A SECOND OPINION
A Second Opinion welcomes the freely written articles of our diverse membership, whether these conform to the opinions of our publishers, our Editorial Board or other groups. However, we ask that opinions remain collegial and respectful. The Editorial Board and Oversight Committee reserve the right to choose what is published. We invite you to share your thoughts with us, and to respond to others, at editor @ glms. org. Publication does not represent endorsement by Louisville Medicine or GLMS. Let us hear from you!
I grew up attending church every Sunday morning, rain or shine, in what is now called, for political classification, an“ evangelical” Christian church. I was raised by the dignity-of-every-human-life crowd, espousing a belief in a( T) ruth, with a capital“ T”, manifest by loving your neighbor as yourself as an embodiment of God’ s love. Over the last few decades, observing the evangelical crowd living out their worship that is their daily lives, I have, distressingly, witnessed their( T) ruth become a( t) ruth, with a lowercase“ t.” This( t) ruth, one of fear, belligerent ignorance and exclusion, aligns now more closely with a political agenda, than one divine. Consequently, as a Christian and a physician, I have experienced a divergence of two identities that had once seemed to exist in parallel.
On Jan. 20, 2025, the White House announced the withdrawal of the U. S., by executive order, from the World Health Organization( WHO), creating predictable angst in the health community. The withdrawal of the U. S. from a collaborative organization focused on data collection, preparedness, shared resources and improved health for the worldwide population, exemplified well the isolationist bent and( t) ruth of the current administration and its supportive electorate. Shortly thereafter, the vice president’ s public perversion of Augustine’ s ordo amoris, 1 as justification of this and other executive actions, clearly illustrated a warped embrace of history and a warm embrace of( t) ruth.
However, the current president, with promised“ shock and awe,” issued a flurry of executive orders in the first hours and days of his administration, including denying birthright citizenship and“ Protecting American People Against Invasion.” 2 While creating much noise in public discourse, the current president told us all what he was going to do. Despite his tendency to be untethered to any truth,
( T) ruth or( t) ruth? by JOHN DAVID KOLTER, MD
he seemed intent on his campaign promises. Many emotions, but surprise, nay“ shock,” is not among them.
I share in the angst of so many in the health community surrounding the administration’ s policy mandates. However, nothing cuts at my work as a physician, and my bruised, battered and somewhat reluctant identity as a Christian, than the physical and emotional abuse of fellow living beings. I, more viscerally, recognize an anger, the origins of which well precede this current administration, that surmounts the angst and anti-reactionary noise of response to recent executive orders.
This administration, in its first incarnation, unforgettably separated thousands of immigrant children from their parents at the border as an inhumane and cruel attempt at deterring immigrants from leaving their native situations, however desperate. 3 Absent from the heinous display of overt psychological abuse of children was the voice, the purported( T) ruth, of evangelicals, those that insist on the sanctity of every human life. Watching my own childhood church morph from a“ conscious in the community” to a politically active organization with their“ One Woman, One Man” advertising campaign during Kentucky’ s 2004 constitutional amendment vote on marriage, I expected audacious voices of outrage at the perceived unconscionable. However, there were no billboard ad campaigns, no posterboard-clad demonstrations on the steps of political power, no crisis immigration centers, no mass evangelical tears for the abuse of unparented children. There was, however, a primary and an election cycle thereafter, a vote as an opportunity to make clear an opposition to abuse of fellow humans. Yet, evangelicals were, evidently, all in for 2.0, repeatedly laying hands at prayer breakfasts and lending 8 out of 10 of their votes to the little( t) mastermind of it all. 4
A withdrawal from the WHO is regrettable at best, but even more germane to those who have taken an oath to“ do no harm or injustice,” was the resumption of abuse four days into the current
32 LOUISVILLE MEDICINE OPINION