Could Euthanasia come to Britain?

From Hot Air:

In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

As Ed Morrissey points out, this is one obvious and natural end result of "free" national health care. If care isn't rationed through price by the free market, it has to be rationed in some other way. (I know "rationing" sounds like some sort of scary word, but it's just a basic economic concept--the supply and price of goods and services is affected by the demand.) You just can't give unlimited care to everyone in the country--there aren't enough doctors, hospitals, nurses. You have to make choices about how to distribute the care, and you end up with LONG waiting lists and denials of service. When this isn't enough, the government starts thinking about how to cut further, and one choice is to make less care available to old, very sick people.

Note that the article starts out talking about allowing people the option to choose euthanasia, but Warnock soon starts talking about people with dementia, who by definition wouldn't have the capacity to make that kind of choice for themselves. So, who makes the choice? Family? Doctors? A government bureaucrat in the health care system?

If you believe every human life is precious and sacred, this trend should be a big concern.

And that's not even mentioning that "free" health care isn't free at all. If the Democrats succeed in enacting some sort of nationalized health insurance system, believe me, we will pay for it big time in taxes. If the experiences of places like Britain and Canada are any indication, we'll also pay in time--weeks and months spent waiting to get approval to get a doctor's appointment, see a specialist, etc. (I know this happens to some extent in the US too, mostly driven by insurance companies, but from everything I have read it is far worse in countries with socialized medicine.) You might have to pay extra money in addition to your taxes to get care outside of the system--for people in the UK, this includes "medical vacations" to places like India to get medical care, and a LOT of Canadians cross the border into the US for treatment. Finally, the whole world will pay a price because research into new drugs and procedures will be reduced, with no free-market incentive to spur innovation.

The Church of England: Another Step Toward Irrelevance

The Archbishop of Canterbury once again contributes to the decline of his own church in the name of tolerance:

Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.

His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.

But it risked fresh controversy for the Archbishop in the wake of his pronouncement earlier this year that a place should be found for Islamic sharia law in the British legal system.

James Lileks is dead on about why this is a problem (scroll down about 2/3 of the way):

He would probably be seconded on that point by this fellow [the Archbishop of Canterbury], who I expect will name an atheist as his successor, as part of an outreach program to attract people uncomfortable with the whole “God” part of religion. There really isn’t any reason to set the bar that high, you know. In his latest missive, he has acknowledged that parts of Christianity may “offend” Muslims, which is a fascinating choice of words. It puts doctrinal differences into the realm of emotional reaction, and as we all know “offence” must be followed with apologies and seminars and outreach and an hour of steady banging of the head on the hard marble floor. No one has the right to give offense, but everyone has the right – indeed, the obligation – to be offended by something.

It’s the natural end result of elevating tolerance above all else: eventually you are intolerant of the things in which you once believed, because they are theoretically offensive to those who have no interest in the maintenance of your traditions. In the end, traditions are just social constructs used to impose social order; best if we do away with them anyway.

[Plus, Lileks has the best metaphor ever for the decline of the Brits: "Meanwhile, over in Blighty: every day brings another story that suggests they could power the lights on the Strand by harnessing the RPMs of Churchill’s corpse." I love that creativity!]

Obviously Lileks is dripping with sarcasm here, but he’s right. If you’re willing to give up the core of our religion because someone might be offended, what do you really believe in? It is very troubling to me that the supposed leader of one of the largest churches in the world is so eager to set aside the cornerstone of his faith, or at least what should be the cornerstone of his faith, to achieve some sort of amorphous goal of peace, tolerance and social/environmental justice.

Islam in Public Schools

Britain’s slow decline continues:

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.

Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.

They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

But that can’t happen here, right? We have freedom of religion, strict separation of church and state, all that good stuff that makes people afraid to have a voluntary Bible study after school? Wrong:

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear a case involving the indoctrination of public school children into Islam. The decision came on the First Monday of October, the opening day of the 2006 Supreme Court term.

Not surprisingly, the controversial case comes from a ruling made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But what is surprising, is that hardly anyone has heard of the legal battle.

The lawsuit stems from a state mandated course in California public schools that requires seventh grade students to learn about Islam, the teachings of Muhammad, as well as studying scriptures from the Quran.

Though the course is mandated, the Californian Department of Education allows teachers to exercise their own discretion on how the course on Islam is to be
taught.

This discretion encouraged one teacher in the Bryon Union School District to adopt a supplementary “Student Guide” that specifically states:

"From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims."

There's lots more about the specific content of the class at the link, or if you Google "byron school islam." To me, it's pretty appalling that this sort of thing goes on in the name of tolerance. Obviously kids should learn in history class about the impact of Islam on world history, and the same goes for Christianity. But requiring them to act out aspects of any religion for course credit takes multiculturalism WAY too far. And yes, I'd feel the same way about a public school class that required students, in class, to pray to Jesus like an evangelical or cross themselves like a Catholic.

Western Christ followers: "Recover thy nerve"

By Rich Bordner

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, an Anglican Bishop from Rochester, England, has been the center of much controversy for a few years now. Most of the controversy hovers around his comments about Islam. For one, he has unashamedly called for the evangelism of Muslims worldwide.

Here in the wild, wild west, 'dems fightin' woyds. "GASP! He said WHAT?! How dare the bigot offend our Muslim friends! Quick! Call the Human Rights Gestapo, er, Commission!"

Where's Canada when you need it? Sheesh.

It comes as no surprise that non-Christians balk at such sentiments. Though inclusivism, relativism, and pluralism are in error, the fact that most in the non-believing world are fans of those ideas is hardly front-page news. It is a horse of a different color, though, when Christians themselves embrace these ideas, as many of Nazir-Ali's colleagues in Anglicanism have.

Nazir-Ali has noticed this zeitgeist in the western church at large, and this week at a press conference at GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future Conference) he re-affirmed his stance. In his speech, he exhorted all fellow Christians to speak up about their faith wherever they are at, and also to commit to bringing the gospel message to peoples that have not heard it before.

"Let us pray we are able to recover the Christian nerve in the West and to make sure the Gospel is not lost," he said.

To paraphrase: "Brothers and sisters in the LORD...there's a gauntlet...you gonna pick it up, or just stare at it?"

This guy gets it. He perceives, correctly, I think, that many (though not all...I don't want to over-generalize here.) of us in the western church have a squishy backbone when it comes to talking to folks about the gospel. We allow the persecution of being called intolerant (can that even be called "persecution"? Nah, man.) to obscure the fact that without Christ, no one will escape the gavel of God's justice. We are rebels in arms against God, and only God's gracious offer of amnesty through Christ can change that....F-A-C-T. T-R-U-T-H, not just "for me," but objectively, is true regardless of who believes it.

Maybe some of us have never really believed that in the first place.

At any rate, Nazir-Ali gets that a significant portion of us are losing this focus. Many of us are content only to serve their earthly needs, giving people cups of cold water and then watching as they jump off the cliff of eternity, straight to hell.

That is not love.

Serving earthly needs is necessary, and cannot be divorced from the Kingdom. But neither can a bold proclamation of the full counsel of God. This is why Nazir-Ali's exhortation to "recover (our) nerve" is a worthy prescription for many believers in the west.

The "Doctrine of Multiculturalism" in Action

Here's another story from Britain that highlights the problems with tolerance and multiculturalism as they are commonly practiced by liberals in Western society (see The "Doctrine of Multiculturalism" below):

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, both full-time evangelical ministers, have launched legal action against West Midlands Police, claiming the officer infringed their right to profess their religion.

Mr Abraham said: "I couldn't believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel."

…

Mr Cunningham said: “[The officer] said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

Update: Here's another story about the evangelists, along with a bunch of links to similar incidents and issues in Britain.

The "Doctrine of Multiculturalism"

A British clergyman has issued a scathing critique of the “newfangled and insecurely-founded doctrine of multiculturalism.” This speaks to the emptiness of tolerance as a bedrock value of society.

The collapse of Christianity has wrecked British society, a leading Church of England bishop declared yesterday.

It has destroyed family life and left the country defenceless against the rise of radical Islam in a moral and spiritual vacuum.

In a lacerating attack on liberal values, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said the country was mired in a doctrine of 'endless self-indulgence' that had brought an explosion in public violence and binge-drinking.

If you aren’t aware of the significant social problems facing “post-Christian” Europe, you really need to do some research. Just a couple of examples from the United Kingdom:

• Britain's Mean Streets—about the significant rise in youth crime
• Rowan Williams says Sharia law unavoidable—the Archbishop of Canterbury believes the British legal system should accommodate Sharia law
• Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits—although polygamy is illegal, the British welfare system will pay Muslim husbands welfare benefits for all their wives

These problems arise from the belief that all cultures and ideas are equally valid and must be tolerated and accepted. We should of course love individuals because they are created in God’s image, but it is vital that Christians refuse to accept this moral relativism. We know there is absolute Truth and some ideas and beliefs are absolutely wrong.