[Editor’s Note: Please forgive me but for those who are interested in what Gail Sheppard and Billy Jack Sunday wrote that led me to opine on the debacle that is St Nicholas Shrine, please refer to the essay which appeared before this one; at the bottom is a P.S. with the necessary link for Billy Jack’s comment. As for Gail’s insights, please go to the Search button and type in “A Way Out for the GOA?” Sorry for the inconvenience.]
Forgive the cuteness of the title of this editorial as there is nothing to be flippant about the forced death (yes, you read that right) of young Alfie Evans.
In case you don’t know what I’m referring to, it’s about a little English toddler who was suffering from a rare disease. The public health service of the United Kingdom couldn’t (or wouldn’t) provide the care that he needed but his parents were willing to take him to Italy for some experimental treatments.
To be sure, the case of Alfie Evans was a desperate one and –like Charlie Gard ten months earlier–drew international attention. As it should have. There is nothing more pathetic than a sickly child who is dying from a rare disease but one whose parents are willing to try anything at all to help him. There is nothing more innocent than a baby and to see the machinery of the state arrayed against him at the very least will tug at the heart-strings.
Alfie’s plight rightly caught the attention of the world. So much so that the Italian government bestowed Italian citizenship upon him and the Pope (in a stunning act of common sense) reverted to Catholicism 101 and pleaded for his life to be spared. The British bureaucracy would have none of it however. (With a public “health” service like that, who needs hit squads?)
In the video below, Michael Voris will explain in more detail what is at stake here, both on a spiritual level as well as on the business side of things. As for myself, I will simply point out that Gov Sarah Palin was a prophetess when she intoned the words “death panels” eight long years ago.
Think of it: “the public health service” has degenerated, in this case at least, to being an actual death panel. Not initially anyway, but inexorably nonetheless.
This can’t be stressed enough: socialized medicine and all other types of national endeavors for that matter, are never peddled to the public –initially anyway–as mechanisms to control the lives of individuals down to the smallest detail. Even to the point of mandating the death of an individual. And we are never told that Big Brother will make the decision as to whether we live or die or that parents will lose their natural rights. Never. “If you like your doctor, you can keep him”, that sort of thing.
Why? Because the people would rise up in arms and riot with a righteous fury. As they should. No, it’s much more subtle than that. The old frog-in-the-boiling-pot scenario. You know the drill.
Regardless, Alfie’s parents were willing to unburden the state for Alfie’s care and take it upon themselves to find a cure for their son. This was a natural impulse, as natural as the will to survive and to care for a family member. But they weren’t allowed to do even that.
How evil is that?
Indeed, in much of “the Free World” which our betters wax so eloquently about as they beat the war-drums against Evil Czar Vladimir, there are dozens of instances of governmental coercion which are alarming to many of us naifs here in the States. In Germany for instance, an Evangelical family of eight who sought asylum in the US so they could home-school their children were deported by the Obama Administration. (Germany refuses to allow home-schooling.) Instead, the Kakistocracy goes out of their way to allow unfettered immigration from parasites who will swell the ranks of home-grown ISIS in Europe or MS-13 in the US. How insane is that?
It’s astounding really. Here are but two examples of people who wish to be left alone and who are willing to carry their own weight, and yet Big Brother will not allow them to be left alone. Indeed, he forcibly intrudes into the most private aspects of their lives.
George Orwell was right. Big Brother won’t be satisfied until he stomps his jackboot forever on our necks as we are forced to yell at the top our lungs “We love you!”
Since you’ve opened this up, George, I strongly recommend this blog post by Rev. Gavin Ashenden, who resigned a couple of years ago from his position as one of the Queen’s ministers so that he might more freely defend traditional Christianity against the forces arrayed against it.
He draws attention to the under-reported sub-plot of anti-Christian motives behind the sad case of Alfie Evans of blessed memory:
https://ashenden.org/2018/04/25/the-danger-of-the-judiciary-the-malice-of-the-media-the-perniciousness-of-progressive-policies-and-how-alfie-paid-the-price/
Back in the 80s and 90s, providers did NOT ascribe to the “less is more” philosophy due to fear of malpractice. They ordered whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and the payors would cover the cost. Patients demanded to have the latest technology so instead of a simple Xray, if they asked for a CAT scan, the doctor was more than happy to comply. The patient was happy, the provider was happy; everybody was happy except the payors! Costs were headed toward the stratosphere, as more and more expensive technology became available.
The ordering practices of physicians were all over the map back then, too. Two doctors could see the same patient and come up with different treatment plans so the government decided to take matters into their own hands. They wanted to find out what was “medically necessary” and most likely to improve the patient’s outcome based on diagnosis. It started with DRGs (diagnosis-related groups). The payors told hospitals: “We will pay you $X for a patient with an ABC diagnosis and that’s it.” Gone were the days of “charge on order” (you order it, we’ll pay for it) and in marched “managed care.” It threw the industry into a tizzy. Doctors didn’t have established protocols for treatment back then. They had no idea what the government (Medicare) deemed was “medically necessary” and were unprepared for all the paperwork required to justify their ordering practices. Patients don’t usually have just one diagnosis. They can have “complications and comorbidities” which require more services so DRGs were expanded. It was not an easy transition for the medical field. I worked for a group of 100 specialists at the time and I remember having to explain to more than one of their ex-wives why their alimony checks were cut in half! The administrative overhead to justify treatment became a medical nightmare. This is when payors like Kaiser began popping up everywhere. They’d tell a new physician, “Why open your own practice? Your life will become an administrative nightmare. Come work for us. We’ll give you a decent salary and take care of the paperwork for you.”
Other things started happening, as well. It used to be the patient or the patient’s family who decided when to pull the plug on treatment. Some patients do not want their life to end and will request every treatment available, even when the prognosis is poor.
Additionally, emergency rooms were packed, especially in border states. Illegals do not have insurance and they know emergency rooms have to treat them. Payers didn’t cover these services. Hospitals started “cost shifting” to cover the shortfall. That’s why an aspirin might cost $6 on your bill. I remember one patient in San Clemente who was in a terrible accident as the result of a high-speed police chase. He was on life support for months, even though there was no brain activity. The hospital could not pull the plug because the family was Catholic and wouldn’t allow it. The cost to care for that one patient to keep his organs from shutting down were astronomical and the hospital almost buckled. Emergency rooms were closing their doors.
So, to keep emergency rooms and hospitals open, they came up with objective (non-patient specific) guidelines on when it makes sense to stop treatment. A “death squad” is usually a group of physicians treating the patient who represent different specialties. When the patient deteriorates to a certain degree, the doctors meet to decide what to do next. It usually takes more than one signature to continue treatment and it’s tied to specific criteria. If they don’t sign off, the patient doesn’t get the treatment.
For example, my father went into an emergency room with pneumonia-like symptoms. He had a high fever and was hallucinating. They couldn’t identify what was wrong with him. What he DID have was end-stage pulmonary fibrosis which he had not shared with me. It is a lung disease that occurs when the tissue becomes damaged and scarred. It’s progressive and there is no cure. The only thing they can do is give you a transplant but my dad was 84 so he didn’t qualify. We discussed sending him to rehab in the hope that he could become physically strong enough to fight off whatever was ailing him. Interestingly, it turned out to be TB. Another family secret! His sister had TB and died in a sanitarium. My dad apparently had it, too, and moved to the SW believing the dry air would cure him. The end stages of pulmonary fibrosis can bring on “active” TB which is probably why he had pneumonia-like symptoms. They didn’t test him for TB because he wasn’t considered at risk. Anyway, to send him to rehab he had to at least be able to make it to a chair and sit in it. He couldn’t. He needed two signatures to send him to rehab and they wouldn’t give them. They could do no more for him in the hospital. I had two choices: I could take him home where he would die or I could take him to a hospice where he would die. I chose a hospice because he had no money for around the clock nursing care.
So THAT’s how a “death squad” works and why they have them. Probably not what you imagined, but the result is the same. I don’t know the particulars of Alphie’s case other than they couldn’t help him. The Liverpool hospital insisted there was no hope of recovery because his brain had suffered one or more catastrophic episodes, leaving him in a semi-vegetative state. The child was on life support. Today, we can keep the vital organ functioning long after the patient is dead; but, as you can imagine, it is costly. The types of machines that are needed are usually reserved for patients who have a chance for recovery and they didn’t believe Alfie did. As far as I know, no one stepped up to cover the costs of transferring little Alphie to Rome. I’m not even sure the hospital in Rome said they would cover the cost of the treatment. I doubt the couple’s health plan covered such services, as the treatment was probably experimental. It’s a terribly sad situation and I certainly understand why his parents would bring it into the public arena, but I’m guessing the money to cover the transfer and the treatment might not have been available. It’s one thing to make him a citizen of a country and for a hospital to offer to try to treat him, but unless someone covers the costs, they are unlikely to do it in the end. I suspect the couple hoped someone would step up, but that didn’t happen. Again, I don’t know. – May God bless little Alfie and be with his parents during this difficult time. Losing a child is every parent’s worst nightmare.
I worked in Nhs to degree in physical care and then many years in mental health. UK citizens pay national insurance if they work and this covers them and their family in work or out. Only medication at about 10 dollars a script, if you work or under age 60!, is paid for.
But the service although can be used for treatment abroad, is for within uk obviously.
I do not know the particulars of this case and have neither read the nursing and medical notes and pity people do not have respect for medical facts, but as I understand it, the system felt that nothing more could be done and that moving the child would cause suffering. One take an opposing view naturally, but without knowing detailed facts…… As for interpretations of Nhs system mediated through american eyes,,,I urge caution and see some ignorance on people’s part and reading too much into a rare case. Far more to take on board is the miracle of a system when NO ONE ( yes I hear Windrush- scandal but that a special disgusting racist situation) has to worry about money when ill and whose experience is second to none and I had american colleagues who told me the USA reality that i also know.
While one can argue he should have been allowed to go to Italy if they could fund it; SOME RESPECT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL AND NURSING OPINION
No respect needs to be given to a doctor or nursing opinion when they say you are terminal and, despite your ability to obtain treatment elsewhere, they force you to die. That is socialized medicine at its worst:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/30/charlie-gards-parents-endure-worst-day-lives-doctors-switch/
May every such little tin god burn in hell.
Case in point:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-other-explanation-but-god-boy-regains-consciousness-after-brain-trauma/
“I had two choices: I could take him home where he would die or I could take him to a hospice where he would die.”
Gail,
At least you had these two choices. Alfie’s parents didn’t. No, the British government considered them a “flight risk” as though they were criminals. The hospital held their child as a prisoner under police guard by court order and even removed the guest furniture from Alfie’s room so his parents had to sleep on the floor if they wished to be with him in his last days.
I understand the cost factor. As painful as it is, there are limits to the financial burdens others can reasonably share (whether it be via socialized medicine or an insurance pool) in order to save the life of one person. But this went well beyond reasonable, not only placing an arguably necessary limit on the public expenditure, but restricting their freedom to take him home or to another place where the costs wouldn’t be borne by the British people.
The Italian government had a helicopter standing by waiting to take him though they obviously knew his family couldn’t cover the cost of transportation or treatment once they arrived in Italy.
What is outrageous is that the British courts essentially ruled that the principal of socialized healthcare (and not merely limiting the cost to the British public) must be upheld as a primary legal value even to the point of imprisoning a dying child.
Brian,
Actually, they had 3 choices (if you can call them that). According to the judge, they could: (1) take him home, (2) have him transferred to a ward or (3) let him go. How could they take him home? They were a young couple and who probably didn’t even THINK to sign up for long-term care for their toddler. How could they transfer him to a ward? The child was going from one catastrophic episode to the next. And finally, how do you face letting your CHILD go, knowing there might be some help for him somewhere else?
The Italian government may very well have had a helicopter on standby but that doesn’t mean the costs were covered. Most facilities will not transport a patient unless s/he is stable and this poor child was not. The British hospital would have had to supervise, provide the equipment for and staff the transfer and if the little guy died, they could be sued. The British courts can’t override the law and like it or not, all the regulations that govern these things are law. Here in the states, it is no different. Some Congressman needs to form a committee to challenge these healthcare regulations which all come out of CMS. They have us by the $%^^&, so to speak, because just about every provider accepts federal funding (like Medicare). If you accept federal funding, you have to abide by federal rules which are geared toward population management to reduce costs. The individual patient doesn’t matter, even if it’s a child. Why would they care if someone died? Allowing someone to die is the ultimate way to reduce costs, right?
There is an especially significant dynamic missing from this discussion, and in my opinion, unfairly & unjustly results in these misnomers of “death squads” and “death panels.” The issue was raised in a truly remarkable book published last year by Atul Gawande, MD – a remarkable author & Harvard-trained surgeon who has fearlessly addressed the “frailty” of the medical scientific system, its practitioners, and its reasoning – entitled, Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End
The reality, it would seem, is that “in the end,” we – practitioners, as well as our society in general – have lost the ability to be honest, to be frank, to be forthcoming, to be realistic in having the “last talk”: “We have noting left to offer you to prolong or to save your life, and now it is time to turn our discussion to planning for the end of your life.” In the literature of the business of medical practice, this is frequently referred to as an honesty that is a “practice destroying” decision for practicing physicians. Word will get out that you will “abandon” patients when they need help the most.
if you want patients to “go elsewhere,” actually tell them there is nothing more that can be done. Otherwise, quickly point them in the direction of “alternate” chemotherapies, established experimental protocols, clinical trials – and in a research town such as mine – to the Village Voice and similar clones with page after page of recruitment offerings for clinical trials galore. Add to this the fact that, by state law, some 36 states now have laws mandating pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide samples of trial medications enrolled with the FDA as early as Clinical Trials Phase I (meaning they are simply being tested for safety in administration to human beings – with absolutely no regard to whether they will or will not be helpful in the condition for which they are intended). There is a significant chance at this phase that someone could actually be harmed and their suffering exacerbated from a Phase I med – which is grossly contraindicated and simply unethical – but the argument at this level always seems to be, “they know the risks, they are already terminal.” This is shameful. More so in that I have yet to find a single case of anyone benefiting from such an early phase med; and even then it is important to weigh what exactly one considers a “benefit.” A recent series of direct-to-patient advertisements for a small cell lung cancer adjunct, for example, was so dramatic and so positive as to its positive response over “typical” meds, that I felt compelled to investigate. It turns out that that the new adjunct resulted in approximately 4 months longer survival. Obviously, for someone terminally ill, 4 months longer survival is a gift. But who would dare step in and say, “now it is time to turn our discussion to planning for the end of your life?” And the final, “in the end,” describes the final months & weeks as an “heroic battle” in which someone is always engaged, literally, until too worn out by the “righteous struggle,” certainly not because they gave in to inherent weakness. God forbid.
Those in the Church pray that we will have ample time for “peace and repentance,” and may feel coerced into a “battle” to meet the needs of others – those that “need” us to continue to fight so they won’t be left alone – when our heart is already, by nature, seeking the path of peace and repentance. The loss of honesty, of frankness, and reality robs so many of their time to repent and to reach a peaceful ending to their life. Ultimately, this system of denial and distraction relies on individuals who will circumvent the reality and will never address the truth, only to continue another course of antibiotics, another course of chemotherapy, provide another increase of the narcotic levels, and the rest is silence. The silence is that we cannot do anything more for you, and we need to prepare for the end of your life.
The responses here are written as if the medical and reimbursement systems have imposed these restrictions and policies of practice on us, rather than them having developed because of our inaction and refusal to act, if only within the confines of our own households because of fear. It is astonishing the number of individuals and families who do not have basic instructions/directions as to who should speak as their proxy for healthcare in the event they are impaired – as if by simply developing such instructions, one is “hailing disaster.”
Finally, I used to carry a quote from C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters in my wallet until it finally disintegrated. It was an instruction from Wormwood to a younger devil, the gist of which was that, “We must instill in them such a love for this life and this world that the thought of dying and leaving this life and world is so disturbing to them, that they will do anything to stay here.” “My heart is in anguish within me, And the terrors of death have fallen upon me. Fear and trembling come upon me, And horror has overwhelmed me.” (Ps. 54:4) St. Paul reminds us that “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” (1Cor. 15:26) while the Exapostilarion of the Falling Asleep of the Theotokos calls out in joy, “Receive my body, O my Son, and my spirit, O my God!” While St. Paul encourages us, “Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” (1Cor. 15:56), the victory will come only with a very painful realization and confrontation of our reality.
Is anyone else bothered by the wording of some current pharmaceutical ads that suggest use of the products might give you “. . . a chance to live longer?”
I myself as a pharmacist am scandalized by the entire pharmaceutical/therapeutic industrial complex.
But you said you wuz “in retail”.
HP, I am not troubled by the wording because it is the fundamental philosophy of modern medicine–extend life at all costs because…. (each participant has their own reason). It is the attitude that made it unable for the young doctor I encountered when my wife was dying to actually respond in a human way. He had no foundation for it.
It goes deeply into the attitude of modern medicine that human beings are little more than bio-chemical machines. That is not an indictment of every single medical professional folks so don’t even go there. I know many fine, compassionate doctors and other medical professionals who do not adopt that attitude. I have been treated by many. The problem is deeper than that. It rests in the false anthropology of the age with which we are all inundated.
Our brother Michael Stankovich seems to wrestle with it on a daily basis for which he has my admiration and respect. But even he has to admit that he is a bit of a Quixotic figure in doing so, or he seems to.
Unfortunately, the treatment of cancer is still in the barbaric phase. The treatment of terminal cancer is even more difficult. I am sure the trade offs are under constant examination. That in itself has to be exhausting for everyone involved.
In a consumer culture what do last resort cancer drugs have to market? A little more life. That is it. As long as prescription drugs are marketed to the public at large that will get worse.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that the drug adds are frequently intercut with adds from class action lawyers about suing drug companies? The message left behind is try this, if it doesn’t work, you can always sue. Of course what is left out is that you will get $2.50 while the lawyers get millions. But, that is the consumerist way.
BTW, all of the foregoing clearly reflects my bias against many things. If you care to pick it apart it will be all too easy. There are thousands of examples that contraindicate my statements. Nevertheless, it is my perspective concerning effect of the underlying philosophy of the culture and how it tends to infect medical treatment and decisions in a horrible way.
I’m bothered by the very existence of pharmaceutical ads. There is no legitimate reason for prescription meds to be advertised to the general public.
I have not seen the pharmaceutical ads that suggests that using said products might give you ” . . . a chance to live longer”
Troubling words, indeed
However, I have seen the drug ad that says,
Side effects may include:
Rash, fever, dry mouth, dizziness, insomnia, paranoia, homicidal ideation, constipation followed by explosive diarrhea, loss of smell, projectile vomiting, night terrors, girly giggles, lock jaw, hammer toes, hording, gambling addiction and jazz hands
No, that’s the Greek monks selling “botanics” along with their hokum “psychotherapy”
Michael S. The bottom line is that we all fear death and do not want to discuss it. When my late wife lay dying none of the doctors would tell me anything regarding prognosis even when I asked directly. One nurse, probably exceeding what he was allowed to say was kind enough to let me know in a veiled way.
Not knowing for sure imacted decisions that I made which did nothing for my wife but did raise the cost of care.
I am afraid I intimidated one young kidney doctor by asking directly. He was clearly frightened. I was taller, have a deep voice and I was not in a place to observe niceties. Still he would not respond to my direct query on prognosis.
That is still the toughest thing I have to deal with regarding my wife’s repose. It was cruel and dehumanizing for me. I pray that I can forgive him some day and can look upon him as other than a sniveling coward.
The Queen, who ostensibly swore an oath to be Britain’s “Defender of the Faith” and “Supreme Head of the Church,” will have much to answer for at the dread tribunal. She allows this (and more) to happen by her assent.
The Queen is personally a devout very low church Anglican. She is titular head so does not involve herself
She only became the titular head because she refused to be involved.
You misunderstand. The power to be an actual power re church want west along with the other powers the monarch had in the process from 17c of monarch becomes a Constitution monarch.. They were taken by Parliament. And it is Parliament that has power to change, say the Prayer Book, as happened in 1928.
The queen is personally devout in low Anglican way and in her Christmas message speaks as believing Christian but if she inervened in church affair there would be a crisis in the monarch. Her son, Charles, the future King, has said he wants to be a ‘LEADER OF FAITHS, ‘ and as his Subjects, especially those who believe in a very secular uk. are Muslim and hindu and sikh and Catholic and Orthodox. Good point. Only 17% about of english ( scotland and Wales different set up) count themselves as Anglican and falling.
I think we have to separate two distinct matters. One is a national health system that Americans do not seem to like ( unless they have used it) and that is their democratic prerogative FOR THEIR COUNTRY.
The other is the Secularised and secularist ( not secular) but secularist world view that the article re the judge brought out and I share and have been expressing much of the concern. And these issues would have been present and acted on even if that little boy had been treated in a private hospital. So the system of care is not the issue and please do not make it so.
The issue as the article by the English commentator brings out, is the denial by the ruling elite for a Christian social belief, a Christian view of a life and death matter, to be accepted as something decent and respected, even if they disagree.
We have now a so called liberal illiberal orthodoxy and the beginning of forced euthanasia. Naturally they would accuse me of hyperbole, but just as with abortion, the end result will be as I say. But this I state again, has no relation to type of health care but to the law of the land and social services. Indeed nursing and medicine have many committed believers but social services as I found from personal experience, is profoundly anti Christian. UK society as a whole is in its elites deeply secular. The people seemingly same but I believe that more faith is dormant than meets the eye. But I am concerned that those with Christian beliefs re abortion etc will suffer professionally. I am not talking about exaggerated public action but about belief quietly held and acted on.
I personally believe that to refuse to aid an abortion, although NOT to refuse to give post abortion care, or euthanasia is correct and ethical but to refuse to bake a cake because u disagree with the life style of the customer etc is grand standing and does no good and not what Christ would have done. I regard it with boredom
On a broader point I fail to understand much protestant American so called Christianity which remains fixated on the old testament, never seems to ever mention the GOSPELS OR WORDS OF CHRIST and regard Christ as the angry avenging tool of a legalistic God devoid of love. and as for the zionists who think Jerusalem is all about the wailing wall and nothing about the tomb, well they are judaizers ( 16c heresy found in eastern Europe and Russia). Not Christians. And before I am accused of anti semitism, well I take no lessons in that respect. I have opposed racism and anti semitism all my life. Why I oppose zionism which is racism but that another battle. I would say however that about time Europeans took back and faced their holocaust guilt and stop dumping it on the poor Arabs.
Nikos, the system of care gives control to the government. That is the rub. Even if benign, even helpful in many cases, the end is always about control of the populace.
If upvoting were allowed in this forum, I would upvote this to the limit of double precision (approximately 10^308).
Yes, and that is why no exceptions to the so-called treatment protocol can be allowed: if they allowed the child’s parents independence of action, they’d have to allow everyone independence of action, and they just can’t have that—many would just opt out.
Years ago, I ran into an interesting article in the Times or Telegraph about a young M.D. who was dying of cancer, and could not get permission to travel to Italy to get an alternative cancer treatment which would likely save her life. She pleaded that, as a physician, she had decades of life-saving service ahead of her if they save her life, but some pinhead at the NHS blandly informed her that she was no different from anyone else and forbid her to go, even at her own expense.
I hope she skipped the country.
Yes agree but that will be reflected in both private or public system by laws of the land.
My personal view is we have lived through a time where there was so to speak, spiritual capital in the bank, not being added to, but still giving a broadly Christian, or if u like judeo- Christian view reflected in the laws.
We now have a generation of elites in western Europe certainly, who are not christian in any way and the credit used up..So u get laws and attitude thst not christian. They would say progressive and Civilized, and Yes for some things Agree., but more and more we are going into a secularist gender and identity Politics Kafka like night mare with thought police and hate.
Some random thoughts…
President Trump has made a disastrous mistake in scuppering the Iran nuclear deal. He has demonstrated that America is untrustworthy- and makes war more likely. Thank you Bibi, you lying, duplicitous, warmonger. Bibi set a trap for Trump, and he took the bait. Also, Trump’s decision to move our embassy to the corpus separatum of Jerusalem is idiotic and insane.
About this caravan attempting to invade our country- they are truly execrable. CNN keeps profiling this pregnant tramp with her two kids trying to claim asylum. When you are claiming asylum, you have to go to the first safe country. In this tramps case, that would be Mexico. I hope the US sends her and her two kids back to Guatemala. Instead of scrounging off the US, she should wear a chastity belt.
About this poster Ashley Nevins, I don’t know much about him, however, I visited his website. I was shocked to learn that during World War II, the monks of Mt. Athos placed themselves under the protection of Adolph Hitler. I was completely appalled, did some research, and discovered that it is true. Due to a false prophecy, the monks thought Germany was going to become Orthodox. Many of the monks also liked Hitler’s antisemitism. Tis true!! It seems that monasticism is not so angelic after all.
As a Greek American, I can say this to other Greek Americans: Get over yourselves! You are just immigrants like everyone else. There is absolutely nothing special about us whatsoever. Want proof? Look at Greece!
I cannot speak to the wisdom (or lack thereof) of scrapping the the nuclear deal with Iran, but I can say this:
This is what happens when presidents make “deals” instead of duly ratified treaties. Subsequent presidents are bound by treaties, whereas deals are subject to prevailing political winds.
Amen. That’s why even in a constitutional monarchy, or even a near-absolutist monarchy, there is always a Senate/House of Lords/Privy Council which can diffuse decision-making. This is important on many levels.
Obama’s Napoleonic assertion that “I have a pen and a phone” has now come back to bite him in the ass. It’s my fervent hope that under Trump, the Congress starts to act like an Article I legislature again.
The simple fact is Bibi used some 30 year old intel to trump up Iran’s nuclear aspirations because Israel rightly hates Iran and Trump needed a stepping stone to cancel Obama’s deal because it wasn’t Trump’s deal. Trump has been trying to cancel everything Obama; even his birth certificate.
The guy sounds tough, but he isn’t smart enough to realize the dprk was never going to play until yesterday when ‘he cancelled’ the meeting. That letter he wrote to the dprk is what happens when your mouth leads policymaking.
Iran probably started up the centrifuges the day he cancelled the deal.
Mr. C:
The “deal” was un-Constitutional, therefore illegal, possibly treasonous. Obama should have been impeached and thrown out of office. Kerry’s attempt to keep it going could also be illegal and possibly treasonous.
But the Constitution was scraped decades ago and now we have rule by fiat: Judicial, Executive and Legislative. Shoot even Chrysler is now Fiat.
My suggestion: Fire every non-elected governmental employee in the Federal Government. Put the names in a hat of all of the adults people competent to serve in elective office, draw them out one by one. First one President, etc. Give them all the authority they want for 2 years. If the country is still around, do it again. If not, they will be shot anyway.
“President Trump has made a disastrous mistake in scuppering the Iran nuclear deal. ”
Uh, no.
Sorry.
Agree monks can fall as we all can but there is also holiness, as with church in Russia, RASPUTIN power over it with corrupt bishops etc but at same time Martyr Tikhon and later the flood of witness and suffering and across eastern Europe later.
Re Athos, yes too exagerated a Monasticism is a danger and we seem to have gone from.an anti monk attitude to other extreme.
Re war. And Athos,in fairness these monks had no idea or clue of Mass murder etc but saw Hitler as ANTINCOMMUNIST. Still not comendable but excusable at time. And should be repented.
For what is worth I recommended to visit New Skete in New York.state. There is a monastery for future or St John BAPTIST in Uk nr london.
Fr Ephraim I heard speak some yrs ago and felt an unease, that all I can say