The Wrong Definition of Hate

 “You keep on using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means!” So said Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. In the movie he was speaking of the word “inconceivable.” He could say the same thing today about the word “hate.” When people disagree with one another over moral issuesthey no longer simply declare one another wrong, misguided or mistaken. The other side, most often the side supporting traditional values, is declared to be “hateful.”

I saw this recently in an unexpected place, a sports column on Yahoo. The author, Jay Busbee, wrote an article about the potential fallout resulting from the Georgia legislature’s passage of a bill protecting religious institutions and individuals who do not perform services that go against the tenets of their faith. The bill, HB 757, does not specifically address a particular service, but no one denies that it was designed to address potential recrimination against those who do not perform same sex weddings or allow the use of their facilities for that purpose, and for religious individuals such as florists, photographers, and bakers who similarly wish to decline participating in same sex ceremonies.

Mr. Busbee wrote that the city of Atlanta might lose out in its bids to host major sporting events such as the Super Bowl and NCAA Final Fours as a result of the legislation. In his article he made his thoughts about the legislation clear. He called the legislation a “so-called Religious Liberty bill” and said that the bill was “discrimination, plain and simple” and suggested that the bill arose out of “anger crossbred with fear.” He closed the piece by writing that Georgia is “The State Hanging on to Hate.”

It seems that in the eyes of Mr. Busbee (and those who think as he does) hate is the only possible motivation for those who do not want to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies. It is never a result of a kind and loving person following a sincerely held religious belief. He seems to be either ignorant or intolerant of what the Bible teaches on the subject. There are a number of passages (such as Romans 1) that communicate dire consequences for those who live contrary to the moral teachings of Scripture. He dismisses out of hand the idea that if someone believes a lifestyle to be harmful, refusing to participate in it or support itcould be construed asan act of love, not an act of hate. 

His words imply a profound disrespect of faith, a position that religious belief should not intrude into everyday life, endure beyond Sunday mornings or extend outside the walls of the church. To Mr. Busbee it seems religion is at its best quaint and at its worst evil. This is a convenient position to take, for when religious belief is marginalized, when it is considered to be mythical, false or deceptive, there is no need to respect its teachings or the people who follow them. We are reaching a point where our society respects an individual’s right to believe what they want but only respects the individual’s right to live according to those beliefs when they are inoffensive to others. Faith only matters in matters that are insignificant. When it comes to serious issues that impact society, faith is irrelevant.

The unpleasant truth overlooked by Mr. Busbee is that when acceptable religious practice is determined by those outside of the faith, faith loses its significance. If God exists, He by definition will not be bound by the values of any culture. Morality and righteousness will be determined by Him alone, independent of the desires, beliefs and practices of those He created. More significantly, when defined by God, morality does not change.

God does not change but societies do. As societies become more secular conflict between individuals of faith and society at large are increasingly likely, for people who truly believe will not likely yield. Mr. Busbee was correct in writing that there would be adverse consequences should the Georgia legislature side with those whose faith puts them in conflict with changing social values. As our society is evolving rapidly, these conflicts will become more frequent.

As people of faith find themselves in the minority they will also find themselves in increasing danger of being persecuted for their beliefs. Those who call religious liberty laws hateful and who threaten boycotts are inadvertently making the case for the proponents of religious liberty laws. It is a fear of recrimination and punishment, of being treated as if religious faith is hateful, that inspires such legislation. The Georgia law, and others like it,  was designed to protect people of faith from those who disagree with them. Calling the law hateful is a simplistic denial of this reality.

While there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate it is important to remember that if we wish to be a truly tolerant society, tolerance will need to be bidirectional. If only one side of a debate is tolerated, tolerance does not exist.

-Bart

A Prescription Error, A Relationship Preserved

The refill request was for a muscle relaxant, one with significant potential for addiction. I opened the patient’s chart to see when it has last been filled. I had approved a refill 25 days prior. This request was 5 days early.

Early requests are not entirely unusual, as patients are often afraid that waiting to the last minute can result in them running out of medications. A pattern of early refills can indicate a problem so I decided to log into the state controlled substance database to view the patient’s prescription history. It seemed that he had consistently been filling the medications 3-5 days ahead of the due date. I decided to investigate further.

I scrolled back through the online history and saw something that made my heart sink. The database showed that 2 months earlier the patient had filled the medication at two different pharmacies one day apart. If this was true, the patient was abusing the medication.

I could not believe it. This patient was one of my favorites, our interactions had been consistently enjoyable, often with interesting conversation. (He is a passionate and hard working man and we have much in common.) The thought that he might have been abusing his medication, that I might be forced to confront him and possibly dismiss him from the practice filled me with dread. Unfortunately, the evidence on my computer screen was hard to ignore.

I called my receptionist over and asked her to call each of the pharmacies to confirm that they had indeed filled the medications on the dates indicated. A few minutes later she handed me a note. Both pharmacies had confirmed the refills.

I wondered how to address this with the patient. The evidence was pretty clear but something just didn't feel right. I wondered if my unease was more about the possibility that I had been deceived than it was about the patient’s circumstance. I decided that I did not need to be confrontational immediately, that I would give the patient a chance to explain.

I called him on the phone and he answered immediately. “I received your refill request,” I told him, “but it was a few days early.” I went on, “ So I checked the state database to review your history, and according to them, you refilled the medication twice in January only a day apart, on the 16th and 17th.”

“Doc, there’s no way. I didn’t get two prescriptions. Let me call the pharmacies!” He was adamant, yet not defensive. I told him that I would not be able to fill the medications without him coming to the office, as we would have to address the issue and I would need to document it in the record. As much as I wanted to trust him it would be a mistake to assume that the pharmacies were at fault. I told him he would need to sign a controlled substance agreement and that his practice of using different pharmacies based on his work schedule would need to end.

He did not argue at all. “Of course, I understand. I will come in tomorrow!”

I received a text from him within a few minutes, saying he had just called and only one of the pharmacies had confirmed a refill. The state database must be wrong.

I decided to call the pharmacies myself. The first pharmacist came on the line right away and looked up the patient’s medication history. She read off the record for the date in question. “We show a prescription on January 26th that was deleted. The patient never received the medication.”

I was so relieved! The patient had been telling the truth! (When it comes to controlled medications this does not often happen.) I called the patient back and gave him the news. I told him I could refill his medications but that it would need to be on the due date, that I could not refill the medications early. He was in total agreement.

When I hung up the phone I breathed a sigh of relief. I had dodged a bullet. There was a time not so long ago when I would have assumed the worst and been more confrontational. If I had done that, a relationship might have been lost. Giving him the benefit of the doubt had made all the difference.

-Bart

The Wrong Kind of Easter Message

They had a megaphone, held up sloppy handwritten signs and a GoPro camera and were shouting as church members walked by them on the way to the cars after Easter service. From a distance I could not tell what they were protesting about. I wondered if they were atheists are some anti-Christian cult. When I came even with the protesters I learned the cause was even more ridiculous. They were animal rights activists.

One of them called out to my wife, “Who died for you this morning?” Surprised, she gave the answer appropriate for the morning, “Jesus.” The protester clarified his “point", rephrasing the question, “Who did you eat this morning?” It took me a moment to realize that he was telling us that it was not right that animals die for our sustenance. He apparently believed that animals have feelings and desires, just like people do. He didn't know us, did not know if we were carnivorous or vegan, yet he was convinced that we were evildoers in need of nutritional repentance. 

He and his colleagues rained down taunts and jeers as people walked by. They were clearly not interested in dialogue. They only wanted to attack us for the wrongness of our thinking.

Among the claims I heard as we passed-

- Animals want to live just like people do.

- Animals want to be with their families too.

- Animals have feelings.

- Eating meat is tantamount to murder.

These claims were repeated over and over, in  loud voices and with condescending tones. The message they were trying to proclaim was not the message their audience received. They wanted us to believe that animals have rights and feelings. What we believed was that they were terribly misguided and deceived. 

Those who walked by them were Christians, people who hold to the biblical teaching that mankind is unique, that people alone are created in the image and likeness of God. Unlike animals, we alone possess body, soul and spirit. We alone have reason and creativity, we alone will live eternally. We all know that animals are not at all like us.

We also know that the Bible does not advocate for the vegan lifestyle. The Old Testament gives detailed instructions for offering animal sacrifices. The most holy feast in the nation of Israel, the Passover, involves a meal centered around a ceremonially killed, unblemished lamb. Jesus himself participated in the celebration of this feast. These facts did not stop them from condemning us as we walked by.

As I walked away I wondered what it was they were hoping to accomplish by their diatribe. They could not expect that anyone would be persuaded by their angry shouts. Increased volume does not make up for the ignorance of an argument. I suspect their goal was one shared by many political protesters, Facebook commenters and internet trolls. They wanted to feel morally superior. What they did not realize was that they were creating the same feelings in those who walked by.

- Bart

Thanks for reading. If you want to receive future posts via email, click on the subscribe button. You can also follow me on Twitter @bartbarrettmd

Two Choices at Easter

When it comes to Easter there are only two options. Either the holiday celebrates an actual historical event, or it doesn’t. The man Jesus either rose from the grave as the Christian scriptures proclaim or He didn’t.

If Jesus did not rise from the grave, if he died and stayed dead like an ordinary man, then Christians are fools. If Christ is not risen we are to be pitied as deceived losers who have wasted our time, talents and resources for nothing. The church is nothing more than a social club based on outdated morality.

If Jesus is indeed risen from the dead then the opposite is true. The deceived losers are those who plot the course of their life apart from Jesus’ teaching, for If he is risen he is no ordinary man. His teaching must be followed. If he is risen God is real and so is eternity. If he is risen then faith matters.

While most people have an opinion on whether or not the Easter account is true, only a fraction of those I have encountered have actually taken the time to consider their choice and fewer still have invested any time in evaluating the evidence in support of Jesus' resurrection. Given the ramifications of an incorrect answer to the question of whether or not Jesus is risen it would behoove everyone to take the time to answer carefully. Lives are at stake.

Something to consider at Easter time. 

- Bart

Wanted- Real Men

While my career plans changed often after I started college my main goal in life did not. For as long as I can remember I wanted to be a man. Not in the John Wayne, Arnold Schwarzenegger, action hero sense, but in the head of the household provide for your family, love your wife sense.

I was able to hang on to this goal through the years because it had meaning. It was clearly defined and easily understood. I knew that God desired all boys to become men and I knew what it meant to be a man in God’s eyes. I have spent my life pursuing this definition and the pursuit has led to success in the most important areas of my life, my roles of husband and father.

The definition of manhood was simple and straightforward to me 35 years ago. Times have changed and for many in our world the term now has so many meanings as to have no meaning at all. The result is a generation of young people who are rudderless and fatherless. It is not politically correct but I think it is time for real men to speak out about what true manhood is.

Real men love and live sacrificially, work to better themselves everyday and worry more about who they are instead of what they have.

Real men-

- Devote themselves to one woman, for a lifetime. I meet far to many males who go through life seeking casual relationships with as many women as they can find who are willing to service their sexual desires. Real men understand the importance of devotion.

- Are committed to their children. They realize being a father is the most important job they will ever do. They are willing to put parental success ahead of professional success.

- Practice self-control. They work to control their negative impulses. They set aside anger. They make home a safe place for their wives and children.

- Are men of faith. They submit to a higher authority. They live their lives according to the values defined by God. They live according to God’s moral code and not their own. They pass these values on to their children.

- Work for the long term security of their families. They deny themselves temporary pleasures and toys in order to save for the future.

- Make their own way in the world whenever possible. No job is beneath them and they do not look for a handout. They value work.

These characteristics of manliness are accessible and achievable by all men regardless of their background, ethnicity, education or status. They need not be defended, explained or justified, because they are true.

-Bart

Thanks for reading and a special thanks to those who share. Remember you can subscribe to the blog and also that you can follow me on twitter @bartbarrettmd.