The American revolution was, according to historian Page Smith a “logical extension” of the European Enlightenment. This was a period encompassing the mid 17th century to the late 18th century that resulted in an explosion of thought that radically transformed government, society, and the way people looked at the world around them. Writers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote brilliant treatises on the natural rights of man and the worth of individuals in society. These were the ideas that so affected people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and resulted in western civilization’s most important experiment in self-government; the United States of America.

The American constitution was written, according to Smith, at “the last possible moment in history” that such a document was possible. Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” was to soon be supplanted by Rationalism. Smith argues (most compellingly) that the tug of war between the rationalists and supporters of the enlightenment at the constitutional convention brought to fruition a document that melded the best of both worlds; individual rights were protected by a strong central government that was itself restrained by carefully enumerating those powers granted by the people.

As Ronald Reagan pointed out on numerous occasions, the government’s powers are defined by what the people cede to it, not by what rights the government decides to give to the people. Reagan also made clear that this was the basis of “American Exceptionalism;” a concept that has fallen into disfavor amongst the left over the past quarter century. More than anything else, it is this philosophy of government that separates us from other democracies in the world.

And that’s what makes the Groningen Protocols an object lesson in why our founders were right. The protocols have sparked outrage in the blogosphere even though nary a peep has been heard from the MSM about the Dutch preparing to expand the notion of euthanasia to include killing children deemed to be a “burden” to their parents and society. What’s so astonishing, worrying, and frightening to me is that because the Dutch believe that parents are “too involved (?)” in their own childs welfare, such a decision on killing the child should be left to a committee of doctors.

The fact that this is monstrous should go without saying. What’s truly frightening however is the lack of reaction by media in the US and Europe to this rebirth of the worst of Nazi euthanasia policies.

In William L. Schirer’s classic “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” the author points out that while Nazis encouraged “Aryan” women to have as many babies as possible, (even out of wedlock) non-Aryans such as Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and others were the victims of forced abortions and sterilization. It was but a short jump from those policies to the euthanasia practiced against the deformed, the retarded, and all who, in the opinion of the doctor, would be a burden on the Reich.

The Groningen Protocols eerily echo these policies and call into question the very nature of man’s relationship to government in a free society. When the most important right of all—the right to life—is put in the hands of a committee, it’s time for the Dutch people and indeed the entire euthanasia movement to rethink and reevaluate what they’re trying to accomplish.

How did we go from the idea that terminally ill people should decide for themselves whether to live with their suffering or end it with the assistance of their family doctor to this nightmare scenario of faceless bureaucrats deciding who lives, who dies, and on what basis those decisions are made? Is this the “slippery slope” opponents of assisted suicide have been talking about for years?

Hugh Hewitt links to a post by Mark Roberts where in the comments section. someone left this thought provoking note:

“I have a 14 y.o. daughter with the severe form of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) mentioned in this article. I’m devastated. I can’t believe that someone could decide to kill a child with any disorder. Yes, life is extremely difficult and painful for my daughter. And the amount of time that is spent on keeping her alive is astronomical, but I’m glad she’s mine…”

This courageous man would be denied any meaningful say in his own daughter’s life and death. How can that possibly be right? What insanity has gripped the minds of proponents of these protocols that would allow them the conceit to believe that their judgment was better than the child’s own family.

And Hindrocket from Powerline, in one of the most powerful and moving posts on this subject I’ve read on the net, weighs in with some extraordinary personal admissions:

“For most of my life, I thought that philosophers could generate intellectual systems, independent of religious belief, that would, on a strictly rational basis, reproduce all of the essentials of the 20th century system that has worked well for this country. I no longer believe that to be the case. It seems appallingly clear, now, that the secular path—the road that has been taken by the Netherlands and almost all of western Europe—leads inexorably to the view that men and women are cattle, and the only reasonable approach is to appoint a committee of wise men to decide when it is time for them to die.”

Compare Hindrocket’s views with this article that appeared in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, the bible of secular humanists:

“Can science and reason be used to develop ethical judgments? Many theists claim that without religious foundations, “anything goes,” and social chaos will ensue. Scientific naturalists believe that secular societies already have developed responsible ethical norms and that science and reason have helped us to solve moral dilemmas.”

This is revealing of a mindset that places rationality above reason. It may be rational to kill children for the good of all, but reason (which historically is based on a belief in some kind of deity) would restrain such a notion based on the idea that there are limits placed on man to interfere with another’s liberty; and that fundamental liberty—given by a deity to ALL men—trumps any and all efforts to deny such basic rights.

Captain Ed has some thoughts on why this story isn’t getting more play in the media:

“The lack of widespread horror following Groningen’s announcement betrays a world where human life only matters for its commercial value, not as a sacred or unique gift. Even the revelation that Groningen proposes to kill children it deems too inconvenient to live despite their parents’ wishes, up to age 12, fails to shock a world desensitized to humanity and wrapped up in its so-called secular “humanism”.”

The Capn’ also has some strong thoughts about the “greased chute” we’ve fallen into:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have not just reached a slippery slope—we have hit a greased chute, which is what depresses me more than anything else. Now that Groningen has commenced killing the undesirables and the world has answered with a shrug, we will now hear from the chorus of statists telling us that in an era of limited resources, we need to make these hard decisions for the benefit of the families involved and the greater good of society. That child who may never walk or talk will be such a burden on his family, they’ll say; the parents are too close to the situation to make an informed decision, so we’ll make it for them—for their own good, of course.”

Is there a way we can alert people to this travesty? So far, only a few conservative magazines and right of center blogs have been talking about this issue. It may take an effort as Herculean as that which brought down Dan Rather…but it must be done.