What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

"I will not"

I am currently reading the novel All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr. In literary terms, it has some flaws. Ideologically, it is self-consciously non-religious but advocates ethical humanism with a commitment to moral objectivity.

There is a horrifying scene in which boys and teachers at an elite Nazi school are forced to throw water over a bound prisoner in the freezing cold, a process that freezes the prisoner to death. Only one refuses. He pours out bucket after bucket of water on the ground, saying, "I will not." He later pays the price.

That ability to draw a line, to say, "I will not" is important to all human beings. There has to be something about which you will say that, a line you will not cross, a thing you will not do. If not, you have lost yourself.

In Vermont right now, some doctors are being told that they have to do something, and they are saying, "I will not." Their lawyers for the ADF (these are people really doing something for the cause of the right and the good) have filed a lawsuit on their behalf. The complaint is here.

What are the doctors refusing to do? To counsel patients about their "option" to commit suicide. Vermont's bureaucracy is interpreting the conscience protections in its assisted suicide law to mean only that a doctor with a conscientious objection is obligated to refer the patient to someone who will counsel him about assisted suicide.

It probably goes without saying that doctors wouldn't be able to fulfill this legal requirement by firmly and unequivocally counseling against assisted suicide. But beyond that, nobody should be obligated even to bring it up. It shouldn't be treated as "another of your options."

If the doctors lose their case, they won't be killed or imprisoned, but they might have to give up their profession or move away from a state in which they have put down personal and professional roots. Either of those is asking rather a lot. The only other alternative is the old one of trying to fly under the radar and hoping "it" won't come up. This happens to be the "it" in this case.

But as in the Nazi school, so here: The ominous interpretation of the assisted suicide law tells us that the bullies are determined to make everyone, individually, endorse what they stand for. It may be "LGBT rights." It may be transgenderism. It may be assisted suicide. But one way and another, the idea is (metaphorically) to line everybody up and make them each throw the water.

I can't say for sure that they will get to each and every one of us, one way or another, in our lifetimes. There are too many contingencies for that, and too many people in the country, and that's a good thing, too. But the doctors in Vermont are just the latest to discover that they are the subjects of an attempted "flushing out" maneuver, intended to find out and root out regressive elements, this time in the medical profession.

Good for them for saying, "I will not." And may the ADF's lawsuit against the bullies prosper.

Comments (7)

"It probably goes without saying that doctors wouldn't be able to fulfill this legal requirement by firmly and unequivocally counseling against assisted suicide. But beyond that, nobody should be obligated even to bring it up. It shouldn't be treated as "another of your options.""

They might as well require doctors to strangle puppies in order to practice medicine. These things really are that insane, if not more so.

"I can't say for sure that they will get to each and every one of us, one way or another, in our lifetimes. There are too many contingencies for that, and too many people in the country, and that's a good thing, too. But the doctors in Vermont are just the latest to discover that they are the subjects of an attempted "flushing out" maneuver, intended to find out and root out regressive elements, this time in the medical profession."

Despite my focus on this topic, I am thankful I am probably among the more safe from these "flushing out" maneuvers. Particularly with the LGBT "rights" stuff, I expect many people will get caught off guard. Even though I feel pretty safe, all it can take is a higher up or even coworker casually asking about your views on same sex "marriage" to possibly start having problems. This has come up in my work a couple times, luckily I was never asked. If I were, I would deflect with a non-answer like "I think everyone should be treated fairly." I think these sort of deflections will be things we need to learn and be ready for in order to disarm a flushing out attempt. There may be a good deal of room to say things that do not violate any Christian principles that still pleases the LGBT activists seeking out to flush out people who think "wrongly".

DR84,

You can always tell your colleagues something like "Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable talking about political controversies at work."

I have a friend who works for a cereal making corporation. They do "diversity month" and ask people at his level of management to organize their workers into making a square for a "diversity quilt" to be displayed in the corporate buildings. He refuses to participate, knowing that this is code for support for homosexuality. He knows he could eventually lose his job for it, but so far he hasn't. So there's a flushing-out maneuver coming to a cereal manufacturing corporation.

When I close a particular thread, this does not equal an invitation, or even permission, to continue that thread, OT, on a different thread. Indeed, that is a clear violation of the intent of closing a different thread. If every person who felt it was "only fair for him to have a right to respond" jumped to some entirely different thread and posted OT topics there, then it would become, practically speaking, impossible to close a particular thread.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/31/a-look-inside-4-important-goals-of-the-lgbt-movement/

"Shannon Minter, litigation director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told an audience of about 30 not to stop at tolerance and acceptance.

“We have got to do so much more around ensuring that LGBT children and young people are fully included, integrated, and celebrated in every aspect of life—in their families and schools and communities and faith communities,” Minter said. “If we really do that, then we can break the cycle of harm that has caused so many of us to have a lot of trauma and problems as adults.”

GLAD’s Wu said:

Let’s dream bigger for a second and let’s think about students—all students, not just LGBT students—learning about LGBT history and contributions to the literature, and then let’s even dream bigger than that and let’s think about inclusive health and sex education and think about the impact that would have, particularly with regards to the HIV epidemic … There’s so much more that we can imagine if we’re able to imagine it and we work hard at it."

I am not sure what to even say in response to these quotes. If nothing else, the LGBT activists are not really hiding anything.

So, I said before I feel reasonably safe from a "I will not" situation in my current employment. That could change, but I doubt it does. My first is currently in the womb, which means we are about 6 years out from having a kid in school. We are lucky to have very good public schools nearby and as of now it looks like they will be our best option. Which, leaves me wondering about what will happen if my kid has to go through an LGBT curriculum in elementary school. At the moment, I am not aware that this kind of curriculum is mandated in our district, but who knows how that will be 6+ years from now. It seems more likely than not that it will be, and who is to say they will even let parents know if it is, and when these topics will be covered. Granted, I say that knowing that the LGBT activists want their curriculum to be pervasive so that pro-gay ideology is taught even in math, for example. So, for me, this looks like the most likely "I will not" moment. I will not just let my kid be indoctrinated without any kind of intervention. I am not sure that what that would be until it happens, and frankly, as I type this I am wondering if intervention of any kind will just bring out the DFPS. It is one thing to say "I will not" and lose your job, it is another to lose your kids. The way things are going, that looks like a real possibility...if not a fait accompli.

PS I understand this "I will not" looks avoidable by just doing anything but public schools, but I am not sure that will be an option. If it is, great. I can't say I am particularly confident Christian private schools will exist that far out. It should also be said we should not have to avoid public schools. The goals the LGBT activists are pursuing are blatant Establishment Clause violations.

DR84 said that:

You can always tell your colleagues something like, "Sorry, but I do not feel comfortable talking about political controversies at work."

That is no longer an option. Diversity seminars to sensitize us on these issues prevent us from just walking away from, or not discussing the issue.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/08/02/mississippi_anti_lgbtq_religious_liberty_law_excoriated_in_court.html

"Matters of life and death are sui generis. If movants truly believe that providing services to LGBT citizens forces them to “tinker with the machinery of death,” their animus exceeds anything seen in Romer, Windsor, or the marriage equality cases."

That quote is from a federal judge about HB 1523. Again, a federal judge. I think it adequately show s how "I will not" stances will be treated in law in the coming years.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.