|
Cathy Ramey
Associate Editor
A prescription for death
The medical model and murder
by Cathy Ramey
Part Three
A law unto themselves
For murder to take place on the massive scale that was seen in Nazi Germany and in America today, there is another element in addition to the outlined medical model which appears to be vital. Medical personnel involved in killing Jews in the various concentration camps needed "judicial security" and so do abortion providers today.
This security comes in the form of policies and laws passed to extend the killing paradigm and encourage involvement with it, but it also means, then, as well as now, that the places where mass murders take place constitute almost a separate nation within a state. By this we mean that these facilities, whether Auschwitz in 1942 or an abortion facility in 1995, function under laws or accepted policies which are often very different from those which affect other, non-killing, facilities.
Jewish artist, Eva C., who survived the Auschwitz experience, summarizes this reality by drawing on a comparison common in societies, saying, "What is going on in the city pound (the putting to death of animals) is sane and normal and can't be done in any other way."
We accept that at the "humane society" (odd name for a place where an animal is treated with death) the massive killing of domestic animals routinely occurs. It is killing of the sort which is illegal in the larger community, and which we would say was deviant if carried out by individuals outside of the dog pound domain. But we readily tolerate it inside the kennel and understand that laws and morals surrounding the putting to sleep of animals are somehow different inside the walls of such a facility. In the same manner, there existed a norm of routine in Auschwitz and in abortion facilities today which would be unthinkable outside of the gates of these 20th century human "pounds."
In Southaven Mississippi, where Thomas Tucker also operated a clinic, the DeSoto County Grand Jury investigated allegations that he crushed the skull of a baby girl who survived an abortion procedure at Tri-State Women's Health Clinic. Other employees involved in the event were initially reluctant to testify, though later at least two of them did attest to the killing after being granted immunity.
Still, with no body available to prove the charges, despite eyewitness testimony from employees in the exam room, and in spite of the testimony of Joy Davis who Tucker graphically confided in about the murder, no further legal action was taken. Because the process he was engaged in had to do with abortioneven though he violated clear legal standardshis actions and his facility remained outside the ability of lawful authorities to prosecute simply because abortion facilities are, like the camps, a law unto themselves.
In traditional medical facilities which function under the "physician as healer" paradigm there are particular methods of oversight which assure that treatments and procedures are done in accordance with law. An example might be that in one of these facilities you would not see routine surgical procedures having been completed on under-eighteen-year-old patients without an accompanying consent form signed by a parent or guardian; you would not see orderlies engaged in surgery. But in Nazi extermination camps or abortion facilities which functions under the "killing as part of healing" paradigm the same kind of restrictions do not necessarily apply.
They are "above the law" to the degree that they are able to function without regard to many of the usual limitations, reporting requirements, or procedural standards prevalent in the larger community. And when the law of the larger community does prevail in becoming a hindrance to them, they are able to successfully lobby for legal changes which make them immune from community standards. Often too, there is no law which favors the killing facility, but since the larger community is under the impression that such law does in fact exist, the killing facility is allowed to go unchecked and unprotested to an even greater degree.
Lifton, writing about the minimal resistance that Germany's medical community engaged in over the killing of mentally retarded individuals, says that at a planning meeting which occurred on August 15, 1940 many of the psychiatric experts in attendance were concerned when the discussion turned to including "senile and tubercular patients" in the euthanasia program.
"[Werner] Heyde reported that there were plans to expand the program . . . and that Hitler was about to sign a law (whose text could be seen in the next room) that would provide 'judicial security'" to medical professionals engaged in freeing institutions of undesirable, unwanted patients.
Though such a law, specifically legislating that senile and tubercular patients could be killed, never crystallized into concrete form, the suggestion that legal protections (for those doing the killing) were being given consideration at all provided the assurance that most physicians at the meeting needed in order to engage in more detailed discussions of who ought to be euthanized and how it could be done.
Throughout the various meetings where medical killing was being proceduralized the promise of law was dangled to assure nervous participants, and may even have been instrumental in giving hope to those who resisted the killing. The anticipation was that there would come a time during the normal legalizing process in Germany when these things could be argued out publicly and rationally. Under these circumstances opponents were convinced the killings would be denounced.
Understanding the tension that full disclosure in the public arena might cause, it is clear why Hitler, representing the interests of the State, concerned with maximizing its resources and eliminating "waste," avoided the usual process of law. It was to the advantage of the National Socialist (NS) "racial purity" agenda to prevent open debate and education about the processes under consideration. Certainly there would be, they feared, a significant segment of society who would become aroused and strenuously object to what was going forward.
We see the same avoidance of public debate in the manner in which abortion was crafted into a "right" by the United States Supreme Court. The legalization, through Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton (both decisions handed down on the same day), was more akin to the back room meetings of Hitler's NS socio-medical engineers than most Americans comprehend.
Bernard Nathanson, mentioned earlier as a former abortionist, traces his own involvement through secret contacts, among fellow referring physicians, and on through the inception of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (N.A.R.A.L.), or what is called the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (N.A.R.R.A.L.) today. Despising public opinion, unless it accorded with their own, this group began building abortion into a constitutional "right" in the courts. By framing it in that fashion, abortion was placed beyond the opinion and rational debate of the opposition. And it is marketed with euphemisms that avoid detail about the process.
This process of euphemizing in order to obscure what is actually going on, and by extension to avoid any meaningful debate, has a long history in the context of abortion. Cries of "safe and legal" abortion, completely ignoring both the process and deadly consequence to the unborn victim, became increasingly more common-place during the 1950s and 60s. By 1970 a physician writing in the California Medicine journal observed that deception in language used to market abortion was "necessary because, while a new ethic is being accepted" the ethic of medical-killing "the old one" of reverence for all human life "has not yet been fully rejected."
In the fall of 1995 a Bill was proffered to the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Charles Canady which would have the effect of banning abortions performed by a particular method. D & X or "partial-birth" abortions, as well as those who perform them, were suddenly placed under a bright public spotlight as supporters of the Bill sought to argue their case. Finally, on November 1, after going through various committees and hearings, the full House was set to vote for or against the ban.
In order to prepare for the vote, Canady and others set about the task of putting up a display which included simple black line drawings of the procedure. Immediately there were objections.
Rep. Patricia Schroeder, a long time abortion promoter, argued that the display, a pictorial demonstration, devoid of the movement, color, and blood of the actual procedure that was set to be voted on, was "unnecessary" and merely an attempt to elicit an emotional vote from members. Schroeder was arguing against a clear and open educational process which would only serve to inform the legislative body about what they were voting for or against; the same behavior exhibited by Nazi eugenicists who crafted cloaked orders to "solve the Jewish question" through "large actions," by making "medical selections" in a fashion meant to obscure the details of the process.
At the same time that the D & X ban was being debated and carried toward a final vote, another event was being vigorously constructed by America's largest promoter and provider of abortions. Only three days before the vote on the House floor, Planned Parenthood held well-orchestrated news conferences on both the east and west coast to announce a 1.4 billion dollar lawsuit against a handful of anti-abortion activists across the country. Four of those named in the suit had been responsible, in early 1993, for exposing the D & X abortion method.
The rhetoric, from a historical perspective, was to be expected. Calling anti-abortion activists "terrorists," spokespersons anxiously hoped to deflect public attention away from the horror of an abortion procedure in which a baby is partially delivered through the birth canal; stabbed in the back of the head with a sharp scissors instrument; and finally delivered after brain tissue has been suctioned out of the cranium; harvested for "research." The lawsuit and news conferences, for all the hyperbole used to indict their opponents, were merely tools to entice the public toward avoiding the real issue of violence which is directed at a class of persons called the "unborn." All of this is meant to eliminate real public involvement in the morality of killing innocent people.
The so-called "right" to kill a child under the medical model cannot be withdrawn at the voting booth, though efforts are made there to curb it. With the exception of unusual legislation like the D & X ban, Congress is greatly restrained and has been impotent at offering protection to the unborn class. In many ways America's courts, rather than the ballot box, have become the protester's hoped-for arena for education and discussion. There has been a certain optimism among opponents of abortion believing that all which is required to eliminate this form of mass killing is that education occur among judges, jurors, and the general public.
On the other side, with the same sort of tenacity evidenced by leaders involved in concentration camp killings, those who promote and commit abortions have consistently attempted to block these hoped for avenues of debate and disclosure. And they have been extremely effective.
Eliminating the opposition
Up to this point we have concerned ourselves with what routines and rationalizations must be present in order to equip a society for murder on the massive scale. Now we want to examine that which is the single most important element which must be expunged from society in order for the medical-murder model to be successful.
In general we will recognize that restraining agencies must either be convinced that the killing paradigm is necessary and good for society, or those agencies must be effectively restrained or eliminated themselves. Restraining agencies include courts, police principalities, traditional medical organizations, universities, and most important, the Church.
Utilizing all of the medical-killing model factors that we have discussed 1.) Redefining reality, 2.) Allowing for distance, 3.) Diffusing guilt and blame, 4.) Interweaving time-honored tradition and routines, 5.) Speaking of the process in noble terms, 6.) Continually framing it within the context of hoped-for medical cures and 7.) Providing judicial security the State supplies the necessary elements which beguile individuals both inside and outside of the system into acceptance of murder on a massive scale.
And when resistance is not reined in through persuasion, there are more aggressive means which are taken. These means may include banishment from a position of influence, as was the case with an anthropologist by the name of Karl Saller who opposed the idea of a pure Germanic gene-pool. "Gestapo chief Reinhard Heydrich initiated an order, prohibiting Saller from teaching, which forced him to leave his post at the University of Munich." Other resisting scholars like Dietrich Bonhoeffer were also declared "enemies of the state" and not allowed to teach.
Reining in the opposition may also involve an even greater show of force, such as the beheading of students involved in the White Rose resistance group. By means of a hidden printing press, these students hand produced leaflets which denounced Hitler.
Because restraining agencies are comprised of individuals, these same tools work for institutions like courts, police departments, universities, and social agencies as well. However, there is one institution which historically operates beyond the realm of gullibility and depravity common to the individual, and it is traditionally steeped in strong opposition to the killing of innocent people. That institution is the Church. However, while it may prove to be unrestrainable in the final analysis (when Christ comes a second time), there are special mechanisms which the State, bent upon the medical-murder paradigm, uses to influence and restrain this final great institution.
Eliminating the knowledge of God
Prior to the killing of incompetent people and ethnic groups, including Jews, in Europe, there was a complex process which began developing decades earlier and which was destined to shake the spiritual roots of Catholic/Lutheran Germany. In the middle 1800s Charles Darwin's theory of biological evolution began a universal debate over the origins of man. Darmin's theory spawned a bio-vision which has become more deeply entrenched in science, politics, education, and even in religion with each passing generation.
Under evolutionary theory, man is merely an animal. His species, like all other species, developed from lower life forms as his ancestors adapted to the environment. Couched as legitimate science, Darwin's view eliminated historical ideas about man's spiritual nature. In the future only the strongest, smartest, and most adaptable of the human genus would continue to survive. "Life," for Darwin, was entirely a genetic and biological process. Man "created in the image of God," reflecting His justice, kindness, and righteousness, was supplanted by "survival of the fittest" which entitled one individual, race, or nation to express dominion and eventually selection toward extermination over those seen as weaker.
In an effort to make accomodation for a hypothesis ultimately at odds with Scripture, there were those in the Church who adopted a theistic evolution theory. Conclusions about fossil records and an earth millions of years old were accepted by evolutionary theologians despite the criticism of colleauges. God, they offered, had created the process of evolution with the intention of directing it toward His own ends.
Though "the concept of the unity of the human race and of original sin depend on the historical reality of a first human pair," issues concerning God's image vested in Adam and Eve; man's fall from grace through the one man Adam; and the consequent reinterpretation necessary to reconcile the comparison of Christ as the second Adam were ignored in an effort to be relevant in a scientific age (see Romans 5: 12-21).
This evolutionary debate over man's beginnings would have a tremendous impact upon later generations suddenly torn from traditional religious moorings by the Industrial Revolution. As workers and their families migrated away from conventional farms and small villages they experienced less of a sense of connection with older belief systems. Expansion of technology brought the individual into closer contact with the larger world, or, as with radio, brought the world into the home. In this way there was increasing intrusion by those holding views which opposed traditional biblical religion and morality.
On the heels of Darwin, and built over the foundation which he laid, in the late 1800s and early 1900s there were others, "progressives," who determined that man's thinking and his morality were derived, not from a divine Creator, but from evolving ideas where newer ideas carried greater merit than older ideas. Everything new was simply a refinement of the old. New theories, including ideas about man's biological and psychological nature, untestable in the laboratory, were hailed as fact.
By 1907 Sigmund Freud, an Austrian physician, had gained notoriety over his theories surrounding the workings of the human mind. To his way of thinking, all of man's experiences could be explained as eruptions from the inner man which he labeled the "Id," the "Ego," and the "Super-Ego." No longer was it necessary to view him as subject to God. Instead the "conscience," he felt, was merely a conflict between one unconscious element, the Id, striving to fulfill all personal desires, and the other, the Super-Ego, striving to compel the individual to conform to the values and interests of others and society rather than his own pleasure-seeking desires.
Intrinsic in this ideology was an acceptance of the notion that man had an inherently good, self-sacrificing, side. He was "good-natured" in the ultimate sense where it was assumed that under the "right" conditions he would naturally work for the benefit of others. If he did not, the conclusion could only be that he had been damaged in some way by others or by his environment.
Under this premise, it was considered to be proof of a man's unenlightened and non-progressive status if he lingered over ideas of a sinful, spiritually fallen nature. In fact, with traditional family and community ties losing strength, eventually this would result in a graying of distinctions between what was considered by individuals and groups to constitute moral "right" and "wrong."
To Freud, even long-held spiritual beliefs were mere outworkings of an unconscious thinking process which found comfort in the idea of a powerful Being. In 1907 he released his thesis titled "Compulsive Acts and Religious Exercises" which argued that man's reliance upon religion was merely a crutch, and a bad one at that.
Others contributed to the spiritual vacuum left by Darwin's theory, so that by the 1920s religious thought was often discarded as mere patriarchal thinking. In fact, religious thinking was almost thoroughly replaced by biological thinking in society. At the same time, religious leaders bemoaned the lack of influence which could be mustered. Theologian and pastor Adolph Stocker, an advisor to leaders like Kaiser Wilhelm I and Kaiser Wilhelm II, pronounced upon the age by declaring that the Church had lost her identity and authority.
Added to philosophical ruminations over traditional religious beliefs, there was the tragedy of war on a scale unthinkable before the twentieth century. Man's depravity in killing, and later in enforcing strict sanctions against the loser (Germany), instead of challenging humanity back toward a traditional embrace of God, was simply more evidence in the minds of German's that He did not exist.
Within the Church, among the laity, there also existed a state of bewilderment and debate which threatened to further reduce her identity. The inheritance of a Christian belief system devoid of true faith experience meant that secularization was occurring at a rapid pace within her walls. At the very time when she was striving to be "relevant" in society, her members homogenized so well with it that they and she served no striking function. It was in such a state of general spiritual deprivation and confusion that the Nazi medical-murder model gained ascendancy.
Despite the weakened condition of the Church in Germany, engineers of the medical-killing model still saw her as a threat. In 1934, a syllabus for training SS and police personnel included the following statement:
"A responsible State leadership should devote all its attention to plans for maintaining and increasing those of sound stock. In primitive societies, the community rids itself of its weaklings. In so-called civilized nations, a false attitude of brotherly love, which the Church has been especially assiduous in fostering among the broad masses, operates in direct opposition to the selective process" (emphasis added).
Along with such proclamations against the Church, there was action taken to silence her. This included not only placing individuals under an order of silence, Christian churches were taken over by State appointed pastors, and schools were deprived of the ability to recruit and teach students. The government ordered closure of the Old Prussian Preacher's Seminaries in Munich in 1934. Finkenwalde Seminary, famous for its connection with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was forcibly shut down by the Gestapo in October of 1937, and after that time operated "on the run" as an illegal consortium of theologians bent on true Christian community and resistance to Hitler and his German church.
This aversion to Christianity worked itself out in concentration camp settings as well as in the larger society. If there was to be a god or an ultimate authority in places like Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, and Dachau, it would be the physician. And in order to maintain his authority, it was necessary to eliminate competing religious beliefs, not among doomed inmates, but among arriving camp personnel.
According to Lifton, upon arriving at the camp Auschwitz personnel were required to indicate religious preference on a form. However, by this time in history the question preferred a general answer of "believer in God," rather than identification with a particular denominational group. In this way, doctrinal distinctions and debates that naturally arise out of them were diminished, and in their place there was tremendous discussion of the Nazi biological vision.
This vision included a heightened concern for elements of society which were ultimately beyond the physician's ability to control, engaging its practitioners in moral crusades which focused on goals of eliminating diseases or traits which were ultimately unchangeable. Or it manifested itself in campaigns for better facilities, availability of supplies to maintain camp operations, and a determination to eliminate prisoner-to-prisoner brutality, all the while avoiding recognition of practitioner-to-patient brutality. The very act of killing inmates with Zyklon-B in order to eliminate lice became an act of compassion which they rationalized and pursued with religious zeal because, in their view, it was necessary to maintain the health of the inmate community.
Ultimately, all of the conflicts over evolutionary theory and an emerging bio-vision for mankind which effected Germany in the early part of the twentieth century also affected the United States. In fact, emerging eugenics theory was fueled in part by Americans like Foster Kennedy, who argued that retarded children who were in his view "utterly unfit" ought to be "treated" with death, and Harry H. Laughlin who considered many immigrant groups to be biologically inferior. Both men and a half dozen other American scholars were honored in 1936 during the University of Heidelberg's 550 year jubilee. Both men favored the first-step forcible sterilization of Jews.
With the defeat of Hitler and news coverage of the atrocities discovered in the camps, many of the eugenesists in America became less vocal, but they never went away. There was a transformation of sorts as groups like the British Eugenics Society opted to do their work through less controversial vehicles like the Population Council and Planned Parenthood Federation.
Meanwhile, throughout the late 1940s and 1950s Americans gathered around their tables to thank God for Germany's defeat, but never grasped their own responsibility in the creation of a Hitler and a nation which could carry out such atrocities. With an attitude of spiritual pride which blinded, her citizens glossed over their failure to allow Jewish immigration to America during the early Nazi era. Her connection to the very eugenics policies which left piles of corpses in the camps was ignored as she expressed loathing and outrage. In fact, no true spiritual awakening occurred in America despite the devastation economic collapse and war had worked inside her own borders. Instead, the spiritual capital from earlier generations was becoming almost completely exhausted.
By the 1960s America observed a "God is dead" movement in which thinkers, invoking Bonhoeffer out of context, argued against a divine Creator and Sustainer. Like Germany prior to W.W.II, they proclaimed that traditional religion was anthropologically based on patriarchal ideas which, among other things, resulted in the oppression of women. Under the assumption that God was absent, society began shedding absolutes in terms of "right" and "wrong." This heightened sense of freedom from moral restraint, coupled with biological and evolutionary theory and concerns for the status of women in society, opened the way for a sexual revolution.
During the 1970s abortion was made legal all across the country. Instead of alarm and a move toward spiritual reconciliation, there was demand for greater "tolerance" for non-Christian religious traditions and New Age occultic practices directly competing with traditional Christian religious commands.
"Goddess" recognition, in a light-hearted way with bumper-stickers announcing "The Goddess Is Alive, And Magic Is Afoot," became the spiritual wave of the 1980s. And by the end of the decade her position of authority in society had increased to the level that, by 1989 a Catholic University marked her ascendancy featuring the "goddess" in a positive light in their alumni magazine.
In the 1990s media sources became so intrigued with the matriarchal goddess religions that prime-time shows featured witches and witchcraft. Programs also focused on other pagan belief systems, for example, highlighting the Mayan religion which demanded human sacrifice. Striking in every piece was the absence of a critical perspective.
While pagan religious practices have been vitalized in a society that has historically called itself "Christian," there has been a clear effort to denounce and supress traditional, Bible-based Christianity. Pulitzer Prize winner Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote, "Fundamentalism," which relies on Scripture to define "right" and "wrong," "in one form or another has been the scourge of the 20th century."
It is in such a climate of spiritual impoverishment, where the Church has accepted a role of silence, "tolerance," and even embrace of views which directly contravene Scripture, that murder on the massive scale continues in America today.
All of these features of an anti-Christian bias eventually are, as with the concentration camp setting, cultivated and supported within the abortion facility environment. Abortion facilities too operate as an artificial moral environment where traditional Christian values are not tolerated. Instead, feverish work is done to build upon a bio-vision devoid of legitimate spirituality.
This frantic labor to draw benefit from moral depravity is expressed not only in "research" using tissue from the dead, it is also expressed as workers suggest that the killing is in some measure a cure for world-hunger, poverty, and other perceived inequities. It is not unusual to see abortion facility personnel aligning themselves with "noble" causes and sporting bumper-stickers to save the earth; save the seals; and stop research activity in which animals are used for testing. But suggestions that the killing of unborn infants is a dichotomy needing correction are met with hostility and frequently behavior which might best be called "Christian-bashing."
Personal experience at various protests around the country demonstrate that Christians and our God are seen as archaic, intolerant, and in need of restraint. When that restraint does not happen, because picketing and other forms of protest do go on, abortion facilitators attempt to force tolerance for their killing paradigm through cooperative institutions like the courts.
FACE legislation, which made it a felony crime to engage in activity which abortion industry persons consider to be interfering with the flow of business, is a natural outgrowth of the effort to compel agreement with the evil Society's vision for "health."
Civil and criminal action of unprecedented volume has been aimed at abortion opponents, and the result is that, like those who resisted medical killing during W.W.II, penalties have ranged from banishment, to heavy fines, jail time, the death penalty, restrictions against protest activity, and incredible pressure to censure speech.
All of these activities; legislative, civil, and criminal responses are merely an attempt to control the behavior of those considered to be pathogenic (destructive) to the newly defined "health" of an evil society which has declared war upon a particular group of innocent people. The unhealthy (sin) is redefined as "healthy," and those who oppose this distorted state of health are in some way treated consistently with those they strive to identify with and protect.
This is the phenomenon spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures, when Isaiah the prophet penned the line, "Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey." Theologian Harold O.J. Brown astutely identifies this principle, stating, "A charge that a particular community or attitude violates one of the canons of . . . political correctness spells almost certain elimination of that element of diversity." In fact eventually, he goes on to say that "no actual offense is needed." Society selects against what we in America have traditionally called "thought crimes" expressed as unpopular opinion; the sort of opinion which was made illegal as the State of Germany sought to eliminate Jews, and the sort of opinion which has resulted in the jailing of some opponents of abortion.
Perhaps the most extreme case is that of Michael Ross, a Montana resident who wrote letters to abortion facility staffers in which he quoted Scripture and the certain just judgment of God against those who take innocent human life. In 1993 Ross was sentenced to ten years in prison for sending out such missives. After two years he was denied parole as he was "guilty" of continuing to send letters of exhortation and warnings of the wrath of God to pro-abortion legislators, judges, facility personnel, and public spokespersons in favor of the practice of abortion. Though he never mentioned any intention to harm them, his biblical declarations constituted a "threat" to his opponents.
Reestablishing a right definition for "health"
Finally, after examining the medical-killing model, it is natural to ask, how has this paradigm been unmasked and arrested in the past?
There are a few bright moments, such as when Manasseh, the most wicked king to occupy David's throne, who operated under a religious-killing paradigm, repented, and God withheld judgment for a season. But overall, history offers little encouragement for people or nations which have adopted injustice under any legal, political, medical, or religious model.
Egypt suffered under plagues, loss of her firstborn, loss of her military, and throughout history has been remembered for oppressing God's people. Assyria and Babylon, each successively, crushed smaller nations and brutalized innocent people. In time they were made to stand accountable. In fact, Babylon reaped such a profound judgment that she has never been rebuilt to her former glory.
More recently, Germany and her citizens were devastated in the last great war and still bear the stigma of having accommodated the murder of over 14 million innocent, non-combatant people. A modicum of justice was observed after the war when many of Germany's top medical and military officials were tried at Malthausen, Nuremberg, and other sites. Some of her criminals, like Oswald Pohl, Adolph Eichmann, and and Josef Kramer were tried, sentenced, and hanged. Others like Dr. Eduard Wirths, Dr. Enno Lolling, Adolph Hitler, and Heinrich Himmler comitted suicide rather than walk to the gallows. Men like Albert Speer who were involved less directly were sentenced to many years in prison. But this retribution came only after the lives of millions of others, including men and women of other countries fighting against Germany in battle were slain.
America, in the nineteenth century, was divided in two, devastated by war, and still struggles over the rightful condemnation of treating blacks as mere property to be forcibly taken, used, and discarded.
Today, as we live in a State which adheres to the medical-killing model, we see natural, God-ordained consequences to that sin. No longer do we enjoy personal freedoms balanced with personal accountability. Instead, America is floundering under the reckless "freedom" which has abandoned a traditional view of health, both physically and morally. And barring a mighty wave of remorse, it may be expected that the God who truly defines "health," who brought about the defeat of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Germans, and Americans in the past will once again raise His hand to restore justice, and therefore "health," to its rightful place. After all, there are patterns in history which do repeat themselves.
|
|
