July 25th, 2006

Uncle Sam Knows Best

In yet another attempt to show that he knows what’s best, Uncle Sam is now giving medical orders.

16-year-old Abraham Cherrix, of Chincoteague, Va., suffers from Hodgkin’s Disease. He doesn’t want to pursue chemo treatments, and with the support of his parents is pursuing alternative medicines.

But a social worker has intervened, with the help of Judge Jesse Demps of Accomack County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, to mandate that Abraham go to the local hospital to receive “whatever treatment the hospital recommends”. Oh. How nice. And if they don’t comply, they’ll come in and take Abraham by force, a la Elian Gonzalez.

Smells to me like socialism.

Those in favor of the court’s decision in this matter argue that a 16 year old is not old enough to make these types of decisions for him or herself. Interesting, considering that those people are the ones who will also argue that a 16 year old is old enough to go through with an abortion without any parental consent…

[UPDATE: A judge from the Accomack County Circuit Court (higher up than the moronic judge who issued the original order) has suspended the other judge’s order

6 Responses to “Uncle Sam Knows Best”

  1. the narrator
    July 25, 2006 at 8:33 pm #

    Smells to me like socialism.

    What do you think about Hugh B. Brown and other general authorities who supported socialistic policies?

    I asked you a while back what you thought about certain socialistic programs, but you never replied.

    “So are you against all forms of public education, taxes, military, law enforcement, garbage removal, medicare, roads, water, parks, national forests, museums, television, and libraries? These are all socialist aspects of our government.”

    I’d really like your thoughts on these.

  2. Connor
    July 25, 2006 at 9:55 pm #

    I am unfamiliar with Hugh B. Brown’s socialistic policies as well as those of “other general authorities”.

    Socialism, like communism, is a degenerate, corrupt form of the Law of Consecration, Zion, and the United Order. When established and managed under divine direction, these principles and political theories work. When established and managed under the leadership of uninspired men, be they well-intentioned or fascist, they don’t work.

    Some so-called socialist policies are necessary for the government to function, as was understood by the Founding Fathers. Taxes (a limited number and type), law enforcement, and road construction, among others, are examples of this. But there are several other policies and programs that are far from necessary, and only seek to promote liberalistic ideas that we’re all exactly the same and should be entitled to the same benefits, opportunities, and privileges. Medicare, social security, and public education are examples of this.

    As Alma 13 explains, through progression, obedience, and hard work, we’re all on different levels now. I don’t need the government to come and take my money and possessions in an effort to redistribute them among others who have not attained the same status and prosperity as I.

    As Ezra T. Benson stated, governments can only be invested with power that the citizen inherently possesses. I can build a road in front of my home, or I can have the government do that. I can go and fetch water from a well, or I can have the government do that as well. But I can’t force Abraham Cherrix to get chemotherapy, and I can’t force you to share your wealth with me.

    Some policies and programs are clouded in a gray area of perception and application, but it’s events like these that simply scream socialism.

  3. the narrator
    July 26, 2006 at 2:13 pm #

    Socialism, like communism, is a degenerate, corrupt form of the Law of Consecration, Zion, and the United Order.

    I’ve already pointed out the problem with this arguement. Almost any governmental system is a “a degenerate, corrupt form of… Zion.” By reductio ad absurdem we should not have any form of government.

    Some so-called socialist policies

    They are called socialist policies because they are socialist policies.

    I am unfamiliar with Hugh B. Brown’s socialistic policies as well as those of “other general authorities”.

    Sometimes reading beyond The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson can do a person a lot of good. I suggest reading Quinn’s study case of Benson in the second volume of The Mormon Hiearchy. Actually, you could probably benefit from reading the entirety of both volumes.

  4. Connor
    July 26, 2006 at 2:24 pm #

    Almost any governmental system is a “a degenerate, corrupt form of… Zion.”

    Not necessarily. Communism and socialism are degenerate forms because they seek to promote and apply the same principles that the law of consecration does. Our republic does not. You could try and make the argument that a republic or democracy is a degenerate form of a theocracy, but that’d be stretching it just a little. Men who I believe were inspired by God to form this republic aren’t worthy of being compared to socialist tyrants seeking to impose the government’s will on everybody. By the people, for the people. Not by the government, for the people.

    They are called socialist policies because they are socialist policies.

    While some of these policies could fit under the category of socialism, and by nature are socialist, they are nevertheless necessary for our government to operate. That’s all I was trying to say.

    Sometimes reading beyond The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson can do a person a lot of good. … Actually, you could probably benefit from reading the entirety of both volumes.

    I appreciate your inference that I am a closed-minded ignoramus who only reads and studies the point of view that I favor. Your prescription to suggest which books would benefit me most is also quite endearing…

  5. the narrator
    July 26, 2006 at 2:42 pm #

    I appreciate your inference that I am a closed-minded ignoramus who only reads and studies the point of view that I favor. Your prescription to suggest which books would benefit me most is also quite endearing…

    You are welcome. I was giving you a reference for some of Brown’s socialist oppositions to Benson. Also, I was pointing out that your anti-socialist idealogy (in relation to Mormonism) seems to derive from a rather selective reading of Benson, Skousen, and other John Bircher (or Bircher-esque) propaganda. Another book I would highly recommend is Hugh Nibley’s Approaching Zion.

  6. August 13, 2006 at 7:27 pm #

    May I comment that I, too, am dabbling with contrasting ideas among church leaders and scriptorians. I will note that every prophet, starting with Joseph Smith, were aware of socialism and preached against it. Prophets in the mid 20th century (I’m especially thinking of McKay and Benson) were in utter despair over the ever-growing socialist tendencies in our own government. We all want to feel like we care, but do we realize that the so-called “welfare state” tends to harm man more than lift him. Irresponsible, exaggerated welfare programs foster ignorance, idleness, resentment, self contempt, laziness, and it gets worse from there. Indeed, the Church now struggles greatly in the numerous countries infested with socialist programs (many of which are so-called “developed” nations.) It finds difficulty in getting many of these members to become faithful, productive, and self-motivated. (And let’s not even mention what happens in communist countries!) A society can’t advance when a vast quantity decide that it’s easier and better to receive and never contribute.

    While I respect that we have the right to think as we please and must choose whether to aline ourselves with the modern prophets or not, I will note that there is a great fundamental difference between our belief in “prophets, seers and revelators” and “the prophet,” and those who are simply teachers and interpreters. I will also mentions that apostles often have their own political convictions and doctrinal opinions that aren’t necessarily “Thus saith the Lord.” So again, know that EVERY PROPHET since Joseph Smith has decried socialism as satanic, contrary to the Plan of God, harmful to the spirit of man, and so forth.

    P.S. I also sense that the two interlocutors are both of the same faith. I would have expected greater respect for each others opinion and less outright insults. I love to talk politics too, but when it becomes in a sense our “god” we all have to start worrying. Great site, glad I found it.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.