The Wintery Knight link of the week

For those of you who aren’t already regular readers of the Wintery Knight, don’t miss Should Christian doctors be forced to act like atheists at work?

He starts by addressing a chilling account of how religious freedoms (mainly those of Christians) continue to get suppressed.  It isn’t just about keeping people from imposing their views on others, it is about silencing religious speech completely.  A patient complained that his doctor offered to pray for him. Eek!  Apparently that made him feel bad because the doctor thought his religious views were superior.  Free advice: If you have such a shallow faith that the mere hint that someone else thinks their views are right makes you squirm, then you should examine your views more carefully.

Then he points out how flawed the foundation of Liberalism is, both morally and economically.  You’ll want to read it all, but here’s a sample.

The General Medical Council is asking medics if it should “regulate doctors’ lives outside medicine” in a review of its guidelines on ethics.

Currently it would only be a disciplinary matter if behaviour after hours affected a doctor’s work or brought the profession into disrepute, or if they imposed their views on others.

. . .

It comes as the watchdog prepares to investigate the case of a GP in Margate, Dr Richard Scott, who is accused of upsetting a patient by offering to pray for them.

The GP says their conversation turned to religion after they had finished discussing medical options, and that he asked permission to raise his Christian beliefs with the patient, who is of another faith.

But the GMC sent him a warning letter, claiming his comments had “distressed” the patient and “did not meet with the standards required of a doctor”.

. . .

“It is further alleged that Dr Scott subsequently confirmed, via national media, that he had sought to suggest his own faith had more to offer than that of the patient.

And this gets extended to cases where pro-life medical doctors and nurses are forced to before abortions against their conscience. It’s not just evangelism that is threatened, it’s the freedom to not murder at the state’s bidding. This pressure to comply with the state doesn’t come out of nowhere – it occurs when the state is in control of an industry and there is nowhere else for Christians to go to find work. And it is stronger for those who work in government monopolies.

If you are a doctor in a government-run single payer health care system, then you have a choice of one employer – the government. In the West, that government will likely be secular, and the main job of that government will be to get themselves re-elected. Conservative political parties will be able to get re-elected by delivering national security and economic growth. Even moderate conservatives like George W. Bush can deliver unemployment rates of 4.4% and 160 billion dollar deficits – so the voters re-elect conservatives because they have jobs and because they are safe. But liberal parties can’t produce jobs or balance a budget – like with Obama’s 9.5% unemployment rate and his 1.7 trillion dollar deficits. Liberals screw up the economy, and then they have to resort to bribing the electorate with government spending in order to be re-elected.

So what goodies do the liberal parties provide? Well, take health care. There is a block of voters who want to be able to engage in risky activities that make them feel good, and then get out of them by having the government take their neighbors’ money to pay for their medical bills. (Or, their neighbor’s children’s money, to be more precise, since it is much more politically acceptable to run up 1.7 trillion dollar debts than to embrace pro-growth economic policies that would lower the unemployment rate, as with Bush’s tax cuts). For example, may liberal voters want the government to provide things like taxpayer-funded abortions, so that they can engage in reckless premarital sex without being burdened by the consequences of their own choices. And the liberal party buys their votes by transferring wealth from other taxpayers to pay for these abortions.

Now, when these liberal parties go before the voters, they don’t talk about wanting to provide taxpayer-funded abortions to liberal voters. They tell sob stories about people who need medical treatment but who can’t afford it, or about hungry children who have less to eat than other children. Boo, hoo, hoo, they explain. They play on people’s fears and emotions, and, for some ignorant voters, that works. Even many Christians who decide who to vote for based on their emotions and peer pressure will fall for this – they are too busy watching “Dancing With the Stars” to read about reducing health care costs through consumer-driven health care or improving educational outcomes through school choice.

. . .

Helping people isn’t the government’s job, it’s your job. Stop trying to resolve your fears and uncertainties about life by making the government into God. Government shouldn’t have that power. It’s not their job to help others – it’s your job. It’s not their job to provide you with happiness in this life by taking your neighbor’s money, either.

3 thoughts on “The Wintery Knight link of the week”

  1. Once upon a time, it was common to regulate people’s lives outside of work/school and to impose penalties on them. Unmarried pregnant teachers would get fired. Atheists were dismissed. People who co-habitated were unable to find work. Women without families were paid less than breadwinner men.

    Then liberals said, “What you do on your own time is your own business. We’ve had enough of young girls being kicked out of academic honour societies for being sexually active while their male partners retain their standing.”

    Whatever happened to that? Or is it really about undermining the fabric of society while imposing liberal views on others? As I keep saying, “secular” and “Atheist” are not the same thing. We can have Christians without a theocracy, and we can have a secular society chock full of believers.


  2. I think if doctors are going to be forced to do anything, it should be to act in a professional manner. It’s hard to know what really happened in this case because the Torygraph article isn’t telling us. The patient’s side of the story is missing, for a start. Did this doctor cross the line of acceptable behaviour? We simply don’t know. I suspect the doctor wants to be a martyr just as badly as the patient seems to want to make a fuss.

    As to WK’s question, if “acting like an atheist” means restricting medical practice to practising medicine, then I for one can say, no, they shouldn’t be forced (patients can choose another doctor) but it should certainly be recommended.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s