Posted on 04/09/2005 3:48:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Top conservative leaders gathered here a week after Terri Schiavo's death to plot a course of action against the nation's courts, but much of their anger was directed at leading Republicans, exposing an emerging crack between the party's leadership and core supporters on the right.
And yesterday they issued an ''action plan" to take their crusade for control of the nation's courts well beyond Senate debates over judicial nominees, pressing Congress to impeach judges and defund courts they consider ''activist" and to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts over some sensitive social matters -- a strategy opposed by many leading Senate Republicans.
''This is not a Democrat- Republican issue; it is a liberal-conservative issue," Rick Scarborough, a Baptist minister and chair of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, sponsor of the gathering, said in an interview. ''It's about a temporal versus eternal value system. We are not going away."
In the charged battle over the future of the nation's courts, conservatives so far are outgunned financially. Last week, liberal groups mounted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed to build support for the filibuster and thwart Senate confirmation of nominees they consider extremists who will pursue a ''radical agenda and favor corporate interests over our interests," as one MoveOn.org radio advertisement intoned.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
That is very condescending of you.
My answer? The timing and manner of my demise is not something that is properly of my choosing. My wishes in those matters are irrelevant. Not that I don't have them, mind you. Death in the sleep is first pick. Violent, quick and certain death (e.g., plane crash) would be second. If I was as Terri, God's will be done, and neither me nor my caretakers believe that God's will is to off me via starvation. Bring on the slurry and diapers!!
Of course, the law and the medical profession may see it as you do. No matter what MY wishes and beliefs are, you, in your superior wisdom, deem that nobody but nobody would want to live like that. I can live and die with that, the human condition is what it is.
Well, fatalism has its rewards, but let us both hope you never get to taste them.
My God made me in His image, capable of thought and action. God gave Adam instruction to subdue the created world and Paul explained that this means that we are not to give in to fatalism: 'What will be, will be." No, according to Paul, the spiritual body is always to take control over the physical body: "I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it my slave ..."
A master has life and death control over his slave. And why should we not. The body is perishable, the spirit is not. We must always give primacy to the imperishable, not preserving the perishable.
My point here is that a Christian is not a fatalist. There is no reason for a Christian to submit to evil which befalls him as though it came from God. It does not.
You are, of course, free to submit to the evil of the type which afflicted Terri as though it came from God and call it, daringly, "God's will." I will not. The evil which afflicted Terri came from Satan and God set her free. Those who helped deserve our commendation, not the endorsement of passive pagan fatalism which so dominates here.
* plonk *
No, it's actually Cartesian--the "splitting" of the intellect/soul from the body and claiming that each is somewhat independent.
It's also wrong. Your body and your soul (intellect and will) are unitary until death. We can conceive that there are differing functions, and accidents, but it is erroneous to conceive that they are not a 'unity.'
This is the "fundamental shift" in philosophy decried by John Paul II, a personal-pheonomenologist. It completely tosses Thomistic philosophy out the door.
The logical consequences of this shift are embedded in the work of Peter Singer/Rutgers, who also thinks boinging your doggie is just fine.
No.
Actually, the pertinent passage was "...whatsoever you do for the least of My brethren, that you do unto Me."
That is, (given that we are not talking about a clearly terminal condition and/or one which clearly COUNTER-indicates nutrition and hydration) no one can "decide" for another that the other wishes suicide. That would be "doing" evil to the "least."
All that is fine, and happens to corrsepond with my wishes...
But the Christian's REAL "death wish" is for a 'happy death,' that is, one which occurs when the Christian is FULLY PREPARED to meet his Maker.
but "I never could understand the passion of those who wanted her dead."
+___This included some so-called
conservatives of the libertarian type...they really ought to leave the movement...the Schiavo case was a liymus test for true conservatism.
You might be right, but the angry is out there, might fad if GOP starts addressing our issues with something other then lip service. But I don't see that happening. I expect more of the same from the GOP.
This included some so-called conservatives of the libertarian type...they really ought to leave the movement...the Schiavo case was a liymus test for true conservatism.
***
I'm a registered Libertarian with Republican tendencies. No, I did not want Terry Schiavo dead. However, what I did not want was any governmental institution to get itself involved in this matter. Bad enough the courts were involved, but legislative and executive entities at the state and federal level -- that went over the line in my opinion. Government should never interfere in something this personal. And I fear that government has now become emboldened enough to stick its nose into every other issue as well.
Libertarians want less government and less governmental intrusion in our lives. Republicans claim to want less government, but as has been shown in the Schiavo case and elsewhere, Republicans merely pay lip service to the concept. We are supposed to be responsible adults who can take care of ourselves. By letting government become involved in these and other matters, we abdicate our rights and responsibilities. Before long we will have government telling us what to eat, what to drink, what clothes to wear, where to live -- heck, in some instances, government does that already. If we are not careful, government will take over every aspect of our lives. I for one don't want that.
alternate title ---
GOP spin doctors shift into overdrive
I realize that those who are adherents to RCC dogmas may have a different answer. My moral appeal must be to Biblical Christians who look to the Bible as the only proper basis of morality and life. I have no interest in arguing Catholic 'philosophy' -- nor, for that matter, Hindu or Confucian 'philosophy.'
The Washington Post and I guess all liberal rags are always talking about "the great divide" among Republicans. Every day some article in the Washington Post says something like "sharply divided." Funny how the divided Republicans re-elected their President and strengthened their hold on the U.S. Senate and House. If the Republicans are so divided then what are Democrats, splintered?
The Washington Post and I guess all liberal rags are always talking about "the great divide" among Republicans. Every day some article in the Washington Post says something like "sharply divided." Funny how the divided Republicans re-elected their President and strengthened their hold on the U.S. Senate and House. If the Republicans are so divided then what are Democrats, splintered?
While important in other circumstances, it is not "pertinent" here because it offers no guidance as to whether to assist Terri in dying. We must assist her because "it is how we would want to be treated". That's why Matt 7:12 is dispositive.
Moreover, in the obverse, we cannot morally manipulate her bodily shell with slurry pumping and diapers to 'keep her alive' because we would clearly not want to be treated that way ourselves.
given that we are not talking about a clearly terminal condition and/or one which clearly COUNTER-indicates nutrition and hydration) ... That would be "doing" evil to the "least."
A very interesting premise. It is clear that you have carved out a two-pronged exception from your general rule of forced prolongation of physical life for (i) "terminal" conditions and (ii) one which "clearly contraindicates nutrition and hydration."
First, what does 'terminal' mean in this context? Obviously, we are 'terminal' in the sense we have a finite physical life. So, terminal can mean (i) irreversible and/or (ii) a shorter than 'natural' life span due to the condition. We would both agree that cancer can be and usually is 'terminal' in one or both senses. But many other conditions are as well. Almost all of the aging process of life is a ratcheting down of abilities and expectations due to increasing limitations. It is a continuum. Moreover, different people have differing degrees of attachment to this physical life. And it changes over time. [I had much more attachment to my physical life when I was 21 than I do now.] The whole concept of the degree of 'acceptable shortening' of life to be recognized as 'terminal' differs person to person. There simply is no 'bright line' test for 'terminal'. That is why each individual must make that decision for themselves.
You second prong is even more interesting. I, for one, would say that Terri's condition (for myself) was one "which clearly contraindicated nutrition and hydration." I gather from the context of your remarks that you would not. But that shows the difference a different perspective on life can make.
I enjoy my life, but I am not unduly attached to it. When I leave this life, I am going home. My wife is already there. I will leave behind my favorite toys, and, of course, my children and grandchildren, but I am ready to go today. No undue attachment on my part. Others (perhaps you) feel much differently. They want to cling to every last possible moment of physical life -- perhaps out of nagging doubt that there is no more.
That's why I feel each person has to make the right decision for themselves -- and write it down and make sure it is respected.
Bad enough the courts were involved, but legislative and executive entities at the state and federal level -- that went over the line in my opinion. Government should never interfere in something this personal. And I fear that government has now become emboldened enough to stick its nose into every other issue as well.
_____AFter it went into the courts, it became a public matter.
The only way the Schindlers had a chance to save Terri was by appealing to the federal government,...the govt did not "stick its nose in," it was asked to come in.
Libertarians want less government and less governmental intrusion in our lives. Republicans claim to want less government, but as has been shown in the Schiavo case and elsewhere, Republicans merely pay lip service to the concept.
____The public won't buy the libertarian case. Gingrich got his clock cleaned by Clinton over the government shutdown in 1995.
It;s not a question of govt or no govt. interference, but whether or not govt empowers and helps individuals to achieve on their own...or whether it makes them dependent.
The only way the Schindlers had a chance to save Terri was by appealing to the federal government,...the govt did not "stick its nose in," it was asked to come in.
***
And by coming in, it has opened the door for still more government intervention which I for one don't want.
***
It;s not a question of govt or no govt. interference, but whether or not govt empowers and helps individuals to achieve on their own...or whether it makes them dependent.
***
But you see...every time the goverment becomes involved in these or any other matters, it makes people more and more dependent on the government to solve everything. We are supposed to be adults...we are supposed to be responsible...we should not need the goverment telling us what we should and shouldn't do in every situation.
The Boston Globe is known for being fair and balanced. /sarcasm
But Thomas Aquinas PRECEDED the "Reformation." Surely Luther et al, particularly Henry VIII did not discard Thomas!!
Much of the corruption of the RCC also preceded the Reformation -- the mariolatry dates from as early as the 6th century -- and that corruption It was the cause and necessity of it. I don't know whether Luther discarded the scholastics, but I sure have. I find more value in the pagan philosophers (who didn't know of Christ) than in the scholastics (who purported knew of Him and ignored Him).
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.