A Lie Taken for the Truth: The Terri Schiavo Case

A lie taken for the truth always assumes a most dangerous appearance. – F. Dostoevsky, "One of the Contemporaneous Falsehoods" (1873)

Death process, death with dignity, quality of life, and futile care: fine-sounding words conjured by those who take a lie and twist the meaning of words in order to fit their world vision. A vision where our individual rights and dignity come from the group, from certain decision-makers, the state, anyone but God.

In that secular worldview there is no room for God. Long-held Western and American beliefs that life and the rights of the individual are NOT granted to humanity through the will of the state, judges or the self-anointed committees of wisemen have been lost to the BIG LIE.

In fact, conventional wisdom accepts decisions regarding "quality of life" by measuring each of us by the standards of a utilitarian secular culture. Decisions about who should live or die are handed over to committees of the "informed" or progressive.

No thought is given to life and death with any understanding that the history of mankind reveals a consistent tendency toward corruption, bribery, cruelty, inhumanity, misuse of power, manipulation of the law, and rationalization of extreme forms of decadence as freedom – not to mention the eternal battle between good and evil. Sensible people must quake at how much influence great lies have upon modern culture, our society and our political system.

Tragically, even some who profess to be believers in God or Christ have consciously or unconsciously accepted the BIG LIE as a modernized new "truth." Whether they inhabit the judiciary, the Congress, federal, state and local offices, they make excuses for the evil they inflict upon the innocent through their actions and inaction. Reasons are discovered which reject the Constitution of the United States as they rewrite the laws of the land to suit their own agendas and mindsets.

For the unwanted or inconvenient, sick, feeble, incapacitated, brain-damaged or suffering, that means courts, committees, or self-selected rulers of mankind make decisions that would have once been considered barbaric.

Meanwhile, their newly evolved "truth" sings the praises of death, rationalizes the death of innocents, expands death and the "duty to die" to more and more people. The new "truth" considers that the importance of the individual amounts to his place in the group or his usefulness to the group.

Utilitarian reasons for killing are couched in terms of compassion and rights. In their new, improved "truth," the dignity of the individual and God-given rights are nowhere to be found.

In fact, this new "truth" is more in tune with the lies of Pontius Pilate, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat.

In matters of life and death modern American decision-makers do not even have the heart of Pontius Pilate. At least Pilate had the good sense to ask Jesus Christ, "What is truth?"

The "truth" espoused by modern-day Saduccees and our political and judicial Pilates is the adoption of social Darwinism, worship of "process," rationalizing the culture of death in terms of compassion or "rights." What this sophistry amounts to is defining truth in terms of their own arrogant inhumanity and destructive natures and intellectual arrogance. The lie taken for the truth means our personal and national survival is in jeopardy.

Part of the great lie is that our rights do not come from God but from the State or those groups representing the State. If our rights come from government or a "group" of influence peddlers, the courts, a certain clique of "thoughtful" intellectuals or anointed ones, those rights can also be taken away in a heart beat.

More and more, courts and judges have denied life, liberty and the rule of law except as their limited vision and whims define them. They promote the big lie even as they give rights and preferences or legitimacy to certain people or groups while espousing opinions which are totally antithetical to the Constitution of the United States.

Would it surprise you to know that law schools tell students to refer to the opinions of judges rather than the original language or intent of the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Constitution has been replaced by case law, process, precedent, social theories and groupthink of the legal profession. Forget the Constitution our leaders swear to uphold. The legal profession has made it a mockery.

Most of the modernized version of law given us by the "men in black" evolved out of the same ideology that gave us Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and the collectivist or utilitarian vision of the 19th century. It is a vision that takes certain aspects of Christianity and Judaism and gives them a secular spin. It only refers to the U.S. Constitution and its precepts as a crutch rather than the source.

This vision, also advocated by many politicians and the culture, strives to reshape human nature and the direction of humanity itself. The vision denies God, His laws and the entire Western Canon of laws and replaces it with the whims or fancies of silly men.

As we have experienced over several decades, modern U.S. judges legislate from the bench, offering interpretations of law that reflect their personal political, psychological or philosophical world view. Unless you have been living on a desert island or watching "I Love Lucy" reruns for the last 50 years, you know that modern judges have rejected the laws of God and certainly those contained in the Constitution of the United States.

In these strange times, courts and judges often place the process and technicalities before the law or the intent of the law. In this system guilty men walk and often the innocent are convicted or justice is denied. They act with little awareness of that which is given by God and that which remains for the State.

President John F. Kennedy once said, "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

In the matter of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo, as well as millions of unborn, disabled, old or feeble individuals who are at the mercy of decisions made by the state, committees, judges and courts, those words have truly been ignored.

In 1452 Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans, was charged and tried for witchcraft and heretical beliefs. Using religion and high-toned rationalization, the charges against her were more political than religious. In the name of English political and territorial demands, French Bishop Pierre Cauchon and others brought trumped-up charges against her. The main prosecutor, inquisitor and judge was Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon. At one point in the interrogation he demands of Joan:

"You said that my Lord of Beauvais puts himself in great danger by bringing you to trial; of what danger were you speaking? In what peril or danger do we place ourselves, your Judges and the others?"

Joan replies, "I said to my Lord of Beauvais, 'You say that you are my Judge; I do not know if you are, but take heed not to judge wrongly, because you would put yourself in great danger; and I warn you of it, so that, if Our Lord should punish you for it, I shall have done my duty in telling you."

The actions of Pierre Cauchon and the other judges were very legal and above board. Cauchon and the rest knew the ultimate result: Joan of Arc was burned at the stake as a witch and heretic. Power politics and the desire of the French Catholic hierarchy and certain jealous political leaders were to seek influence and accommodation with the English occupiers of France.

The reasons given for the judgment upon Joan sounded good. They were rationalized for religious reasons but were totally political.

Intellectuals from the University of Paris put in their two cents worth giving legitimacy to the judgement against Joan. As they usually do, intellectuals provided cover for the judges and politicians, offering compelling or logical reasons for extreme injustice delivered upon the innocent Joan.

To make matters worse, the silence and inaction of those whom Joan had saved made it easier for injustice to prevail. Political and pragmatic to the end, the despicable and cowardly failure of Charles, King of France, made it much easier to put her to death. Although Joan had been responsible for Charles ascension to the throne of France, he did nothing that might advance his power, stir the waters, anger the English, French churchmen, or make him look foolish.

In any event, as Christ had done, Joan gave herself over to lesser men to be killed: men of ambition, self-serving, greedy, cruel, and ungrateful. They were leaders afraid of losing their position and power. Threatened and desiring the good opinion of the world, they devised rationalizations for their actions. This is always the pattern of venal or evil men when attempting to silence, marginalize, or remove a troublesome saint or an innocent who gets in their way.

The most famous case of injustice in the history of humanity is remembered this Holy Week: The judgment, crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.

Pondering the events of this holiest of weeks for Christians, I read Matthew 27:24. "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying: 'I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.'"

Former head of the California Senate James Miller wrote a book last year titled the "Memoirs of Pilate." The book offers compelling reasons why powerful men armed with a particular mindset do what they do.

"We know a lot about Pilate from ancient sources. The Bible characterizes him quite well, though in relatively few words. We also have the writings of Josephus, and we have further information from Philo of Alexandria. They all make him out to be the same kind of person: a professional politician, one who was very cynical and whose principles were, well, flexible. I was thinking on that morning that I know this person, and that it would be possible to compose a life of Christ from the perspective of Pontius Pilate."

"Twenty-two years in the California legislature, ten of which I spent as president pro tempore of the California Senate. I was a career politician. I have seen people like Pilate on all levels of government; people who are pragmatic and don't let what is right or wrong get in the way of what they're doing – and what they're doing is surviving. Pilate was in a difficult situation ... [and] demonstrated a common failing of many politicians: overlooking justice to save himself. He determined that this carpenter from Nazareth was not guilty of the crime that he was charged with, and yet decided to execute him. His decision was made to gain the favor of those whose support was important to him, namely, the Sadducees, a small but influential minority of the Jewish population at that time who were convinced that Christ was a danger, particularly after his raising of Lazarus. After that event, the high priest, Joseph ben Caiaphas, said it is better that this man should lose his life than that we should lose our place as a nation."

Now, some of you are asking, where is Diane going with all this? Is this a Holy Week binge of proselytizing, guilt and remembrance? Have faith! What happened to Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, millions of saints and patriots, Jews, Christians, and people of good will throughout the ages is repeating itself in the United States today.

The attention of much of the U.S. media, Congress and the courts is directed at the well-known case of Terri Schiavo. The fate of the brain-damaged Florida woman is in the hands of her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, Judge George Greer, and numerous judges, courts and the true believers of the "right to die" movement. They have made Terri the poster child as the latest victim of a "right" that does not exist.

Nevertheless, even the feckless Supreme Court has said in two previous decisions that there is no "right to die." Still, the big lie is repeated over and over again by people like George Felos and the Hemlock Society. In the case of Terri Schiavo, however, it is death by judicial process, by committee. It continues regardless of the facts in the case.

In fact, the "right to die" only exists in the small, closed minds and hearts of the high priests of the culture of death. A culture that decides which of us who may be dependent on others will live or die.

Fr. Michael Black gives the logic behind the "right to die" movement in Homiletic Review:

"Terri Schiavo's death is not imminent. She is not on a ventilator, dialysis, or other life-sustaining equipment. She is not awaiting a transplant or other major surgery. She is not in pain. She has two parents and siblings who love and care for her. She has access to good health care. If given basic care and food and water her life will continue in more or less its present state. The very fact that her present state is pretty miserable is precisely why some think she should die."

The Church does not advocate the use of life-sustaining technology at all costs, but is against the withdrawal of technology for the express purpose of causing death (ERD's, Intro. Part V.) Those advocating Terri Schiavo's death, including her husband, are not making their case on medical grounds but on Terri's radical condition of dependency and low quality of life.

Anyone with half a brain understands that food serves the same purpose in a terminally ill person as it does in a healthy person. It keeps him alive. If a healthy person is denied food and water, he'll die. If a sick person is denied food and water, he'll die.

Father Richard Johansen maintains in a National Review Article: Terri's diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing "persistent vegetative state." One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries – but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact.

He adds, "So how can Judge Greer ignore the opinions of so many qualified neurologists, some of whom are leaders in the field? The answer is that Michael Schiavo, his attorney George Felos, and Judge Greer already have the diagnosis they want."

As John Paul II points out in Evangelium Vitae, "the meaning of death is closely tied to the meaning of life. If a culture erodes the meaning of life it's no wonder that changes in the meaning of death follow close behind." "When the prevailing tendency is to value life only to the extent that it brings pleasure and well being, suffering seems like an unbearable setback, something from which one must be freed at all costs."

On Monday, March 21, 2005, the official Vatican news outlet L'Osservatore Romano offered further opinion: "Who can, before God and humanity, pretend with impunity to claim such a right?" "Who – and on the basis of which criteria – can establish to whom the 'privilege' to live should be given?"

John Paul II has stated the same on several occasions as have other Church prelates that while extraordinary means to keep a person alive are not against Church law, feeding or providing water through a stomach tube are not considered extraordinary means unless they do the person absolutely no good, the patient is terminal, or such actions cause extreme suffering. None of which apply in the case of Terri Schiavo.

On Joe Scarborough's show on MSNBC last week, former judge Catherine Crier became apoplectic when Joe told her that Congress should make the final decision in the Schiavo matter. Sputtering and turning red, Crier couldn't believe that Joe was challenging the power of the courts. My advice to Catherine: Get over it.

Frankly, I doubt that the federal courts will be more sympathetic to the plight of Terri Schiavo, her family and those who support and love her than is the state of Florida, its legal and social system, or the Legislature. However, there is an option no matter what the apologists for the legal system or "right to die" aficionados declare.

In the Federalist Papers #78, one of the authors of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, declared that if judges substituted their will for that of the people, "they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment … [that] would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that [legislative] body."

Hamilton must have believed that if judges were politicized or had an agenda where a majority of them could rewrite or override the intent of the Constitution or the true will of the people, that was enough reason to dissolve them as a separate branch of government.

In 1996, jurist and candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court Robert Bork suggested the same thing. In his wonderful book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," Bork suggested that the Supreme Court and the entire court system act outside the U.S. Constitution.

If Congress does not challenge their usurpation of power by overriding examples of extreme injustice that are unconstitutional or extra-constitutional on their face, then we have tyranny of the judiciary. It should surprise no one that will include judicial homicide.

We are living under the rule of men who are not elected by the people of the United States. They remake this nation at every turn, breaking the social contract between the people and the state.

Recently, Justice Antonin Scalia declared in his dissent to a Supreme Court decision: "What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years – not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed."

In a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center think tank, Scalia repeated his contention that judges were illegally remaking the Constitution to suit their political whims or prejudices: "If the Supreme Court is to be invariably and inescapably political, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless."

So, how does Congress get around the courts in the Schiavo matter, gay marriage, or preferences for one person over another? Legal commentator, Mark Sutherland relates: "Congress has the power to limit what areas the judicial branch can rule in. Under authority granted to Congress in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress can place regulations and exceptions on the judicial branch that would prohibit the courts from ruling on certain issues and in certain areas."

On a federal level, the governor has the authority to stand against any federal court order, and the only person who can overrule him is the president. Sutherland remarks, "This is how our checks and balances system was supposed to work."

It should also work similar to this at the state level. If a state judge makes a ruling that defies the constitution of a state, then it is the duty of the governor of that state to refuse to enforce the state judge's decision, and it is the duty of the state Legislature to refuse to obey the courts, on account of the oath of office they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and their own state constitutions.

In the end, enforcement power is in the hands of the president and the executive branch of government. The president has the authority, and duty, to refuse to enforce any court order that he views as contrary to the law. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution instructs the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

The president alone may decide how to execute or enforce the laws. If the president understands a judicial decision as contrary to the law, the president is within his constitutional rights to ignore a judge's order.

Whether or not our Congress or the president has the guts to act in the Schiavo matter, or any other case, for that matter, I do not know. Challenging the authority of the courts or a "right" that does not exist may take more courage than our leaders have. I suspect they will cave, like Pilate, when the screaming and yelling starts by the media, some few insane Democrats, the proponents and true believers of the death culture, the ACLU, and the "compassionate" who believe anyone less than perfect or the radically dependent have no right to live.

Over the centuries, leaders rarely have shown much courage in challenging injustice or the status quo. Terri Schiavo's justice may have to wait for God Almighty and His Son to offer it. Like Joan of Arc and a host of others, she may simply be the latest victim sacrificed in the name of ideology, power, the law, the process, system, privilege or the status quo.

About all any Christian can do is remember Christ's words after His Resurrection and before His Ascension into Heaven: "The time has come for Me to return to Him who sent Me. Do not be sorrowful, do not let your heart be troubled. I pray to the Father for you, that He may guard you and keep you."

"Don't hold your breath"

I won't, but I keep advocating this because I believe it is the correct course of action for the President. Not just because of Terri; although that is primary. This is the time to stare down some judges and make things change. This could be an event that changes America back to a balanced three part government. This "rule of lawyers" we are enduring is not the "rule of law" so many believe in.

FL 2nd Dist Court of Appeals:

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives.

If these judges think that starvation is a 'natural death process' perhaps they might try that on the next death row inmate who is scheduled to die?????

"I suspect they will cave, like Pilate, when the screaming and yelling starts by the media, some few insane Democrats, the proponents and true believers of the death culture, the ACLU ..."

Well .. I don't think they will "cave" - why should they - they've been listening to "yelling by the media and the "insane dems", ... "proponents ... of the death culture", "the ACLU". -- WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THAT FOR 5 YEARS - why should it upset us now ..??

Do you realize how foolish you sound?

There have been numerous appeals and court cases regarding this matter. The latest was in 2002.

The Schindlers were told to hire two doctors. Why didn't they hire one of these?

You seem comfortable going with unnamed doctors from the internet. I prefer to go by court documents. To each his own. Let's drop it. I really don't have time to respond to every single freeper who wishes to believe the conspiracy crap on the internet.

I should have responded with this as well; you may wish to not the last paragraph of my post specifically.

As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals in their support of the foundation ruling - which everyone should thoroughly read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

They found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she wouldn't want the tube to remain.

They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.

So the 70-75% of people in the nation who don't have Living Wills but have told their spouses/families what they want should not have their wishes granted?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.