Robert Williams of Dead Man Blogging has some powerfully provocative posts in the aftermath of Terri Schiavo's death. He asks whether it is a worldview-shaking event for Christians, as 9/11 was for the nation:
When those towers fell, we saw the world differently. Maybe I’m overreacting, but when Terri Schiavo died of thirst, I saw the world differently.
- I see a nation that recognizes no higher authority than “we the people” and the laws we make.
- I see an executive and legislature dominated by the judiciary.
- I see a Republican party unable or unwilling to act effectively. Janet Reno was willing to defy the courts and seize Elian Gonzales to send him back to a communist state, but nobody was willing to defy Judge Greer and save Terri Schiavo. I see that the lesser of two evils is still not good. I see that I didn’t even get half a loaf. I see that I voted to win, but still lost.
- I see a fallen, godless culture. I see a culture that doesn’t need to be engaged or transformed. It needs to be supplanted, replaced, defeated, destroyed.
What do you see?
In an earlier post, he asks some questions about the relationship between church and state which deserve every Christian's consideration.
Karol Sheinin asks whether, given the state of marriage in this country, it's reasonable to give a spouse full control over an incapacitated person's fate:
A good friend of mine recently married a friend to let him stay in the country. They had an engagement party. They got married, didn't tell her family, and then went home to their respective apartments. If something would happen to her, this man would have control over her fate.A friend's sister got married. She had work to tie up at her job and her husband went ahead to Europe where they would meet to honeymoon. On the flight over, he met a woman for whom, a year later, he would leave his wife. ...
Call me unromantic. Tell me I don't know. But the truth is, marriage is in crisis. It's time to reconsider whether a spouse, with a 50% chance of being an ex-spouse, should have the level of control that they currently do. I vote 'no'.
Finally: As usual, Charles G. Hill speaks volumes with a single sentence.
Comments (4)
It's not going to be like 9/11. There's no comparison.
We have one situation in which one life was extinguished because the courts ruled that the husband (and others) said she didn't want to live in such a condition.
The other situation was a series of undeniably hostile acts that killed 2,900 people. Those are acts of murder. There is no gray area there, unlike the above.
I'm not saying you're making Mt. Everest out of an anthill. But don't be surprised if very few people take up your crusade.
If you're truly pro-life, tell the current administration to bring the troops home because the Iraq War was fought under false pretenses. Another report yesterday says that one of the key informants in the WMD reports was "crazy" and unreliable. For this, we have lost 1,500 American lives, more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and have spent billions of dollars that could have been used much more efficiently in the war against terrorism.
Re-reading what I've just read above, I think it's time to quit hand-wringing over one woman who arguably wanted to die and redirect our priorities to halting the deaths of thousands of people who want to live.
Posted by Ron | April 1, 2005 11:07 AM
Posted on April 1, 2005 11:07
Well, it affected me, anyway:
http://www.puretext.us/2005/03/31/democracy-is-not-broken/
If anything, it affected me more. After 9/11, I knew that everyone else knew there was a problem, and that the government was on it. Today I know that half the country is for euthanasia, and my government is NOT going to do anything about it. I'm making definite lifestyle changes in response to this one.
Posted by Kyle | April 1, 2005 1:45 PM
Posted on April 1, 2005 13:45
Karol Sheinin asks whether, given the state of marriage in this country, it's reasonable to give a spouse full control over an incapacitated person's fate
What's the alternative? You can't strengthen marriage by weakening it! Who decides these things for you? The government? I don't trust Tom DeLay or Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi to make these kinds of decisions for me, but it sounds like that's what you want.
I see an executive and legislature dominated by the judiciary.
This type of rhetoric coming out of this case is the most frightening thing to me. The courts are there to protect individual rights, and they generally do a pretty decent job. They are an equal branch of government, whose job is to interpret 1) the constitution, and 2) the laws. When the result isn't what you want, you have to change #1 or #2; you don't gut the judiciary.
When a touchy school board rules that a bible study group can't use classroom space after hours to hold meetings like other student groups can, do you want the courts to just roll over?
Michael, you understand more than most people how moneyed interests can abuse their power in city government. A strong independent judiciary is the best defense we have against that type of corruption. If you don't think the same type of thing that affects Tulsa goes all the way up to DC, you're fooling yourself. Give an honest look at Tom DeLay and tell me he's the person you want to speak for your moral values over a court system that favors individual autonomy.
Posted by David Adams | April 1, 2005 9:53 PM
Posted on April 1, 2005 21:53
Dead Man Blogging says: "I see a fallen, godless culture. I see a culture that doesn’t need to be engaged or transformed. It needs to be supplanted, replaced, defeated, destroyed."
In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis."
Posted by Warren | April 2, 2005 7:23 PM
Posted on April 2, 2005 19:23