Who could possibly argue with/against the perceived need for, and apparent palliative - if not necessarily restorative - value of the latter? Who indeed? And this writer most certainly doesn't...
But what must surely strike the disinterested observer as more than a tad 'interesting' is how the debate upon all these 'issues of conscience' is gradually becoming blurred into a subsidiary but no less important one, which, in this particular context, is this:
Does one, in particular a medical professional, still have/possess the right to refuse to engage in - any - practice which she or he, for whatever reason whatsoever, happens to deem somehow or other incompatible with her or his 'moral compass'?
For upon the ultimate outcome of such discussion/debate, some - such as myself, anyhow - would argue that the long-cherished principles once held to constitute the very heart of the democratic Westminster tradition depend.
What principles and/or long-held values, you question? After all, aren't we living in a new, modern as - even 'postmodern', and most definitely 'post-Christian' - era, one in which such old-fashioned notions no longer adhere...and even if they may for some, 'what's your truth ain't necessarily mine, and vica-versa'...?
Indeed...we do. More's the pity. But that ain't really the question I've posed or postulated. No, what I'm suggesting is simply that a person be allowed to live and behave **according to the particular (set of) moral values - 'moral compass' if you prefer - that s/he at heart, in her/his heart of hearts, adheres and subscribes to and fundamentally believes in...
...rather than those imposed 'top down' by a Big Brother - or is that Big Sister? - society that has long since eschewed (chewed up and contemptuously spat out) even the mere semblance of its one-time Judaeo-Christian heritage...
...all in the name of the goddess of moral relativism and secular humanism, whose especial enemy and foe is not really 'religion' in general, but most definitely Christianity (and Judaism) in particular.
That, I most respectfully suggest, is the moral conundrum of our own unique day and age, upon the eventual issue of which, as I've already suggested, the ultimate fate (and longevity) of our particular mode of 'civilization' depends...
...and sadly - for those (admittedly increasingly few so seriously 'benighted' folk such as myself) - the prospect ain't at all pretty...
No, as me 'ole mate Smeagol-Gollum would've been wont to 'commentate': "Theeze ain't decent [times]!"
And so the words of the Wise Master look set yet again to be - quite literally - fulfilled in our own day and age, words that relate to this very sort of time and moral conundrum many find themselves in. A time in which people will - however reluctantly - be forced to choose between giving dutiful obeisance to a man-made system of things or to One Who is Unseen but no less Preeminently Real...
One, as the Hebrew prophet Daniel put things to ancient Babylon's King ***Belshazzar, the impious, blasphemous grandson and (eventual) monarchical successor to the Babylonian Empire's once proud but ultimately humbled, truly great, Yahweh-believing and extolling King Nebuchadnezzar (also known as Nebuchadrezzar), 'Who holds [our] breath in His hand and owns all [our] ways'...
And those much-ignored words (I referred to at the outset of the penultimate paragraph), detailing the day and age in which we are presently living and breathing? Ones which, were they given space within the public domain, would doubtless be as roundly ridiculed as Belshazzar (prematurely and stupidly) did the famous 'writing on the wall' (of the selfsame aforementioned All-Prescient One (in one of His pre-incarnation appearances), many would contend, or a very senior angel like Gabriel)?
One Himself the Butt and Target, the Object of unparallelled disdain, mockery, scorn and ridicule - and merciless scourging as portrayed so graphically and realistically in the cinematic 'The Passion of the Christ', as He made His made to Golgotha's tree, and there suffered further indignities and horrific, inhuman cruelties and barbarities - themselves, some convincingly argue, almost unnoticed in comparison with the intense psycho-emotional pain He experienced...
...undertaken vicariously on behalf of everyone who has ever lived, as he took upon Himself and absorbed into His very Being all the sins that had ever been or ever would be committed by the entire human race, and thereby experienced the turning away of His father's face, leading to His despairing cry, "My Father[Daddy], My Father[Daddy], why have You forsaken Me?"
Those (earlier) aforementioned words related not to the ghastly trampling of His precious body (and spiritual being) as just detailed, but rather to the trampling of the human conscience: something foreseen from eternity past which would occur in the coming, world-ending 'Time of Tribulation' 'such as has never (before) been, not ever shall be (again)'...
a time in which Jesus warned His true followers:
...according to Matthew's gospel ('good news'): ...according to Mark's gospel ('good news'):
"Therefore when you see the "But when you see the
'abomination of desolation,' spo- 'abomination of desolation,' spo-
ken of by Daniel the prophet, ken of by Daniel the prophet,
standing in the holy place" standing where it ought not" (let
(whoever reads, let him under- the reader understand), then let
stand),
*****[and then take the appropriate action... *****[everyone take the required course
ipso pronto, for there'll be no time of action, with the utmost urgency]...
to waste...at all]...
What can one possibly add to the Wonderful Counsellor's words, except to say - take heed! For all indications are that that fateful, apocalyptic time is a whole lot closer than we might imagine...
*By which I simply mean a thing one says or formally assents to - for the sake of public appearance(s), for instance, or to be accepted in some sort of organization or fraternity (such as the medical establishment) - but doesn't really, actually mean and/or subscribe to; and/or does so in the full knowledge that when push comes to shove one has no intention whatsoever of following through upon what such a stance necessarily demands (in practical, everyday life).
**But I need to immediately clarify that (upon due rereading and hindsight!), for taken in and of itself it's admittedly a somewhat incredible, even absurd thing to state. In so saying I'm speaking of convictions which don't automatically contradict, even flagrantly violate, the time-honoured norms of pretty well all civilized societies from time and immemorial...- i.e. such universally-held values as the utter sanctity of life, dignity of individuals, integrity of one's (pledged) word, property rights etcetera.
***Curiously enough, to repeat and confirm yet again the old maxim that truth is ever stranger than fiction, Nebuchadnezzar had himself rechristened Daniel 'Belteshazzar'...and his three mates, the three 'Hebrew worthies' as they're sometimes referred to - 'Hananiah, Mishael and ****Azariah' - 'Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego'...
****No, most definitely not 'blood sacrifice' or the like, as those who unworthily impugned the motives and reputation - but not the actual character - of Lindy Chamberlain and her then husband Michael back in Oz around 1980 or so claimed when alleging she'd killed her own baby...
*****According to the David Edwin Bernhardt paraphrase, that is...
To Be Continued (in relation to the issues of euthanasia and especially abortion, in NZ and Ireland)...either appended to this blogpost, or, more likely, in an entirely 'new' one, though the thoughts upon the abortion issue in the Irish Republic were actually scribbled out by me months ago.
But what must surely strike the disinterested observer as more than a tad 'interesting' is how the debate upon all these 'issues of conscience' is gradually becoming blurred into a subsidiary but no less important one, which, in this particular context, is this:
Does one, in particular a medical professional, still have/possess the right to refuse to engage in - any - practice which she or he, for whatever reason whatsoever, happens to deem somehow or other incompatible with her or his 'moral compass'?
For upon the ultimate outcome of such discussion/debate, some - such as myself, anyhow - would argue that the long-cherished principles once held to constitute the very heart of the democratic Westminster tradition depend.
What principles and/or long-held values, you question? After all, aren't we living in a new, modern as - even 'postmodern', and most definitely 'post-Christian' - era, one in which such old-fashioned notions no longer adhere...and even if they may for some, 'what's your truth ain't necessarily mine, and vica-versa'...?
Indeed...we do. More's the pity. But that ain't really the question I've posed or postulated. No, what I'm suggesting is simply that a person be allowed to live and behave **according to the particular (set of) moral values - 'moral compass' if you prefer - that s/he at heart, in her/his heart of hearts, adheres and subscribes to and fundamentally believes in...
...rather than those imposed 'top down' by a Big Brother - or is that Big Sister? - society that has long since eschewed (chewed up and contemptuously spat out) even the mere semblance of its one-time Judaeo-Christian heritage...
...all in the name of the goddess of moral relativism and secular humanism, whose especial enemy and foe is not really 'religion' in general, but most definitely Christianity (and Judaism) in particular.
That, I most respectfully suggest, is the moral conundrum of our own unique day and age, upon the eventual issue of which, as I've already suggested, the ultimate fate (and longevity) of our particular mode of 'civilization' depends...
...and sadly - for those (admittedly increasingly few so seriously 'benighted' folk such as myself) - the prospect ain't at all pretty...
No, as me 'ole mate Smeagol-Gollum would've been wont to 'commentate': "Theeze ain't decent [times]!"
And so the words of the Wise Master look set yet again to be - quite literally - fulfilled in our own day and age, words that relate to this very sort of time and moral conundrum many find themselves in. A time in which people will - however reluctantly - be forced to choose between giving dutiful obeisance to a man-made system of things or to One Who is Unseen but no less Preeminently Real...
One, as the Hebrew prophet Daniel put things to ancient Babylon's King ***Belshazzar, the impious, blasphemous grandson and (eventual) monarchical successor to the Babylonian Empire's once proud but ultimately humbled, truly great, Yahweh-believing and extolling King Nebuchadnezzar (also known as Nebuchadrezzar), 'Who holds [our] breath in His hand and owns all [our] ways'...
And those much-ignored words (I referred to at the outset of the penultimate paragraph), detailing the day and age in which we are presently living and breathing? Ones which, were they given space within the public domain, would doubtless be as roundly ridiculed as Belshazzar (prematurely and stupidly) did the famous 'writing on the wall' (of the selfsame aforementioned All-Prescient One (in one of His pre-incarnation appearances), many would contend, or a very senior angel like Gabriel)?
One Himself the Butt and Target, the Object of unparallelled disdain, mockery, scorn and ridicule - and merciless scourging as portrayed so graphically and realistically in the cinematic 'The Passion of the Christ', as He made His made to Golgotha's tree, and there suffered further indignities and horrific, inhuman cruelties and barbarities - themselves, some convincingly argue, almost unnoticed in comparison with the intense psycho-emotional pain He experienced...
...undertaken vicariously on behalf of everyone who has ever lived, as he took upon Himself and absorbed into His very Being all the sins that had ever been or ever would be committed by the entire human race, and thereby experienced the turning away of His father's face, leading to His despairing cry, "My Father[Daddy], My Father[Daddy], why have You forsaken Me?"
Those (earlier) aforementioned words related not to the ghastly trampling of His precious body (and spiritual being) as just detailed, but rather to the trampling of the human conscience: something foreseen from eternity past which would occur in the coming, world-ending 'Time of Tribulation' 'such as has never (before) been, not ever shall be (again)'...
a time in which Jesus warned His true followers:
...according to Matthew's gospel ('good news'): ...according to Mark's gospel ('good news'):
"Therefore when you see the "But when you see the
'abomination of desolation,' spo- 'abomination of desolation,' spo-
ken of by Daniel the prophet, ken of by Daniel the prophet,
standing in the holy place" standing where it ought not" (let
(whoever reads, let him under- the reader understand), then let
stand),
*****[and then take the appropriate action... *****[everyone take the required course
ipso pronto, for there'll be no time of action, with the utmost urgency]...
to waste...at all]...
What can one possibly add to the Wonderful Counsellor's words, except to say - take heed! For all indications are that that fateful, apocalyptic time is a whole lot closer than we might imagine...
*By which I simply mean a thing one says or formally assents to - for the sake of public appearance(s), for instance, or to be accepted in some sort of organization or fraternity (such as the medical establishment) - but doesn't really, actually mean and/or subscribe to; and/or does so in the full knowledge that when push comes to shove one has no intention whatsoever of following through upon what such a stance necessarily demands (in practical, everyday life).
**But I need to immediately clarify that (upon due rereading and hindsight!), for taken in and of itself it's admittedly a somewhat incredible, even absurd thing to state. In so saying I'm speaking of convictions which don't automatically contradict, even flagrantly violate, the time-honoured norms of pretty well all civilized societies from time and immemorial...- i.e. such universally-held values as the utter sanctity of life, dignity of individuals, integrity of one's (pledged) word, property rights etcetera.
***Curiously enough, to repeat and confirm yet again the old maxim that truth is ever stranger than fiction, Nebuchadnezzar had himself rechristened Daniel 'Belteshazzar'...and his three mates, the three 'Hebrew worthies' as they're sometimes referred to - 'Hananiah, Mishael and ****Azariah' - 'Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego'...
****No, most definitely not 'blood sacrifice' or the like, as those who unworthily impugned the motives and reputation - but not the actual character - of Lindy Chamberlain and her then husband Michael back in Oz around 1980 or so claimed when alleging she'd killed her own baby...
*****According to the David Edwin Bernhardt paraphrase, that is...
To Be Continued (in relation to the issues of euthanasia and especially abortion, in NZ and Ireland)...either appended to this blogpost, or, more likely, in an entirely 'new' one, though the thoughts upon the abortion issue in the Irish Republic were actually scribbled out by me months ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment