Moral Decay as a Mental Disorder

Moral Decay as a Mental Disorder

Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 11/21/2022

God works in very mysterious ways. He has a sense of humor, too. I just finished an article and started looking for the next one when I came across a term I had never heard before. The term is ‘moral injury.’ My whole article was touching on the concept of ‘moral injury’ as it turns out. It also turns out that my initial thoughts on the subject are still just as valid.

I noticed the term in a Scientific American article from September 19, 2022 titled Moral Injury Is an Invisible Epidemic That Affects Millions: A specific kind of trauma results when a person’s core principles are violated during wartime or a pandemic. The article states, “Moral injury is a specific trauma that arises when people face situations that deeply violate their conscience or threaten their core values. Those who grapple with it, such as McGowan, can struggle with guilt, anger and a consuming sense that they can’t forgive themselves or others.”

McGowan’s first name is Torree. She is an ER physician in central Oregon. She cannot rectify her ‘morality’ with facts on the ground. She had to turn people away from being treated because of coronavirus. She didn’t have the right treatments for late-stage coronavirus patients. She had to send a bleeding colon cancer patient home due to lack of beds. This all violated her moral code. As a result she feels bad that she had to do those things and cannot get over it.

She also took the opportunity to demonize the unmasked and unvaccinated because she has an immunocompromised husband. As people became scared they became more self-centered and demanding. Some became extremely rude. Some became downright hostile. McGowan is quoted in the article saying, “I have heard so many people say, ‘I don’t care if I make someone sick and kill them.’” I don’t believe that McGowan and I share the same definition of many, and her statement is suspect to me in the first place.

Why did she have to do those things? She didn’t prepare for those things, that’s why. Why does she feel personally responsible for those things? Her morality is subjective and based on moral relativity. She built her house on sand. When the winds blew and the seas churned, the sand gave out.

Later in the Scientific American article McGowan proves her moral ineptitude, “To counter thoughts of hopelessness, of failing her medical calling, McGowan tries to focus on specific acts of good she’s been able to perform. When she’s not in the ER, she serves as a lieutenant colonel in the Oregon Air National Guard, and her unit has vaccinated more than 100,000 people against COVID.” She and her unit have murdered people with the garbage she calls covid vaccines. She also calls these experimental ‘vaccine’ maimings and murders works of good. She has no qualms about any of that.

The article contains a link to a paper that really gets at the heart of where ‘moral injury’ is coming from. It’s not a good place. The link is to a 2019 article in the American Educational Research Journal called Moral Injury Among Educational Professionals in K-12 Education. The abstract for this paper contains, “These findings reinforce the significance of the intersectionality of race and class in reproducing oppressive and immoral educational practices and outcomes. A deeper understanding of and greater attention to potential sources of moral injury is critical in order to foster a more just and ethical education system.”

We are looking at complete Hell and I will do my best to explain why. Intersectionality is defined as:

“The concept of intersectionality describes the ways in which systems of inequality based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, class and other forms of discrimination “intersect” to create unique dynamics and effects. For example, when a Muslim woman wearing the Hijab is being discriminated, it would be impossible to dissociate her female* from her Muslim identity and to isolate the dimension(s) causing her discrimination.

“All forms of inequality are mutually reinforcing and must therefore be analysed and addressed simultaneously to prevent one form of inequality from reinforcing another. For example, tackling the gender pay gap alone – without including other dimensions such as race, socio-economic status and immigration status – will likely reinforce inequalities among women.”

This is an attempt at rationalizing complete stupidity based on faulty reasoning and ethical ineptitude. It assumes that all systems exist to promote inequality. By assessing the outcomes of different individuals based on race, sex, age, etc, of course there are going to be differences in outcomes – everyone does different things. There is no rational assessment of equality in opportunity, only outcome. Intersectionality views society in a purely social Marxist light.

But people buy it. They buy it because under this rubric everyone except for a straight white male is a victim of some form of oppression, or in social Marxist speak, inequality. For example, there is no gender pay gap, but, because we are forced to live in a world filled with the depravity progressivism (a nice sounding term used to mask their intentions of murdering everyone who disagrees with them – just like all Marxists) has forced upon us, saying that is some kind of crime. There are many progressives who would like to see me imprisoned for suggesting there is no gender pay gap. Merely stating that is ‘moral injury’ to these professional victims.

Another part of the American Educational Research Journal abstract is even more concerning than the basis from which it comes – the idea that all outcomes must be just and ethical. Well what is just? What is ethical? These debates have been carried on for a really long time and no answer can be given. The reason that no answer can be given is because what is just has been perverted by mankind’s influence. Where ethics are derived from is not even agreed upon, let alone what those ethics should be. What is just and ethical have been placed on a sliding scale of moral relativity.

If a starving homeless man steals bread from a store should he be prosecuted for the theft or given the bread? What if he steals the bread from my home? What if he steals your bread? What if at the time he steals the bread it is out of your very mouth and he must rob you in order to eat? We all have answers to these questions – every one of us. This is what the great philosophers tried to get at – what does it mean to be ethical? In what situations? Should it be universal?

I’ll play philosopher and answer in quick order. Why is the homeless man not at a homeless shelter? If he steals from my home I’m calling the police. If he steals from your home it is your call about what to do. If he robs me I am going to defend myself – if he’d have asked I would have shared with him, which is probably the way it would end up going even after he tried to snatch the bread from my mouth.

The Scientific American article notes that psychiatrists are all over this idea of ‘moral injury.’ Brett Litz, a Veterans Affairs psychologist continued the work of a prior Veteran Affairs psychologist, Jonathan Shay. According to Litz there is a difference between ‘moral injury’ and other trauma based mental disorders like PTSD. According to Litz, “Moral injury tends to turn up when you have a vision of the world as fundamentally fair and good and something you’ve done or witnessed destroys that vision.” I would like to ask Litz who, exactly, thinks the world is fair or good? I’d like to meet that person who thinks the world is fair or good. Nonetheless, Litz offered a treatment for ‘moral injury’ in the form of “making personally meaningful reparations for harm done.”

Maybe it was the idea of reparations which caught the eye of a so-called theologian and antiwar activist Rita Nakashima Brock. This woman worked to set up Shay Moral Injury Center with financial support from the Lilly Endowment and Volunteers of America. Brock also managed to get the US House of Representatives chaplain Margaret Kibben to help raise awareness of ‘moral injury.’ The Lilly Foundation donates money to other institutions it finds acceptable based on a muddled version of Christian values and something they call conservative progressivism. One such institution is the American Enterprise Institute which sees fit to demand governments embrace preparing for the next pandemic using medical tyranny. Volunteers of America calls itself a ministry; however, it also completely supports the UN’s murderous Sustainable Development Goals. Kibben is celebrated as the first female in a lot of positions, mostly due to the fact that women are not Biblically permitted to be in the roles she has served in.

In an article appearing on the Christian Century website authored by Brock she makes it clear that she has absolutely no faith in anything whatsoever because she practices some interfaith religion of her own design. After bashing Christianity, white males, anyone unmasked during the panic-demic, declaring everyone at the January 6 protests a terrorist, and that all of America is racist, Brock wrote, “In 2009, I encountered the concept of moral injury. This helped me understand what fuels the emotional power of atonement theology. Moral injury emerges from memories of traumatizing experiences that we cannot integrate into our existing faith or meaning system. It means our relationship to a reliable world that makes moral sense is ruptured because we or others have failed our core moral expectations, and it results in self-isolation and painful moral emotions such as outrage, guilt, shame, mistrust, and despair.”

She goes on to say, “I would suggest that those most sealed in atonement faith are hooked by this abusive pattern and its closed emotional systems.”

So, what is atonement theology? “The basic idea of Atonement Theology posits that Jesus' death was necessary in some tangible, cosmic way, as a "sacrifice" for the sins of humanity. Further, it suggests that this sacrifice, and this sacrifice alone, is the "salvific" work of Jesus; the moment that Jesus' earthly ministry is complete. (The moment that "salvation" happens...) In its more radical forms, it suggests that without it, there is no point to Jesus' earthly ministry, or to belief in him (and by extension, belief in God…),” according to United Methodist Insight.

Basically Brock and United Methodist Insight are saying that Yeshua was just some guy who was put to death because he made people angry because of what he taught. I’m kind of curious about the religious sincerity of anyone who thinks that Jesus’ death was not a significant and ‘salvific’ event. People that deny the saving power of Christ’s death seem as if they have either not read what is written or have decided to just completely lack any reading comprehension whatsoever. They surely are not preaching a message appearing in the Bible.

And neither is Brock. Her message is to renounce faith-based morality and fix it to the world’s standards. She writes, “Christians have choices. If what we believe about God is at the expense of the rest of humanity or the earth, it is too small, fearful, and miserly to make room for much love or to enable us to build a future together.” I want no part in any future which Brock would find tolerable.

Most of the Scientific American article is about the treatments being tried to fix moral injury. The treatment favored by Brock and the VOA resemble Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Litz takes the approach of having ‘moral injury’ sufferers “accept the depth of inhumanity in the world rather than attempt to blot out awareness of that inhumanity.” This is an extension of the work of a Holocaust survivor named Viktor Frankel who founded logotherapy. Britannica Online sums up, “Frankl’s theory was that the primary motivation of an individual is the search for meaning in life and that the primary purpose of psychotherapy should be to help the individual find that meaning.” I don’t want any psychotherapist helping me do anything, especially directing me in finding meaning. Frankl’s approach is extremely dangerous as well – psychotherapists as a group are notorious for their disbelief in God – so what meanings would be gained from psychotherapists in the quest to find meaning is highly suspect.

There are three more relevant points to be gleaned from the Scientific American article. The first is the suggestion that ‘moral injury’ be added to the list of psychiatric disorders. Another idea is that employers need to implement ““systemic solutions [to address ‘moral injury’] on a much broader level,” says Andrews, the California public defender.” Lastly, the article presents the idea of involving spiritual leaders and clergy in assisting those suffering from ‘moral injury.’

Earlier I mentioned that McGowan, the physician in Oregon, built her morality on sand. Anyone who thinks the world is fair and/or good is naive and, likewise, has built their morality on sand. God is the rock of humanity. His moral code does not sway. All he asks is that we follow it. The chance that any of this results in a treatment which rebuilds a shattered moral compass on rock instead of another pile of sand ready to be washed away during the next time of trouble is highly unlikely.

Because of the way ‘moral injury’ is defined, it will be weaponized for use against anyone who has built their morality or ethical guidelines upon the rock of the truth of God’s Word. As we approach a new year promising to be even more rife with trouble – food shortages, rampant lawlessness at all levels of society, world government initiatives and edicts, energy shortages, and new lockdowns – this rock is all that is going to save anyone. I would think it a very catastrophic ‘moral injury’ to watch your loved ones starve to death and eat your neighbors. These people will not think that so much – they will adopt an ethical relativity enabling them to justify any and all actions depending upon the situation, including eating their neighbors.

Why would this have to happen? It’s because people are not paying attention to the real world and the fact that it is unfair and evil and corrupt. It’s because people are not paying attention to the Word of God and the people of the world are becoming more and more reprobate by the day. To define reprobate – an important definition – 1. A morally unprincipled person; 2. One who is predestined to damnation. While reprobates eat their neighbors they will demand those who discerned the dangers, prepared, and took refuge in the Lord our God be hauled away because it will be our fault for their debauchery.

Isaiah 5:20-24 (CJB) warns of this reprobate mind:

20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who change darkness into light and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter!

21 Woe to those seeing themselves as wise, esteeming themselves as clever.

22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, men whose power goes to mixing strong drinks,

23 who acquit the guilty for bribes but deny justice to the righteous!

24 Therefore, as fire licks up the stubble, and the chaff is consumed in the flame; so their root will rot, and their flowers scatter like dust; because they have rejected the Torah of Adonai-Tzva’ot, they have despised the word of the Holy One of Isra’el.

Romans 1:18-22 also warns of this reprobate mind:

18 What is revealed is God’s anger from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who in their wickedness keep suppressing the truth; 

19 because what is known about God is plain to them, since God has made it plain to them. 

20 For ever since the creation of the universe his invisible qualities — both his eternal power and his divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they can be understood from what he has made. Therefore, they have no excuse; 

21 because, although they know who God is, they do not glorify him as God or thank him. On the contrary, they have become futile in their thinking; and their undiscerning hearts have become darkened. 

22 Claiming to be wise, they have become fools! 23 In fact, they have exchanged the glory of the immortal God for mere images, like a mortal human being, or like birds, animals or reptiles!

The light shining from those sealed by God will be enough to cause a ‘moral injury’ to those who dwell in the darkness. Like moths to a flame the reprobate will come to snuff out the light of God with violence. God will not permit the light to be extinguished though, merely hidden for a time. If you wish to be a light, I suggest you get as close to God as possible by building your morality upon the rock, God’s Laws, and by loving Yeshua. Pray, Read your Bible and…

Bless God and God bless.