Alt-Right is Secular? Anyone Buy That?

One of my favorite targets is the Discovery Institute (DI) and the lengths they will go through to rationalize just about anything.  Today's topic is "The Religion of the Alt-Right", and it appears to be an attempt at disassociating themselves not only from their religious roots, but any connection with Alt-Right groups.

The Alt-Right is collection of people, self organized into a number of different groups who lean to the far-far right of the political spectrum.  Their main weapon, at least according to the DI is Racism.  Their recent activities in Charlottesville Va is a good example of their behavior.  I think that view is quite narrow.  The Alt-Right is against a number of things, like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Antisemitism, Immigration, Civil and Women's Rights, and pretty much a rejection of any American Ideals.  Their tactics are full of violence and hatred for anyone who supports an alternative view.  Yet, the DI just wants to focus on just Racism.

Now why would the DI want to disassociate themselves from such groups and why use a one-trick argument, Racism?  I see two reasons here.  The first is one of the common themes from the DI, the efforts to disassociate themselves from their conservative religious underpinnings.  You see that in this post because what they are doing is to try and claim that the Alt-Right is not particularly religious, but secular.  Most of this post is a rationalization about the Alt-Right's use of religion and how they really aren't religious  -- regardless of all the religious symbolism and right-wing religious organizations that belong to the Alt-Right.

Why is that important?  Remember the DI is really a religious ministry wearing an ill-fitting lab coat and constantly trying to convince people that they are a scientific organization.  If they were not a religious ministry, then why is this part of the post be necessary?  If you aren't sure here is the first line of the DI's description in Wikipedia (my underlining for emphasis):

"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID)" (Wikipedia: Discovery Institute)

From the same Wikipedia page, a few words from the Dover Court Decision:

"The court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions," and the Institute's manifesto, the Wedge Document, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."^[  It was the court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition."

Now, you are the DI, and you are associated with being conservative as well a being a religious organization.  So how to you try and break any association with the Alt-Right?  You disassociate yourself if you can, and if you can blame Charles Darwin at the same time you have a win-win.

That's what the rest of this post is all about.  And since the DI has tried to establish the Alt-Right as a secular organization, then it's just one more step to claim that they are followers of evolution and lay all the trouble they have been causing at the footsteps of Charles Darwin.  They even manage to drag in Hitler for a brief cameo.

So who does the DI turn to for this attempt? Why Richard Weikart, one of their stable of pseudo-historians and also a Senior Fellow at the DI. 

Richard Weikart is best known for his book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.  The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.  The academic community has been widely critical of the book.  Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and called criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.  Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution. " Wikipedia: Richard Weikart)

Of course the DI doesn't mention that Weikart's book received an almost universal negative criticisms from academics -- historians and theologians alike -- conservative and liberal as well.  The main criticisms focused on his very selective focus on one narrow point of view and failure to regard a host of factors influencing Hitler and the Nazi's.  Bottom line is Weikart's pushing the DI's agenda, and therefore critics don't matter much, after all, the DI and Weikart are doing God's work, aren't they?

So what we have here is not some treatise to be taken seriously.  It looks like nothing more than a rationalization to try and officially disassociate the DI from their religious and conservative underpinnings and at the same time promote an already widely dismissed idea blaming Darwin and Evolution for the abhorrent behavior of some of the DI's philosophical brothers, those in the past and those in the present.

I do have to wonder about the timing of this?  The DI does nothing without a motive.  So why this sudden interest in disassociation with the Alt-Right?  Are they setting the stage for some new argument, or is this just an excuse to trot out Weikart again and his already much discredited ideas?  Guess we'll see what the future brings.

Let's see . . . How Many Way Can We Force People to Comply With Our Religion?

The Discovery Institute has been involved with discussions of BioEthics before and for the most part, I ignored them.  But this time I think they have gone a bit off the deep end and decided to use scare tactics to not only allow people to legally discriminate, but allow medical professionals to discriminate based on their own religion -- with a callous disregard to the welfare of the patient.  Check out how they have overblown the whole discussion in "The Ethical Menace of "Bioethics" Grows" There are several things that bother me about this whole post, first of all, is this what is being said?  I don't believe so.

" . . . the [medical] field increasingly targets the right of doctors to refuse to perform an abortion, euthanize patients, or perform other procedures or issue prescriptions that violate their religious beliefs."

I do love how they lump abortion and euthanasia with contraception (remember, many forms of contraception require a prescription), the key here really isn't the procedure, it's the DI's willingness to let Doctors discriminate based on their religious beliefs.  I have several issues, but before getting into them, let's see what has the DI fired up this time.

Take a look at the part of the bio-ethical statement that got the DI so up in arms, the full statement is at: Consensus statement on conscientious objection in Heathcare, here are the first two articles:

1, Healthcare practitioners’ primary obligations are towards their patients, not towards their own personal conscience. When the patient’s wellbeing (or best interest, or health) is at stake, healthcare practitioners’ professional obligations should normally take priority over their personal moral or religious views.  

2.In the event of a conflict between practitioners’ conscience and a patient’s desire for a legal, professionally sanctioned medical service, healthcare practitioners should always ensure that patients receive timely medical care. When they have a conscientious objection, they ought to refer their patients to another practitioner who is willing to perform the treatment. In emergency situations, when referral is not possible, or when it poses too great a burden on patients or on the healthcare system, health practitioners should perform the treatment themselves. 

Do either of these statements look like they are going to force a doctor to perform an abortion, prescribe contraception, or euthanasia?  Really?  Look at the words, when they have an objection, they should refer the patient to a doctor who isn't carrying their religious baggage.  One of my concerns is that doctors with strong religious feelings might opt out of making a referral.  Seriously!  Think it through.  Many theists preach their particular brand of religion to non-believers in an effort to 'save' them.  Do you really think all theist doctors is going to refer a patient to a doctor who is going to do a procedure that violates their belief system?

I don't think some of them will, and they will use their belief system as rationalization.  Can you trust a doctor who places their belief system ahead of a patients welfare to be honest about things that conflict with that belief set?  See what I mean!  Back to the statements, the one exception is in an 'emergency situation', so let's address that.

Can anyone even imagine an emergency situation requiring euthanasia?  Think about that.  Assisted suicide is legal in a number of states and the reasons are normally because of a incurable illness that will not only degrade any sort of a quality of life but place an incredible financial burden on the remaining family or society.  In those states you can request an assisted suicide.  I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea because I am not in such a situation.  But if it is a legal option, it's something that can be considered . . . but is it an emergency to the point where another doctor cannot be consulted? Hardly! It's not an immediate thing, some states require various forms of counseling to make sure the patient is picking this option for, what the state calls, the right reason.

How about contraception, or other potentially religiously-disagreeable prescription, although the only one that comes to mind is contraception.  If a doctor wants to be a doctor, then they have to face the fact that people are going to do things that the doctor himself might disagree with.  That might be smoking, drinking and sex not for procreation.  The doctor cannot and should not be the arbiter for making those decisions.  If that were the case, why not a prescription for condoms?  But no, what we have are theists who are making the decision for someone, and obviously for women.  As far as I know there are no prescriptions for any male contraception (yet!).  The decision belongs, not to the doctor, but to the patient. But, back to the subject, is there an emergency situation requiring contraception?  No, you might need it and not have it, but it's not an emergency unless you are making a bad movie!

How about an abortion?  There is one case where an emergency abortion might be required and that would be to save the life of the mother.  Any other form of abortion is not an emergency!  To be honest, in my opinion that shouldn't even be a question about whether or not it's legal in any location.  You are talking about saving the patient's life.  At that point any decision should be up to the patient and their family, not the doctor.  Once the decision is made, any doctor worth the title should be able to step past their personal objections and perform the procedure.  Yes, it might be personally disagreeable, but then so is the decision to cut off a leg due to gangrene or many other emergency actions!

See where I am going?  The bio-ethics statements on conscientious objections to any medical procedure is not going to force any doctor to do something against their religious beliefs.  Only one of the examples even apply in an emergency, the other examples are not emergencies and can be referred to other physicians . . . providing their are other physicians who can perform the procedure.

That's issue number 2 for me.  The same groups objecting to these procedures are also trying to make them illegal.  How facilities that are licensed for abortions have been shut down due to losing funding, protests, and even bombings?  Regardless of the other services they provide, Christian Conservatives have been too successful is stripping Planned Parenthood of funding in many states and other actions designed to end medical practices that they claim violate their religious beliefs. That's one tactic, in another they have managed to place such restrictions, for example having hallways wide enough for two stretchers to pass side by side.  This is a requirement for hospitals, not clinics.  But by requiring such standards, they are trying to drive such clinics out of business.  My concern is that it might be acceptable to refer a patient to another doctor or facility, but will there be such a facility available?

 Contraception is regarded by many theists as a violation of their beliefs, to the point where even the Pope speaks out against it!  If they are successful, then where is someone supposed to turn when there is no medical professional practiced in these areas?

My final issue is more related to the DI than this specific issue, it's with this quote:

"Would anyone assert that a non-doctor should be able to diagnose cancer or perform an appendectomy?"

Well for one, the Discovery Institute makes such assertions.  Don't you remember this:

"We don't need to rely slavishly on what scientists say because, in an important sense, we are all scientists, capable of judging a big scientific idea like evolution, if not necessarily the technical details, for ourselves." (More Scientists Praise Douglas Axe's Undeniable)

Yes, we are all capable of judging big scientific ideas for ourselves, right?  If that's so, then we don't need 'experts', we can use our intuition, right?  The DI has been peddling this idea that intuition is as reliable as scientific investigation.  But they aren't saying that here, here they are question the idea that someone other than Doctors might be able to function in some roles currently filled by doctors.  However . . .

Isn't that currently happening?  I mean over my lifetime I have seen role changes for many medical roles that used to be strictly in the doctors' purview.  Nursing roles have changes, many       hospitals are using  Physicians Assistants (Certified),  for many treatment and only bring in an MD or other specialist when needed.  Whether or not someone other than a doctor can do any medical procedure is a matter of training more than anything else.  I'm not saying someone other than a Doctor should diagnose cancer, but then the bio-ethics under discussion aren't saying that either.

Take Hospice Care.  Throughout a recent terminal illness, once Hospice was involved, doctors were pretty much hands off.  It wasn't until there was a new medical requirement did any doctors get into things and you had to transfer from Hospice care back to Medical care or there were all sorts of legal and insurance issues.  BTW, that was in Washington State, the home state of the DI.  So it's OK for non-doctors to manage the care for terminal patients, but if your religious views on life are involved, it's got to be a medical doctor?  Why?

This is pretty typical of the DI.  They take a stand not based on logic or even medical necessity, but one based on their religious beliefs.  Then they create a straw man trying to tell you what someone else is says, in this case the Consensus statement on conscientious objection in Heathcare -- only their strawman doesn't give it to you straight, they 'interpret' it for you . . . in other words spin it for their own purposes.  Then they want you to help demolish the strawman!

I don't know where you stand, but where I stand is simple.  A doctor's oath should come before any other considerations up to and including their belief system.  If they are incapable is setting their beliefs aside for the welfare of their patient, then I believe it's time to find another line of work.  That sounds harsh, but how can a profession develop a level of trust that is needed when the patient cannot be sure the doctor has their welfare as their foremost concern.  The rationalization that the doctor is also concerned for a patients spiritual welfare doesn't hold any water for me.  It's not part of a doctor's duties, training, or even job to play that particular card.

When a doctor let's their religious beliefs take precedence over their medical responsibilities, what they are doing is inflicting their belief set on another human being.  If that is allowed, then where is the line drawn?  Parents who allow their children to die because their belief system doesn't accept medical treatment have been, and should continue, to be held accountable.  Shouldn't we be holding doctors to the same standard?