Breakpoint

Officially, the Netherlands is a safer country to live in than the United States. Its gun homicide rate is about 4 percent that of the United States, and its official murder rate is less than one-fourth that of the United States.

The key word in that statement is “official.” Because, as a recent report in the Guardian tells us, there’s a lot of killing going on in the Netherlands that doesn’t involve a gun and isn’t classified as murder, although it should be.

An article in the January 18 edition of Britain’s Guardian newspaper asked the question “Death on demand: has euthanasia gone too far?”

Now to be clear, the Guardian is the British Left’s paper of record. It’s a far more liberal publication than any mainstream American newspaper. So for the Guardian to ask whether euthanasia has “gone too far” suggests that things could be a lot worse than the public has been led to believe. And the area of focus for the piece was The Netherlands.

The Guardian found that in 2017 “well over a quarter of all deaths… in the Netherlands were induced.” “Induced” means that the person died at his or someone else’s hand, instead of by illness or accident.

By way of comparison, during the same period in the United States approximately 65,000 deaths out of more than 2.7 million were “induced.” This includes approximately 17,000 homicides, 45,000 suicides, and 1,300 deaths via physician-assisted suicide. That’s only 2.5 percent.

So, which one is the more dangerous country again?

As I noted, the Netherlands official homicide rate is one-fifth that of the United States, and its suicide rate is about a third lower. So, who’s “inducing” all these deaths? The troubling answer is… doctors.

We’ve talked a lot on BreakPoint about the ever-expanding euthanasia-industrial complex. We have told you about how the so-called “right to die” eventually becomes, in effect, the “duty to die.” We’ve also told the stories of doctors so eager to end life that it isn’t clear in some instances if it was what the patient actually wanted.

Still, even in the context of all of those realities, what the Guardian found was shocking. For example, Dutch doctors commonly practice what’s known as “terminal sedation.” This is “a slow-motion euthanasia wherein patients not in the active stage of dying are put into artificial comas and denied all sustenance until they dehydrate to death.”

This is different from “palliative sedation,” which is “a rarely required procedure in which patients near death are sedated to control pain or other symptoms such as severe agitation or air hunger that cannot be alleviated in any other manner.”

While approximately 6,600 Dutch were officially euthanized and another 1,950 people killed themselves in 2017, the Guardian found that “the number of people who died under palliative sedation – in theory, succumbing to their illness while cocooned from physical discomfort, but in practice often dying of dehydration while unconscious [that is, terminal sedation] – hit an astonishing 32,000.”

Add it all up, and in 2017 more than 40,000 of the 150,000 deaths in the Netherlands were induced.

While the Guardian was astonished, Wesley J. Smith wasn’t. He’s among those telling anyone who will listen that in places like the Netherlands the line between palliative sedation and terminal sedation has been blurred for some time.

As he wrote in the National Review, “Since euthanasia was first decriminalized in the Netherlands, the country’s doctors have traveled a very dark road.” The category of people deemed candidates for induced death has steadily grown. And while a theoretical line has been crossed, Dutch officials do nothing.

It could hardly be otherwise. As Smith put it, the Dutch aren’t “horrible, ghoulish people.” But they are logical. Once they “accepted the premise that killing is an acceptable answer to suffering,” they’re now simply taking “that belief precisely where it leads.”

Which makes the Netherlands a lot more dangerous than official stats suggest. And which makes me ask, “Americans, is this what we really want?”

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/breakpoint-assisted-suicide-turned-homicide/

During the turbulent years of WWII, the Cold War, and Vietnam, were American evangelicals blind patriots or apocalyptic crazies as the culture likes to depict them?  In this interview with Warren Cole Smith, author and Colson Center Web Editor Timothy D. Padgett paints a very different picture of how evangelicals responded to the great crises of the Twentieth Century—and to the worldview that informed their views.

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/swords-and-plowshares-timothy-d-padgett/

Resources

C. S. Lewis and the Christian Worldview . . . Colson Center Short Course

Swords and Plowshares: American Evangelicals on War, 1937-1973

Timothy D. Padgett, Lexham Press, 2018

A couple of years ago, Jeremiah Johnston and his wife binge-watched the HBO series “The Man in the High Castle.” The series is set in a world where Nazi Germany and Japan won World War II and now occupy the United States.

It’s a world where euthanasia is mandatory, and the ashes of victims fall on passersby. In other words, it’s a world without Christianity, not to mention Judaism.

After watching the series, Johnston’s wife told him that he needed to write about what they had just watched. He did, and the result is his outstanding book, “Unimaginable: What the World Would Be Like Without Christianity.”

But Johnston’s book is not about a fictional world like the “The Man in the High Castle.” His book is straight out of history, about the real world that Christianity replaced—a pagan world that is showing signs of a comeback in this post-Christian age.

Johnston introduces us to the world in which Christianity was born, and eventually transformed. He tells the story of Hilarion, an otherwise-unremarkable Roman citizen who had traveled to Egypt. He writes to his pregnant wife that he may not make it home in time for the birth. So he wishes her “good luck” and then tells her what to do when the child is born: “If it is a boy, keep it; if it is a girl, throw it out.”

As I said, there was nothing remarkable about Hilarion or his attitude towards his soon-to-be-born child. As Johnston tells us, “…in the first-century Roman world . . . killing an unwanted child was no big deal.” He quotes the philosopher Seneca, who wrote: “Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weak or abnormal.”

Into this world came Christianity, whose teaching and practice was 180 degrees from that of the surrounding societies. The early second century Christian document known as “the “Didache” told Christians, “Do not murder a child by abortion, nor kill it at birth.” The Epistle of Barnabas, which dates from a few decades later, similarly said, “Do not murder a child by abortion, nor, again, destroy that which is born.”

Believe it or not, infanticide is just one example of the cruelty and callousness that characterized the ancient world. Anyone who wasn’t a nobleman—emphasis on the “man”—was a potential, and often actual, victim of this same kind of cruelty: infants, women, slaves, and the poor to name but a few.

Against this backdrop, Paul’s declaration that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” had the potential to turn the world upside down.

And that’s exactly what it did. It took time, and there were fits and starts, but Christianity made the world we now take for granted, possible.

As Johnston tells readers, the West’s rejection of Christianity threatens to undo this world. For those who scoff at such an idea, he lays out the recent historical record, which isn’t pretty. Evils such as scientific racism, which posits that some groups are inherently inferior to others, eugenics, and its ultimate expression, the Third Reich, all have their origins in worldviews that rejected Christianity.

He reminds us that these literally godless worldviews have left a body count in the hundreds of millions: the Holocaust, Stalin’s victims, the killing fields of Cambodia, and the estimated seventy million Chinese who died under Mao.

Given this historical record, it is unimaginable that we should want to revert to a world prior to Christianity. Or at last it should be unimaginable. That’s why I can’t recommend the book “Unimaginable” highly enough. It’s a book that every Christian interested in worldview, and, especially those who aren’t, should have in their library. And this month, it’s our gift to those who make a donation to BreakPoint and the Colson Center. Just come to BreakPoint.org.

And you can join Jeremiah Johnston on a free webinar tomorrow, February 5, at noon Eastern. Again, come to BreakPoint.org to register.

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/breakpoint-the-world-without-christianity/

John Stonetsreet and Warren Cole Smith discuss a radical abortion bill introduced in Virginia–on the heels of New York’s insanely cruel abortion law. They also discuss Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s ridiculous claim that his comments in response to the bill were taken out of context. His words, as John and Warren note, speak for themselves.  Unlimited access to abortion–even up to and perhaps including infanticide–is what the pro-abortion movement has wanted all along.

They also talk about the good news that Pakistan’s supreme court has cleared the way for Asia Bibi, the Christian woman who faced execution for trumped-up blasphemy charges–may now leave the country. In light of that, John and Ed urge the Trump Administration to take in more Christian refugees–brothers and sisters of ours who are in true danger because of their faith.

Finally, they discuss the Colson Center’s upcoming Short Course: “C. S. Lewis and the Christian Worldview,” taught by Dr. Louis Markos. Registration is open. And be sure to hear the voice of C. S. Lewis from a rare radio clip we’ve included in our recent BreakPoint commentary.

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/bp-this-week-radical-becomes-the-new-normal-for-the-abortion-movement/

Resources

Colson Center Short Course: "C. S. Lewis and the Christian Worldview." Register here!

Why C. S. Lewis Still Speaks

John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris,

BreakPoint, January 29, 2019

You Can Make the Case for Life: Scott Klusendorf

John Stonestreet and Scott Klusendorf

BreakPoint Podcast, January 14, 2019

President Trump, Grant Asylum to Asia Bibi

John Stonestreet and David Carlson

BreakPoint, December 28, 2019

Since 1932, 323 players, managers, executives and umpires have been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. What they all have in common is that none of them, not even Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, or Joe DiMaggio, were elected unanimously.

On Tuesday, that changed. Pitcher Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees became the first player elected unanimously to the Baseball Hall of Fame. It’s a fitting tribute to the man Esquire magazine dubbed “the Hammer of God,” for his achievements on the mound.

Now even if you don’t like baseball, you should rejoice with Rivera and his family, because while he may have been God’s “hammer” on the field, he was and remains God’s faithful servant both on and off it.

Rivera was what is known as a “closer.” That means he pitches exclusively in those high-pressure situations when the game’s on the line. He’s expected to “close” the door on the other team. It might sound simple, but any baseball fan will tell you few pitchers, even the most talented ones, can stand up to that kind of pressure for very long.

Rivera did it for seventeen seasons. According to Tim Kurkjian of ESPN, the gap between Rivera and whomever is the second-best closer of all-time is greater than the gap at any other position in baseball history.

That’s part of the reason one former player called Rivera “the most beloved Yankee,” which, given the franchise’s storied history, is saying a lot.

But it’s not the only reason. The other part is Mariano Rivera the man. The Esquire profile said that “He is modest and mild. He is neat and quiet, while other closers are not.” He is regarded as the ultimate “team first” player who summed up his job as “I get the ball, I throw the ball, and then I take a shower.”

Throughout his career, Rivera was as well known for his Christian faith as for his legendary “cut fastball,” which was virtually unhittable even though hitters knew it was coming.

In fact, Rivera will tell you that his faith and his fastball are linked. He claims God gave him the pitch. In his own words, “I do not spend years searching for this pitch. I do not ask for it, or pray for it. All of a sudden it is there, a devastating baseball weapon.”

As “devastating” as that weapon was during the regular season, it was even more so during the playoffs. In sixteen post-seasons, Rivera allowed fewer earned runs than the number of men who have walked on the moon.

Yet he expressed thanks to God for his most high-profile failure, too. In the 2001 World Series, he gave up the run that cost the Yankees the series, but he pointed out that if the Yankees had won, his teammate Enrique Wilson would have been on a flight that ended up crashing and killing everyone on board. Since they didn’t win, Wilson took an earlier flight. “I am glad we lost the World Series,” Rivera said, “because it means that I still have a friend.”

There’s a lot more I could tell you: from the glove inscribed with Phillipians 4:13 to his many charitable endeavors. Then there’s the documentary, “Being: Mariano Rivera,” about his last season that aired on Showtime. In many ways, it was one long testimony to his Christian faith.

It’s gratifying that the first man to be unanimously elected to the Hall of Fame is celebrated as much for his character as for his amazing career. It’s even more inspiring that the first man to be unanimously elected to the Hall of Fame has never been shy about telling others about the One who made both possible.

In an era where the word “hero” is either tossed around haphazardly, debased, or made to seem hopelessly out-of-date, the real deal has received the honor he was due, honor he will undoubtedly ascribe to his God.

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/breakpoint-the-faith-of-mariano-rivera/

Resources

Mariano Rivera reflects on being the final Baseball Hall of Fame member to wear Jackie Robinson's No. 42

Dayn Perry | CBSsports.com | January 23, 2019

Mo is 1st in history with unanimous Hall election

Bryan Hoch | MLB.com | January 22, 2019

Mariano Rivera Cries on Mound, Yankee Stadium Farewell

Youtube video | September 26, 2013

In 1902, Rudyard Kipling published a collection of children’s stories that became known as the “Just So Stories.” These were fanciful “explanations” for how various animals acquired their best-known characteristics, like the camel’s hump, the leopard’s spots, and the elephant’s trunk.

They were called “just so stories” because his daughter Josephine demanded that they be told in the same way each time, in other words, “just so.”

In 1976, the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, writing about the emerging field of evolutionary psychology, used that phrase, “just so story,” to express his skepticism about the entire field of study. Since then, the label “just so story” has come to mean “an unverifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals.”

The most recent “just so story” I’ve seen announced a link between brain damage and religious fundamentalism. Yes, you heard that right: brain damage.

The study, entitled “Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism,” was published in the journal Neuropsychologia. In it, researchers went over the data from 119 Vietnam War veterans who were “specifically chosen because a large number of them had damage to brain areas suspected of playing a critical role in functions related to religious fundamentalism.”

Is your Spidey-sense going off here? It should be… The researchers weren’t studying the brains of 119 random people looking to see what, if anything, they might find. No, they assumed that a particular kind of brain damage played a role in whether someone became a religious fundamentalist, and then went looking for evidence that confirmed those suspicions.

Can you spell “confirmation bias,” boys and girls?

Comparing the brain-injured vets’ CT scans to those of non-injured vets, researchers found that an injury to a specific region of the prefrontal cortex “was associated with religious fundamentalism.”

If your Spidey-sense is now giving you a headache, good. So many unanswered questions here… for example, “What do they mean by ‘religious fundamentalism?’” In this case, “an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues.” So, like, every Abrahamic religion?

It gets “better.” “Fundamentalists” tend to “oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life,” and “are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs.”

The researchers theorize that damage to the particular region of the prefrontal cortex causes “a reduction in cognitive flexibility and openness.” This leads to “an increase in religious fundamentalism.”

So many problems here, so little time, so I’ll settle for two obvious problems. First, we have no idea whether these brain-injured vets were actually “fundamentalists,” or if they simply answered the questionnaires in a way that led a researcher to label them that way. The lack of “cognitive flexibility and openness” in what the researchers deemed “religious matters” might also be true of the rest of their lives. Why single out religion? Not to mention, the researchers seemed to lack a good bit of “cognitive flexibility and openness” to any understanding of religion that’s different than theirs. Are they brain damaged fundamentalists too?

And, second, don’t lots of non-religious people aggressively “oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life?” Some are even running for president right now. Is there something wrong with their prefrontal cortex?

In the just-so story “How the Elephant Got Its Trunk,” a curious elephant wanders too close to a river and a crocodile grabs it by its-then stubby nose, stretching it until the calf gets away. The new elongated nose proves so useful that no elephant would even dream of going back to their old stubby one.

The only difference between that story and the one published in Neuropsychologia is that Kipling actually knew he was writing a “just so story.”

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/breakpoint-do-religious-fundamentalist-have-brain-damage/

Progressive Christians often criticize the pro-life movement for only caring about babies before they’re born, and not enough about “social justice” issues after they’re born. They don’t spend enough time or energy on so-called “whole life” issues like poverty and racism and climate change.

Here are two responses: First, a movement can only do so much. Of course we should care about every injustice, but pro-life organizations should not be expected to spend their already-thin budget on every problem in society, especially when other organizations are called to those issues.

Second, are social justice advocates living up to their own demand? So many who are vocal on after-birth issues are silent about nothing less than the taking of innocent, pre-born human lives.

As blogger Samuel Sey recently wrote on twitter: “One of the biggest indictments against the social justice movement within evangelicalism today is that it hasn’t produced a greater passion against the biggest human rights violation of our time—abortion. In fact, it’s producing more apathy and support for abortion.” Well said.

http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/01/the-point-justice-for-the-small/