Taking just a small part of what a person says and responding to it out of context doesn't help further mutual understanding.
The remainder of my original comment to you said: "However, there is no comparison whatsoever between slavery and the issues raised by the Schiavo case. You are free, of course, to respect or disrespect what you wish. In the same vein, I and others are free to view you as a religious extremist who admittedly has no respect for the law and no understanding of the separation of powers on which this government was founded."
The key, of course, is that I do not see any comparison whatsoever between slavery and the Schiavo case. That is not to say I see no problems with the Schiavo case.
I do think the trial judge followed the law as it is written in Florida. I think the law is flawed in that it apparently leaves the trial judge with no discretionary powers. For this reason, I think the invective heaped on him by self-professed Christians is highly extreme. I think his being shunned by his church is highly extreme.
I am uncomfortable with the following points raised by Schiavo and would like to see laws changed to cover them:
1. Who should make end-of-life decisions when the patient leaves no written instructions?
2. Courts should be allowed discretionary powers when the guardian has a conflict of interest.
3. Courts should be allowed discretionary powers when there is a dispute between close relatives, with one party to the dispute being both willing and able to care for the patient. (However, I do not think such care should be funded by the taxpayer.)
4. Appeals to the federal level should be permissible in end-of-life disputes such as we saw in Schiavo. Such appeals should include an automatic review of the facts of the case. No retrial, which appellate courts are not designed for, but a bona fide review.
I would also like to see our lawmakers and society have an honest discussion of euthanasia, which is practiced every day in this country even though few use the word. What happened to Terri Schiavo (and others) was euthanasia by omission, and I think the method was both cowardly and cruel. Even if she could not feel anything (which I believe to be the truth of the matter), her parents and siblings certainly could.
Inquest, the problem with so many people who have been foaming at the mouth about this case on FR these last few weeks is that they have zero tolerance for any point of view which even partially disagrees with their own. And rather than just disagree and politely debate, they hurl invective and insults, even toward people who largely agree with them. I don't come at my points of agreement from a religious context, but from a secular and constitutional one.
Despite the fact that I largely share the same concerns about Schiavo as those expressed all over FR lately, the harsh, seriously intolerant and, yes, extreme nature of the debate I've seen here profoundly disgusts me.
I understand that's what you said. That's why I said in my response to your post, "I'm not talking just yet about the merits or demerits of the Schiavo case." I just wanted to get you to acknowledge whether it's possible to disrespect a particular immoral law (like the fugitive slave law) without being devoid of respect for the law in general.