And murderously so.

When freedom and liberty are sacrificed on the altar of Socialism (which America has embraced as its guiding idol for some time now, by the way), the literal sacrifice of children follows in short order.

This truth has been born out in tragic fashion once again in the case of Alfie Evans, who is quite literally in the process of being murdered by the United Kingdom for the sake of Socialism.

In This Is The Real Reason Britain Won’t Release Alfie Evans To Italy, Red State chronicles the latest developments in this sad saga:

“In recent weeks many people across the globe have been moved and outraged by the story of little Alfie Evans, whose life hung in the balance in a British hospital and whose fate was taken from the hands of his parents by the National Health Service (NHS) and the courts.

As of the time of this publication, Alfie was forcibly removed from his breathing devices but continues to breathe on his own. The NHS and the courts would not even allow Alfie to go home with his parents, and when the nation of Italy offered to fly him to a Rome hospital for experimental treatment (at their own expense) the courts told Alfie’s parents they would not be allowed to leave the country.”

I pause here to note that supposedly “free people” are, in this Orwellian age, not “allowed to leave” their country.

The article continues:

“Even after Alfie surprised doctors with his will to live he was denied water for nearly six hours. He continued to be denied nourishment. With the denial of his exit from England altogether it was clear that the British courts and the NHS had no intention of letting Alfie live.

But why?

Though still morally squishy there’s a valid argument to be made that when a nation votes for socialist healthcare they are agreeing to let the government treat their lives as algorithms. When the bottom line is measured in dollars rather than lives, the risk a society takes is illustrated in cases like Alfie’s. The NHS simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition. Alfie’s chances of any meaningful recovery were slim to none. It isn’t outside the boundaries of reason that the government tasked with his treatment would deem it simply not worth the effort expended.

It’s cruel, but logical…the inevitable result of a single-payer system.

I may not agree with such reasoning, but I can at least derive the path that such woeful decisions must take in a place like the UK.

What is not logical and nearly incomprehensible is the decision of the court not simply to deny Alfie further treatment, but then deny his right and the right of his parents to leave the country to seek treatment elsewhere. Even that decision might make a tiny bit of sense if it were to add to the NHS’ costs. That would be a problem for that pesky algorithm. However, Italy had already sent an airlift equipped to take the young child. His transportation and hospital provisions were covered by donations and the state of Italy. In fact, to move Alfie out of the care of the NHS would only save them money and labor. Alfie’s parents would have one more shot at rescuing his life. It seems like a win-win for everyone.

And still, the courts have barred the family from leaving the country. . . “

So why?

Why bring such pain and an apparent death sentence to an innocent child like Alfie?

The article goes on to provide a compelling – and damning – answer:

“Let’s ponder that for just one moment. Great Britain is a nation with a proud history of freedom and democracy. Most other nations around the world and Britons themselves would describe it as a “free country”, and yet here is a case where its free citizens are not allowed to leave its borders.

Is this something that should happen in a “free country”? Would Alfie’s parents be barred from taking a vacation? Would anyone in their right mind in that country find it acceptable or consistent with British values to deny any family the right to leave for a vacation or to visit a relative abroad? Why then is it allowable for this family to be virtual hostages in their land simply because their reason for travel is medical care rather than pleasure?

Some years ago I watched a documentary on the design and building of the Berlin Wall between East Germany and West Germany. It included extremely rare clips of interviews with the architects (I was shocked to learn there was actually a deliberate design to that monstrosity).

I searched high and low for the film, but was unable to locate it. If any reader has any clue where to find it please do let me know…I’ve been desperate to watch it again.

In one clip, an aging (former) East German Wall architect spoke briskly about the strategy of his designs. Although the interview was conducted during what must have been the last years of his life, he still seemed deeply resentful that he was being asked to defend the wall’s erection even after the fall of the Eastern Bloc. I’ll never forget what he said in that interview – it made the hair stand up on my arms.

With great sincerity – almost pleading with the interviewer – he said,  “We had to build the wall. Too many people were leaving for the West and you need people to make socialism work. We had to build the wall to keep them in so they could see how great socialism was, so they could see that it works.”

As I can’t find the clip, you’ll just have to take my word for it (or not). The point is – this man and his comrades felt that the only way to sell people on their socialist vision was to force them to live in it. Those leaving were just too stupid to understand that it was the best thing for them.

This is exactly the point in the ruling by the NHS and the courts to forbid their free citizens from leaving the country. If they are allowed to flee the heart-wrenching consequences of socialism, then others will want to do the same. How can a socialist system work without the cooperation of everyone? And how can you force people to participate in that socialist system when they discover that system may kill them or their loved ones?

You build a wall.

Great Britain doesn’t yet have a wall to keep its citizens in, but the courts have built one with the law. . . “

This what happens when the State presumes the authority to make rules or “laws” that stand in opposition to the true and unbreakable Law of God.

This is what happens when man-made “laws” are, in fact and in essence, lawlessness according to the Law and Word of God.

Liberty, freedom, security, peace, and prosperity are stripped away…all “for the good of the masses”, of course.

People are killed…purposefully.

Children are sacrificed…purposefully.

Anything to preserve the twin idols of Statism and Socialism.

We covered this reality of life in God’s creation a while back in an article entitled  Presuppositional Law: Where we begin with law determines where we end,which seems worthy of reconsidering in light of little Aflie’s State-sanctioned sacrifice:

“What is law?

What is the basis for law?

What ultimately determines whether a thing is lawful or lawless?

What we often automatically and unconsciously presuppose about the origin and nature of law determines what we will allow ourselves to see and consider from that point forward. Our presuppositions about the essence of law dictate which “truths” we will acknowledge as legitimate and which “realities” we will allow on our radar.

Where we really begin with our consideration of law is fundamental to where we will allow ourselves to go (and be taken) in pursuit of answers.

The same goes for family, marriage, liberty, freedom, and life itself. That’s just how things work in God’s creation. Always has been. Always will be. There are no exceptions and there is no workaround. Everything in His creation is bound and defined by His Nature as revealed in His Word, whether or not we believe it, acknowledge it, or like it.

Law, as with all other things in the created universe, can only begin to be rightly understood by going to the beginning:

In the beginning, God created . . . ~ Genesis 1:1a

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ~ Colossians 1:16-17 (bold emphasis added)

So it is that we understand that law is not a creation or invention of man. Law is not something that man can tweak or modify as he sees fit apart from the Nature of God as revealed in His Word.

Law belongs to God. It is a reflection of Him in His creation. It is born from, bound to, defined by and dependent upon His Nature.

Only with this simple but profound and essential truth in hand and held tight are we are able to rightly understand and apply law in God’s creation.

But we aren’t really encouraged to think of law this way, are we?

Of course not.

Every unbelieving “expert” and “leader” in the land  – be they of a Pagan Political Right or Pagan Political Left flavor – is all about promoting and reinforcing the notion that law is man’s and that any consideration of law here “in the real world” must begin with the assumption – the presupposition – that man is somehow, some way legitimately empowered and entitled to determine for himself what is lawful and what is lawless.

What could be more American than that?

And what could more quickly and easily provide clarity as to why our culture is spiraling into oblivion before our lawless, unbelieving little eyes?

What else could we have ever expected from a land proudly and defiantly built upon the “virtue” of religious pluralism? What else could have ever come to any land whose people claim the “right” (God-given, even) to openly worship false gods?

How could any people so proudly consecrated to the promotion of religious pluralism produce anything better than “legal” child sacrifice and “gay marriage” at the end of the day?

Why would we expect any more or any better from a “land of the free” where “freedom” includes the “right” to openly worship Satan?

This is where law leads when we presuppose it to be man’s plaything.

This is what law becomes when we imagine it to be anything other than wholly reliant upon the Nature of God as revealed in His Word.

This is the lesson of America…a lesson that the Church is well served to note and apply as we move forward through this temporary wreckage and toward the supernatural victories and restoration to come, all by His grace, all for His glory, and all to the eternal benefit of His people.”

Counterfeit laws build walls between us and the liberty, freedom, peace, security, prosperity, and maturity that we need.

God’s Law build walls between us and the idolatry and sin that will destroy us, our families, and our culture.

Britain’s approach to law is clearly in the counterfeit camp on most issues.

The same can be said for the United States.

May God graciously intervene and save little Alfie in spite of the hellish State-crafted systems that seek to deny him life and liberty, and may God grant us the conviction and repentance that we desperately need on the subjects of law and civil government so that we might find true freedom, liberty, hope, and life by obeying Christ as King in political practice.

Please check out our video channel and our news satire site.