March 29, 2005
Pro-Life, But Unclear on the Concept
“PHILADELPHIA (AP) Police said a man made a death threat Monday morning to the sister-in-law of Michael Schiavo…He called Mrs. Schiavo a murderer. And she responded very nicely to him that, ‘You don’t even know the family.’ And that’s when he said, ‘Well, if Terri dies, I’m going to come back and shoot you and your family’.
No arrests were immediately made, but police said they were taking the threat very seriously. [AP]
Posted by William Cohen at March 29, 2005 09:01 AMWhat do you expect from Religious Fanatics? Al Queda is just the same. There is no difference between Bin Ladin and Dubya Bush, after all. But like any good Republican, Jeb Bush is already distancing himself from any violence. Like the Mullahs in Indonesia, the Right urges violence then says they are not responsible.
Posted by: Aldous at March 29, 2005 11:14 AMThere is no difference between Bin Ladin and Dubya Bush, after all.
Woah. I’m definitely a liberal, but I have to say this goes too far.
At the very least, if you actually do believe that, you’ve just closed the ears of a big majority of the country to what you’re saying.
Be careful.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 29, 2005 11:56 AMMaybe the better comparison is that there is no major differences between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism except the name of the God they pray to. This war of terrorism is between fundamentalists who both believe the only answer is killing.
Posted by: Robert Thomas at March 29, 2005 12:07 PMWhat so bothers me about George Bush and his following is that they are so unwilling to negotiate on anything big. He tried to fake negotiating in February/March 2003 with Iraq, but it was obvious that he was sending only an ultimatum. He denies the possibility of negotiating or even considering the side of Al Queda. Obviously the tactics of Al Queda are completely immoral, but they do have clear and honest motives. He says that he won’t negotiate with North Korea, except unilaterally, which, like his Iraq tactic, is only an ultimatum. Bush tries to make it obvious that force is the only way to deal with such regimes.
The same is true here. The Religious Right is conforming to the fundamental idea that there is only black and white, good and evil. That evil can only be fought through evil, in the name of good, only proliferating more evil on both sides.
Again, this is paralleled in American foreign policy, fighting terrorism with counter-terrorism. Using the very same tactics that terrorists used. Promoting the attack of soft targets in Iraq, Afgahnistan, Nicaragua, only to become the victims of the same tactics by the enemy.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 12:45 PMWhat does “fundamentalist” mean to you? I’m a Christian fundamentalist. I pronounce equal condemnation on the killing of the unborn and the assasination of an abortion doctor.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 29, 2005 01:01 PMGandhi,
A “fundamentalist”, to me, means a person who is deadset on certain beliefs, values, etc., who is completely intolerant of dissent, and who often acts irratioinally in support of their beliefs, sometimes to the point where they contradict their beliefs in an effort to support them.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 01:07 PMGhandi: From dictionary.com:
fun?da?men?tal?ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm) n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Do you believe (your) religious scriptures are literal or allegorical? How does that answer react with the definition?
Posted by: Dave at March 29, 2005 01:10 PMRyan2,
Allegorical interpretation of scripture doesn’t take each story literally, but looks for hidden meanings through word usage and symbolism. Of course, you could have a combination of true stories and allegorical stories.
I think that most rational readers of Revelations would take an allegorical approach, analyzing the symbolism of the passages, rather than believing that the prophecy will actually happen.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 01:27 PM“A fundamentalist, to me, means a person who is deadset on certain beliefs, values, etc., who is completely intolerant of dissent”
So instead of being a liberal, some people are actually “fundamentalist democrats?”
Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2005 01:55 PMSo instead of being a liberal, some people are actually “fundamentalist democrats?”
kctim,
You make the mistake of confusing a liberal ideology with that of an objectivist ideology, when most liberals are subjectivists, in concern with morality. Liberals understand that there are a variety of viewpoints of all aspects of morality, thereby being moral subjectivists. Thus, their ideas try to make the laws tolerant to all moralities. As such, pro-choice legislation acknowledges that there are multiple moral truths, and it tolerates all, by allowing each pregnant woman to make the choice.
Most conservatives, on the other hand, believe there is a single objective moral truth, objectivism. This is where you find fundamentalism, as the objectivists attempt to impose their beliefs, which they believe to be the sole moral truth, on others.
Posted by: Ryan at March 29, 2005 02:08 PMFor Christianity, one rule of thumb on fundamentalism is the first few chapters of Genesis. Believing that Creation literally happened as described in the Bible (7 days, etc) is fundamentalist. Believing that Creation is a story that describes how pre-scientific people understood it, but evolution is the actual description is not a fundamentalist view.
This is a very broad description but perhaps it helps.
I hope this doesn’t hijack the thread into Creation/Evolution. I’m sure that debate will have another forum on WatchBlog soon.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 29, 2005 02:20 PM“their ideas try to make the laws tolerant to all moralities”
Only if their ideas support the liberal agenda or can garner more votes.
What moral truth is tolerant of the parents own morals?
What moral truth says its ok to murder an innocent and defenseless woman through a cruel and inhumane process but its not ok to murder the sister?
Why isn’t the fact that a defenseless child is murdered included in these so called moral truths?
The truth is, everybody, left and right, has differing sets of morals. Laws should be created to protect those who cannot protect themselves from these, not terminate them because they are an inconvienence.
Posted by: kctim at March 29, 2005 03:02 PMRyan -
As such, pro-choice legislation acknowledges that there are multiple moral truths, and it tolerates all, by allowing each pregnant woman to make the choice.
This is the classic subjectivist viewpoint, that by ‘acknowledging’ various viewpoints, that somehow it’s tolerant of everyone. When instead it is simply a matter of tuning out persons of principle, and championing those who are willing to dilute their views to fit into society at large.
I personally do not promote religiously motivated political policy, however, when it comes to discussing morality, I find that the subjectivist viewpoint is just as intolerant of those at whom it points its finger at as those at whom it points its finger.
It is impossible for government policy to ‘tolerate’ all the people all the time, and trying to promote such a political stance is equally ridiculous. If you want to be the champion of compromise and tolerance, you must be willing to accept the notion that you will, in fact, be intolerant of some groups with every decision.
Posted by: AParker at March 29, 2005 03:03 PMBe wary of what dictionaries you use. Clearly Dictionary.com is politicized if adding an “ism” to the root suddenly makes the word refer to militant Christian Evangelicals - this would mean that Osama bin Laden is an Evangelical. It seems they even got their facts wrong - maybe it should read “late 20th and early 21st century”.
When the heck did dictionaries start including speculation? …”often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism”? That’s not a definition! That’s an abstraction and opinion, and by its very use assumes that secularism is never intolerant of fundamentalism. Our language is being butchered. According to this thinking, Dictionary.com should define the words “intelligent” and “John Kerry” using the term “NotBush”. See earlier references to Orwell.
Any belief that produces “true” (or fixed) principles is fundamentalism. Its opposite is moral relativism. For a much better take on “fundamentalism”, read the Objectivist Center’s viewpoint.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 29, 2005 03:15 PMLet me phrase that a little better.
Fundamentalism (n): belief in the inerrency of an absolute authority, or “truth”, from which stems adherence to fixed principles.
This is pretty close to the Objectivist’s definition.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 29, 2005 03:21 PMA peaceful religion is the only religion. And if you disagree with me I’ll bash your head in and chop you into bits.
Posted by: Zeek at March 29, 2005 04:33 PMThat certainly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy…
Posted by: AParker at March 29, 2005 04:34 PMWhat moral truth says its ok to murder an innocent and defenseless woman through a cruel and inhumane process but its not ok to murder the sister?
kctim, impressive spinning. The story is that someone is so sure that they are right - right in interfering in a personal decision of another family - that they are ready to threaten violence to someone IN the family that disagrees. And from here, you tell us that allowing the completely legal practise of allowing a horribly damaged life to end - a practise followed by DeLay for his own father for instance - is not really that different from murdering a healthy, conscious, living adult woman. Oh, and don’t forget, he said, “shoot you and your family”. Maybe if she’s pregnant he should let her live?
And then to complete the argument, you tell us that liberals are “intolerant of dissent”. I certainly don’t suffer fools gladly, but I don’t go around shooting them either.
I don’t know what’s right or wrong for Terri Schiavo and her family. It’s an issue that has to be sorted out by those that have looked at the evidence, who understand about what Terri would have wanted, and who understand as much as possible about her family’s conflicting wishes. It’s indefensible that it’s been turned into a circus by those with a political axe to grind.
Posted by: William Cohen at March 29, 2005 05:54 PMSorry to burst your bubble, but you actually can be a fundamentalist and be a GOOD person. I have a relative that is one that is a perfically fine person. I may be what you people call a subjectivist, but he doesn’t care. Heck, here’s a better Christian than most people I know!
m-w.com definition:
fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -t&l-“i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a: often capitalized, a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2 a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Elena, of course fundamentalists can be good people. Hell, a nazi could be a good person. I think everyone should realize that generalizations are just that, general. If you feel that you are being misrepresented based on political affiliation, race, gender, etc., don’t sweat it. Of course, there’s a fine line between generalizations and over-generalizing. But I’m sure a majority of the people on this blog can distinguish between the two.
Posted by: Zeek at March 29, 2005 11:31 PMGandhi:
Definition (1) defines without reference to sect.
Definition (2) refers to usage.
It seems accurate in both counts.
Elena and Gandhi:
I use dictionary.com because it uses multiple resources and provide a fairly broad picture. The merriam-webster site is one of their referenced links. I find their definitions to be written at a lower level and less descriptive than others, at least on their free pages.
kctim and Gandhi:
You are both using the vernacular rhetoric of the religious right. Refering to agendas and murder while inferring politicized motives, even for a dictionary site. The pro-alive while dead lobby would have one believe that Terri is still Terri and being murdered. This would be contrary to the majority of medical opinion, engenders the emotional term “murder,” and denies her husbands oft supported contention that being in a persistent vegitative state was not his wifes wishes. This is not ending her torture because she is “inconvenient”. Would you similarly deny, threaten, and deride Tom Delay in the choices concerning his family member?
I can’t help but compare this event to one here in Boston a few years ago. I’m not sure if you remember the English nanny who was convicted in the murder of a baby in her care, only to have a judge overturn the conviction. There were many protests in her support outside the courthouse, having no information other than some “moral duty” to support this “sweet innocent girl” in her time of trial. She was guilty as hell, probably didn’t meet the criteria for murder though, and the judge got some serious grief. An “activist” judge? I even protested being a juror in his courtroom when I was called up a few months later and was excused into another trial. This point being the public often dives into these things, not knowing anything, just following some nebulous cause.
Posted by: Dave at March 30, 2005 11:46 AM“Would you similarly deny, threaten, and deride Tom Delay in the choices concerning his family member?”
Absolutly not.
If Terri’s parents were for ending her life and if there wasn’t so many “dark” areas in this case, I would have no problem with allowing Terri to die in a humane way.
I totally support a persons right to die but he wasn’t even sure what Terri’s wishes were earlier on and if her parents believe there is still something there, where is the harm in allowing them to keep caring for her?
kctim: “if there wasn’t so many “dark” areas in this case”
That is where the problem lies. I see no dark areas.
She’s brain dead. The courts gave Michael the final say years ago to carry out her wishes. The harm is in not carrying out her wishes. Terri’s parents couldn’t let go and fought as long and as hard as they could but they don’t get the final say, and we certainly should get no say.
Finally, I support the right to die. But I dislike the idea of dying by starvation and think euthanasia should be allowed to be an active, rather than purely passive, process.
Posted by: Dave at March 30, 2005 02:59 PMwhere is the harm in allowing them to keep caring for her?The harm is that the legal status of a spouse is undermined. Currently, a spouse is the default legal guardian. You’re proposing that the position of a spouse can be overriden by a relative, which calls a lot of law into question, from medical issues to spousal exemptions to the 5th amendment. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 03:00 PM
then why doesnt Michael Schiavo release her into their custody?
I used to support her right to die, but am now starting to think that, as kctim said, there are many “dark” areas in this case that are not being covered. maybe because the media has already made up its mind and is not actively pursuing the facts anymore.
check out the article about this at villagevoice.com, its on the front page. seemingly biased, but it contains more than the articles Ive read on yahoo.
there is more to this than we might think.
I do know, however, that if I were braindead I would want my family to let me go, instead of amassing a fortune in medical bills over the years. there is more dignity in death that living in such a manner.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2005 04:00 PMthen why doesnt Michael Schiavo release her into their custody?
One side would say it’s so he can honor her wishes. The other side would say it’s so he can get the money. Since there’s no money left from the trial and he’s turned down offers of millions of dollars to let her go, I don’t think his motive is greed. So, I think it’s the first explanation.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 04:06 PM“Maybe the better comparison is that there is no major differences between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism except the name of the God they pray to.”
Plese permit me to take a bit of freedom with this argument by issuing the following alert to all American cities: Be on the lookout for militant Amish. Intelligence sources are convinced of a high-level plot within the Amish community to attempt terrorist attacks on our cities by driving horse-drawn carriages into some of our buildings. Specific targets have not been announced.
Posted by: Robert A. Dugger at March 30, 2005 04:16 PMJames,
I’m not a law expert, but I don’t think there’s any provision in the law allowing a person to release guardianship of his/her spouse (other than divorce obviously). If this is true, it seems that Michael would not be legally allowed to release custody of Terri to her parents (seeing as Terri’s state prevents her from getting a divorce).
Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 04:56 PMDave, if you think I’m using “religious right” rhetoric, then go read up on my links first. You will have to qualify the Objectivist as being right-wing.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 30, 2005 05:40 PMIf michael schiavo were to accept money to let her go, then his motives would be made clear for all to see. If instead he publicly clings to his wife’s purported wishes, as to appear supportive and selfless, his image and therefor his case will seem pure to the masses.
Make no mistake, perception is key in stories of this scale.
Im not for or against this man, I just wish we knew better what was really going on.
on a side note, why do we have to take sides? Sides are born of secrecy and ulterior motives. If the “truth” (so to say) were made light, then perhaps we could look on this case with more objectivity.
Posted by: James at March 30, 2005 08:35 PM“”where is the harm in allowing them to keep caring for her?”
“The harm is that the legal status of a spouse is undermined”“
why not, instead of focusing whether or not someone’s legal dignity (“…undermined…”) is being offended, sign her body over to the parents and let it be? The parents, who are so obviously obsessed with their daughters memory, can take care of her until she dies. The husband can move on and live his new life fully. Everybody wins.
This is a feud, between these two contenders. I wonder is Terri Schiavo has much to do with it anymore.
Mr. Schindler said he was willing to cut off Terri’s arms and legs in order to keep her alive. Bizarro. And why isn’t anyone writing about the fact that she was bulimic, which caused this woman’s brain death. I find it wildly ironic that this woman starved herself to death, or at least created a chemical imbalance from eating and vomiting which caused her heart attack. Her parents are probably pyschologically traumatized by this so they’re doing ANYTHING to keep her from starving herself to death AGAIN. How do we know what kind of relationship she had with her parents? Their behavior in all this doesn’t seem in her best interest…
Posted by: C at March 30, 2005 09:51 PM“Im not for or against this man, I just wish we knew better what was really going on.”
I’m right there with you James.
It has gone from what is right for Terri to whose agenda is supported by the end results.
C
There are all kinds of conspiracy theories out there, mostly against the husband. Lets not bring all of those into this.
Gandhi:
I am not correlating Objectivist political philosophy with Fundamentalist religious philosophy.
The Objectivists, if you’re talking about Ayn Rand, are basically anarchists (currently calling themselves Libertarians). They believe in minimalist gov’t and bringing people to their full potential by self effort.
Rightwing religious proponents support a faith doctrine which may engender or prefer a gov’t “style” but generally would not explicitly define such a style.
Also, you never answered my question: Do you believe your religious writings are literal or allegorical?
Finnaly: Examples of rightwing religious rhetoric from your posts:
“Clearly Dictionary.com is politicized if adding an “ism” to the root suddenly makes the word refer to militant Christian Evangelicals” :: That def’n is the common American usage, but you would rather redirect attention away from the negative implications.
It seems they even got their facts wrong - maybe it should read “late 20th and early 21st century”. :: Your comment here is factually in error. Not an uncommon way for the the right to belittle an opposing view point.
“When the heck did dictionaries start including speculation? …”often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism”? That’s not a definition! ” :: That is not speculation, it is elaboration or clarification
“That’s an abstraction and opinion, and by its very use assumes that secularism is never intolerant of fundamentalism.” This is not a definition of secularism. :: Again, an attempt to belittle and not relevant.
Our language is being butchered. According to this thinking, Dictionary.com should define the words “intelligent” and “John Kerry” using the term “NotBush”. See earlier references to Orwell. :: Again, an attempt to belittle and not relevant.
Posted by: Dave at March 31, 2005 12:35 PMThe problem with moral objectivism is that nobody makes decisions free from their own subjective context.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2005 03:15 PM“Im not for or against this man, I just wish we knew better what was really going on.”
Gee guys, this case has ben going on for how many years?
The husband has been investigated and exonorated. I guess that’s not good enough for some people.
We had only been shown the tape from 2002 that shows some possible reaction by Terri.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/03/31/schiavo.tapes/
Other tapes from that time were released Wenesday. These other tapes show the examination of Terri by a neurosurgeon.
The real tragedy here has been the demonization of Michael Schiavo. He seems a decent man.
Posted by: Rocky at April 1, 2005 11:05 AMI think we should take all of the “activity challenged” people and send them to Tom Delays house and all of the rest of the alleged pro-lifers!! And dont forget to watch the cannonization of terri shiavo, only on fox news!!
Posted by: Richard Nelson at April 2, 2005 12:03 PMA fanatic is someone whose sincere religious beliefs serve their interests.
A faithholder is someone whose interests are subordinated to following their religious beliefs.
Please add the website of the Democrats for Life of America to your links. People might find it interesting. www.democratsforlife.org
Posted by: byates at April 11, 2005 03:23 PM
