It seemed better to me to post my response to "Ethan" here rather in than in the comments section. I found Ethan's diatribe wordy and full of sound but mostly lacking in any substantive argumentation. I'm having a hard time buying his weak protestation that he is sorry that an innocent died. Easy to say, now that she's dead. Actually, I think old Ethan is ecstatic she's dead. It is a macabre and sick "notch in the belt" for some folks like him in their fanatical war against people of faith. I hear in his comments something like, "Ha ha ha! She's dead and YOU GUYS LOST the fight to keep her ALIVE! HA!"
- The whole POINT of the controversy is that we DON'T KNOW that she expressed a wish to die. Michael Schiavo is on record HIMSELF as contradicting his own claim that she so expressed herself
- Even if she did, it's still illegal to get someone to agree to kill you. I may have a pact with my spouse that, if I ever get to where I believe the things YOU believe, I ought to kill myself, does that make it legal for my wife to starve me to death? A cursory reading of any law book would show there is no right to murder someone because they asked you to
- Again, another point under debate is whether or not she was in a persistent, vegetative state. There were a number of reputed missteps and anomalies concerning how Terri was "diagnosed" as PVS. Do they not warrant at least an investigation, something we grant to murderers on Death Row? It seems that it is those on the Left who just want a victory against the "religious right" who wanted to cut off all prospects of deeper investigation so they could pocket Terri's death as a "victory" against the boogey men of the "Religious Right"
- "Vitriol and lies against Michael Schiavo" hmmm. Proof of that, or just more assertion? So apparently, Michael Schiavo is the real victim here, eh? Poor man! Taking all this heat for wanting to starve his wife to death on the basis of HIS word and his word alone. Poor man! Taking all this controversy on because he REFUSED TO LET HER UNDERGO THERAPY so that she could SWALLOW FOR HERSELF and learn to use her hands. Poor Michael indeed! Meanwhile, the parents who BROUGHT HER INTO THIS WORLD are passed over without even a sympathetic comment. What a fascinating and chilling lesson it is to see where the fallen heart's true sympathies lie!
- "Manifestly corrupt Tom Delay"? Again...proof? But I'm wasting my time, there won't be any. I suppose just using the word "manifestly" is supposed to bring conviction sans supporting evidence
- "religous nutjobs" So that includes Tom Harkin? Nat Hentoff? Jesse Jackson? Various Disabilities Groups? The Pope? It's funny how to make your argument more palatable to a weak mind, you have to collapse all your opponents in to one, vague, shadowy group that you can easily dismiss--"the Religious Right" and "Religious Nutjobs". Nevermind the contradictory evidence of the many NON-RELIGIOUS who opposed this action against Terri Schiavo. That would be too inconvenient. Better to just lump them all in as the "Religious Right" to make the argument limp along a bit better.
- Reject the rule of law? You mean like the Left did in San Francisco by issuing marriage licenses AGAINST THE LAW? Were you outraged then by the secular Left's disdain for the "rule of law"? You liberals have no interest in the rule of law per se. You talk about it because you control the courts, which is the ONLY WAY that you can get your agenda down the throats of the average American. Whether it's marriage issues, public religion, or abortion, your views are regularly trounced at the ballot box and just as regularly OVERTURNED by the courts, which you hold in your hand, hence your weak cries of "Rule of Law! Rule of Law!" We are a nation ruled by laws, NOT a nation ruled tyrannically by JUDGES. Tell me, were you this concerned when your Attorney General Janet Reno flouted the law and took a boy at gunpoint to Cuba? I doubt it. So many of you on the Left save your hysteria and vitriol for those you disagree with.
- "Unsullied by Christian fanaticism"?? Some basic reading would really help here:
- "All men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" Does that sound like a religiously "unsullied" government to you? The very foundational BASIS of the revolt against England grounded in a point of theology, to wit, the CREATION OF MAN BY GOD? Pretty fanatical to me!! Better run before they come for you irreligious types, nooses in hand!
- Among the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention at the beginning of the nation's founding, 51 of 55 were publicly declared Christians of various sects. Sounds eerily like fanaticism, doesn't it Ethan?
- The anti-slavery movement was HEAVILY influenced by religious thought. I didn't read that a theocracy suddenly arose in the ashes of the Civil War.
The president at the time of the Civil War, whom we count among our GREATEST presidents said this in a public speech to the New Jersey Senate:
I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made, and I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle.
And said this in his Second Inaugural address:
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
Sound pretty fanatical to you? What a wacko nut that Lincoln was! Good thing we don't have "religious nutjobs" like him around corrupting our government today! And yet the end result was the emancipation of members of MY FAMILY FROM THE CRUELTY OF SLAVERY.
Am I saying that this nation is some kind of Garden of Eden come to Earth again? That it was founded by nothing but Bible-believing Christians of the Jerry Falwell sort? Absolutely not. But is it a nation heavily influenced SINCE ITS INCEPTION by the Christian faith and Judeo-Christian ethic? Without controversy! The statements above are a matter of public record. So why some like you NOW say and act as if Christians are usurpers, unwelcome newcomers, and fanatics come to disturb the serene SECULAR peace of America is beyond me. It's not true to history AND it's not constitutional.
I have every right and privilege to vote for and support those who share my point of view. Can you name for me the part of the Constitution that says that Christians can't vote? Or that Christians can't oppose abortion? Speak against same-sex marriage? Argue over euthanasia? That we can't oppose those things on the basis of our faith? That we can't run for office and run on a platform of moral and political issues that come out of a worldview based on our faith? I missed that clause, Ethan.
In your world, it's ok for the abortionist to push his bloody trade. For the homosexual to argue for his cause; it's JUST CHRISTIANS who aren't allowed to push back or have an alternate view. They aren't allowed to have an opinion on whether it is right or wrong to starve an innocent human being to death because that would be
You express fear of my religion, Ethan, but your willingness to UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVE ME of my constitutional guarantee of suffrage and political participation based on your own religion of radical humanist antagonism to Christianity should frighten you even more.
See you at the ballot box.