follow our hearts, right? Everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong for him or her personally, right?  Utter drivel.  You and I both know that doesn’t work.

Let’s put this in more stark terms.  Every year thousands upon thousands of wildebeest make a lengthy trek across the Serengeti in Africa.  Along the way, they must cross rivers full of crocodiles.  Not shockingly, the crocodiles have no compunction about chomping on as many wildebeest as possible.  Do crocodiles feel nothing?  Uh, yeah, they feel hungry.  The moral exigency in this instance is survival – wildebeest want to get across the river alive and crocodiles want to eat.  Something’s gotta give.  We tend not to view this problem as a moral matter, though; rather, we tend to view this as simply part of the “animal kingdom.” But why? When Bernie Sanders proclaims that it is somehow wrong for so few to have so much, is he not suggesting some moral principle is at work?  But how?  If evolution is true, then we should take the position that crocodiles eat and wildebeest bleat (cheap rhyme, I know) and that’s just the way it is.  And make no mistake, Bernie Sanders is a secular humanist par excellence, so he believes in evolution absolutely.

Nonetheless, Bernie’s view is correct in a certain way.  If evolution is true, then he gets to believe anything he wants, if he’s a crocodile.  He gets to chomp all day on wildebeest if he has power to do so.  He can then force those silly wildebeest to believe anything he wants them to believe.  Moreover, he gets to say that what he believes is morally superior to other beliefs.  It cannot be objectively true, though, because we can’t count on a non-thinking, non-conscious, non-logical, non-rational non-entity to provide us with any sort of objective moral understanding.  Morals, it turns out, are completely subjective. 

So, if evolution is true, morals simply mean whatever those who have power to dictate morals say those morals are. 

Sex with anyone you want, believing you are something you are not, is perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.

Killing unborn babies for the sake of convenience is perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.

Lying to Congress, lying to the FBI in order to obtain more power is perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.

Claiming to have notorious sexual escapades with other men’s wives, building an empire by helping others gamble away theirs is perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.

Shouldn’t we all be cheering?  Shouldn’t we all be proclaiming that we have a front row seat to see evolution at work?  Shouldn’t we all be lambasting any idiot who suggests evolution is false?  I mean, look at the incredible results.  It’s what we all want, right?  Right? 

As John Wayne often said in his movies, not hardly.

The ultimate irony in all this is that everyone, from Fox News “Christian” commentator Todd Starnes to Black Lives Matters, really wants the same thing: a moral answer to life’s questions.  Evolution offers only a subjective, ends justifies the means, whoever has the power to enforce their view kind of morality.  It’s not what anyone truly wants – we all want a morality that tells all of us how to behave and to which we are all beholden. 

Crocodiles eat while wildebeest bleat isn’t it.  Next post, I’ll offer an alternative.