Terri Schiavo, R.I.P.
Terri Schiavo died this morning shortly before 10 am. Her feeding tube was removed by court order fourteen days ago. She has been without food or water ever since (via WorldNetDaily.com).
Terri's fight has ended. May she rest in peace. But our fight has just begun.
For a revealing discussion of the Schiavo case and a peek at the underlying clash of ideologies and cultures which it reflects, see David Horowitz's post, "The Right to Kill" and the comment thread which accompanies it, here on Moonbat Central.
48 Comments:
The concepts of innate human value and dignity seem somewhat less secure today than they did two weeks ago. But, sadly, this is just another brick in the wall for the pro-death lobby -- or the "checklisters", as I like to call them. Defining the value of human life according to some checklist of characteristics, functions and abilities is simply a recipe for chaos and exploitation. In fact, I'd argue that we should be less concerned with the specifics of the checklist than we are with its very existence and acceptance. Any list that places qualifiers on human dignity is malleable according to the expediency of the day, since we (or society, or the government) are the ones who created the list in the first place. History is replete with many gruesome examples of checklists being written and re-written to devalue (or even destroy) "undesired" segments of the human population, from blacks to Jews to gays to the disabled.
As National Review asked this morning: Who's next?
For a revealing discussion of the Schiavo case and a peek at the underlying clash of ideologies and cultures which it reflects, see David Horowitz's post, "The Right to Kill" and the comment thread which accompanies it, here on Moonbat Central.
Poe, that is the very first thing that you have said with which I agree
As we are faced with the undeniable parallels between the justifications given for putting Terri Schiavo to death in Florida and the justifications given for putting the disabled to death in Nazi Germany at the initiation of the Holocaust, to those who supported the heinous cause of killing Terri we must ask "Never Again What?"
D.Subtrrn's "checklister" comment is accurate and frightening.
I fear for all the fools who have rushed out in the wake of this Terri Schiavo crisis to sign legal papers authorizing the medical community to kill them at their discretion.
I read that the Lucianne forum had been brought virtually to its knees trying to discuss the Schiavo case. Many bannings. I'm not surprised.
I wouldn't presume that I could even begin to resolve any of the disputes on the other MOONBAT CENTRAL thread. I'd like to point out, though, that having differing basic assumptions about what morality is, should not be assumed to guarantee a stalemate, and descent into mere name-calling. The deep problem may be that the art of moral reasoning and discourse is damaged for us moderns.
I believe this problem is a little worse for those on the secular humanist side. They are deflationary ontologists when it comes to morality; they tend to believe moral codes are "nothing but" common decency, permitting individual choice, generally trying to minimize suffering.
You don't have to be a Christian believer to believe morality exists and that moral reasoning does not rest on scientific grounds. I find myself wondering what modern humanists think when they read about justice and virtue in Plato's dialogues or Aristotle's works? Do they say thank goodness we have gotten past all that superstitious rot?? Nuts.
>>You don't have to be a Christian believer to believe morality exists and that moral reasoning does not rest on scientific grounds. I find myself wondering what modern humanists think when they read about justice and virtue in Plato's dialogues or Aristotle's works? Do they say thank goodness we have gotten past all that superstitious rot??<<
No, they dodge the question entirely, with such "scientific" reasonings as "it's a choice, not a child" and "her brain is soup."
Have we really sunk so far that Dr. Mengele is eligible for a Nobel Prize in medicine?
One would think so.
Lest we forget, There Is Evil Everywhere Under The Sun!
Michael Admits, “We Didn't Know What Terri Wanted”
Thursday, March 24, 2005
By Sam Kastensmidt
On March 18, Michael Schiavo, the estranged husband of Terri Schiavo, appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live to discuss the controversy surrounding the starvation of his wife.
On air, Michael Schiavo actually contradicted his sworn testimony by stating, “We didn’t know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want.”
Portions of the Transcripts from the Interview
LARRY KING: “Right now to Dunedin, Florida. Michael Schiavo is there. He is Terri Schiavo’s husband. Also with him is George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo. Fifteen years ago, of course you know the story, Terri Schiavo collapsed when her heart temporarily stopped beating and oxygen cut off resulted in Terri suffering severe brain damage. She is now 41-years-old being cared for in a Florida hospice, kept alive by a feeding tube. That tube was removed today. You were not there, Michael?”
MICHAEL SCHIAVO: “No, I wasn't, Larry.”
KING: “Any reason?”
SCHIAVO: “I just didn't want to be in the room then.”
KING: “And everyone keeps saying, Michael, I'll ask George in a minute, even if she said to you, I don't want to live like this, which is the reason you've been doing this, so what? If she's not in pain and the parents want her to be alive and you're no longer involved, so what? Why not keep her alive?”
SCHIAVO: “Because this is what Terri wanted. This is her wish. You know something, Larry, I feel like the government. What I'm here for tonight is I'm going to tell you -- I feel like the government has just trampled all over my personal life. It is uncomprehensible that a government can walk all over somebody's private judicial matter, because of their own personal feelings. You know, I should be sitting with my wife right now. You know, her tube was removed and I should be with her. But you know, I felt the need to speak out, because it is just horrible the way that this government is acting with this case.”
… Later in the interview
KING: “Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.”
SCHIAVO: “I've had no contact with them.”
KING: “No contact at all?”
SCHIAVO: “No”
KING: “Do you understand how they feel?”
SCHIAVO: “Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source List:
Larry King Live, CNN News, March 18, 2005.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html
Well, he says they didn't know what she wanted, but that's following saying that it was all about what she wanted.
I'm guessing he had a Bushism, but we'll have to see.
As for Terri, may she find at last the peace she's been held from all these years.
J
J. Edward Tremlett said...
..."Well, he says they didn't know what she wanted, but that's following saying that it was all about what she wanted.
I'm guessing he had a Bushism, but we'll have to see."
Spoken like a true troll, that is incapable of genuine intellectual honesty!
How could you possibly earn an honest living with that kind of logic?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you're in academia, and you're logic is ideologically driven!
MY MAN, YOU WILL GO FAR IN THAT GIG, YOU GOT WHAT IT TAKES!
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you're in academia, and you're logic is ideologically driven!
Just like your vitriol, grandpa : )
In all seriousness, one gaffe does not prove a pattern. And I think it's intellectually dishonest to assume you have proof of contrary intentions based one slip-up, alone.
As Matt Drudge would say - "Developing..."
J
One slip up!
You are sub-consciously saying you know he was doing what he wanted, and not what she wanted. People do not slip up on matters such as these. They slip up when they lie.
Moreover, there are several hospice personnel who said, Michael Schiavo said, "I do not know what to do, we never talked about it," early on, with respect to this tragedy.--one of them was a Miss Capone.
YOU REALLY ARE A SOULLESS PUTZE, AREN'T YOU!
Was Terri a battered women?
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/download/TerriSchiavoBoneScan.pdf
There is a friend who said they were looking for an apartment together, because she was going to leave "Mr. Death Valley-Style!"
SOME RIGHTMINDED, BIG SOULED JOURNALIST WILL GET ON IT!
THE CULTURE OF DEATH, AND ALL IT'S MINIONS WILL BE EXPOSED!
Up close and personal with "Attorney Death."
http://www.sptimes.com/News/052501/Floridian/The_spirit_and_the_la.shtml
Did "Attorney Death" set the whole thing in motion, for the money?
Gives a whole new meaning to am-ba-lance chaser!
Schiavo Attorney Served on Board of Terri’s Hospice
Thursday, March 24, 2005
By Sam Kastensmidt
The Center for Reclaiming America has uncovered a document from the Florida Department of State revealing that George Felos, the attorney representing Michael Schiavo, once served on the board of directors for the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast — the same organization which oversees the facility where Terri Schiavo is currently facing court-ordered death by starvation.
Time Period Reveals Odd Coincidence
On February 13, 1997, the regional Hospice organization filed its annual report with Florida’s Secretary of State, naming the nationally renowned pro-euthanasia advocate George Felos as the organization’s chairman of the board. On May 14, 1997, only three months after Felos was named the Suncoast Hospice chairman of the board, attorney Deborah A. Bushnell sent a memorandum to Pinellas County Probate Judge Mark Shames, alerting him of Michael Schiavo’s intentions to remove all medical care and nutrition from his wife — even advising the judge: “Hospice will be involved.”
Coincidentally, in the same memorandum, Bushnell recommended that the pro-euthanasia advocate and Suncoast Hospice Board Chairman George Felos serve as Michael Schiavo’s attorney.
Contents of the Letter
A portion of the letter reads, “The guardian is aware that the issue of withdrawal or refusal of medical treatment for the ward is a difficult issue in this case and that the ward’s parents will need to be involved. I am not aware of any other interested persons. Because of the delicate nature of this case, I advised the guardian to employ counsel who has special expertise in this area of the law.”
“It is anticipated that the parents will initially be approached gently and informally by Attorney Felos regarding this issue, that Hospice will be involved, and that counseling will be provided to the guardian and parents to assist with the decision-making process. Other court pleadings may be filed as necessary. Attorney Felos, the guardian, and I feel that the receipt of a petition for payment of attorney fees regarding this issue would not be the best and kindest way for the ward’s parents to learn that this issue is being considered.”
Memory Returns Seven Years Later?
At the time that this memorandum was received by Judge Shames, more than seven years had passed since Terri had initially collapsed. However, Michael Schiavo claimed that he had recalled his wife’s desire to die rather than to depend on a feeding tube. Interestingly, this occurred roughly two months before Michael announced his engagement to Jodi Centonze.
Law firms giving contributions to judges!
I guess this is covered under free speech.
No judge worth their salt would except one from a lawyer!
Michael Schiavo’s Attorney Helped to Fund
Judge Greer Re-Election Campaign
Thursday, March 24, 2005
By Sam Kastensmidt
As if the circumstances surrounding Terri Schiavo could not get any more suspicious, the Center for Reclaiming America has uncovered evidence that Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Judge George W. Greer accepted a campaign contribution from the law firm of Michael Schiavo’s attorney only one day after “Terri’s Law” was declared unconstitutional by a Pinellas county court.
Judge Greer’s Role in the Starvation of Terri Schiavo
This appears to establish a clear conflict of interest between Judge Greer and the best interests of Terri Schiavo. Judge Greer has been responsible for establishing “the facts” in the case of Terri Schiavo. Sadly, he has dismissed or ignored testimony from 33 physicians (15 neurologists) who are willing to testify that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state and can improve, he has refused to allow the Florida Department of Children and Families to conduct a criminal investigation of Michael Schiavo, he has refused to honor a subpoena from the U.S. Congress, and he has blocked virtually all efforts from the Schindler family to save the life of their daughter.
Law Firm Donates to Greer Re-Election Campaign
According to public records available from the Florida Department of State: Division of Elections, Judge George W. Greer received a campaign contribution from the law firm of Felos & Felos during his re-election efforts in the spring of 2004.
Of course, no direct evidence suggests collusion between the two parties, but the timing of the campaign contribution is highly suspect. On May 6, 2004, a Pinellas county court struck down legislation (“Terri’s Law”) passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush, which was designed to halt a previous attempt to starve Terri Schiavo to death. On May 7, 2004 — only one day after the ruling — Judge Greer received a campaign gift from the law firm of Michael Schiavo’s attorney.
This was not due to a fundraising effort, as this was the only contribution made to the Greer campaign fund on that particular day.
On a previous thread concerning Terri Schiavo, Mr. Tremlett wrote: "[F]or all interested parties: do me the favor of asking questions that don't smack of desperation and intellectual dishonesty… and I will give you the honor of the best answer I can give, with what time I have to give it.
"Otherwise, those 'questions' will be ignored - right along with the silly insults and `intellectual(ly) honest' allusions to Nazi Germany."
I see. So you want us to carry on a discussion about euthanasia without raising the subject of Nazism.
As Mr. Spock used to say: "Fascinating."
Mr Poe
There are larger questions that need to be adressed. There are other cultures that have different values on the sanctity of life. Yet
America was founded as a Christian
based society. Who is imposing thier values on whom. Are we being
ethnocentric or is the left guilty
of imposing secularism ?
Would you explain the notion of incrementalism in history. This opens the door for a range of distasteful outcomes .
I find it rather odd that the people who wanted to pull the plug
seem more concerned about Chickens
at KFC than a human. Starving animals is a crime but a human is okay ? Am I offbase ?
On a previous thread concerning Terri Schiavo, Mr. Meyer wrote: "The real issue is whether reason or faith is man's means to knowledge. The paroxysms of irrationality that regularly take place on this site are just the death convulsions of a set of faith-based beliefs that should have faded into history centuries ago.
"This is the source of hatred directed against Tremlett and myself. There are no lies too vicious to be directed against heretics."
Actually, Mr. Meyer, of all the people who have posted on this thread, no one but you seems to hold the view that "man's means to knowledge" must come exclusively either from reason or faith.
Most people understand that both have their place. You may see reason and faith as mutually exclusive, Mr. Meyer, but I do not. You appear to be projecting.
Likewise, your complaint that you and Mr. Tremlett have encountered "hatred" on this blog from religious believers is untrue. Again, you seem to be projecting.
You dismiss our defense of Terri Schiavo as "the death convulsions of a set of faith-based beliefs that should have faded into history centuries ago."
With these words, you pronounce yourself a mortal enemy of religious believers – which is to say, quite literally, an enemy unto death.
We hear you loud and clear, Mr. Meyer. Your point is noted. But it is your point, not ours.
On a previous thread concerning Terri Schiavo, beakerkin wrote: ""There are cultures that do not place the Judeo-Christian value on life. Is it ethnocentric of us to push our ideals on those who disagree?
"Is the converse argument that the country was founded in the Judeo-Christian framework and that those seeking to terminate Ms. Schiavo are forcing their values upon us?"
Beakerkin, I detect in your questions an unspoken assumption that "ethnocentricity" and its corollary – "pushing" or "forcing" one's "values" on others – are evil things, to be avoided.
It seems to me that the Schiavo case illustrates the falsehood of such thinking. Mrs. Schiavo's killers represent one set of "values." Her supporters represent another. Both cannot coexist, because the issues over which they disagree mean life or death to millions of people, including people who have no desire to take part in the conflict.
The showdown is inevitable. One side or the other will prevail.
That said, I do not believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only one that would show mercy to Mrs. Schiavo. I assume that others would too.
No doubt, the cult of death now being promoted throughout the world by various UN-sponsored NGOs will meet resistance from people of many faiths and creeds. All who oppose such barbarism are united in a common cause.
The larger struggle is between civilization and barbarism, in whatever form they take.
This is what worries me:
This terrible thing has happened, and everyone from the president on down stood around helplessly watching and handwringing as the atrocity unfolded.
The Constitution was not designed to perpetrate such atrocities, so there must have been some Constitutional means of stopping it. And if the Constitution cannot stop such atrocities, what's the use of it?
This sense of horror and utter powerlessness -- is this how the Jews felt in the very early days in Germany?
When worse things incrementally start happening, will we again stand around watching and hangwringing until we hear the knock at our own door?
.
Mr. Poe
Thank you for framing the debate in its largest sense. I think you are 100 per cent right about what this is fundamentally all about.
Snowy asks: "When worse things incrementally start happening, will we again stand around watching and hangwringing until we hear the knock at our own door?"
In his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey shows us two concentric circles, one inside the other.
The small inner circle he calls the Circle of Influence, containing all those things which we have power to influence personally.
The large outer circle he calls the Circle of Concern, containing all those things which may arouse our concern, but which we lack the power to influence.
Covey says that effective people focus on the inner circle – the Circle of Influence. To effect positive change, you start within your own personal sphere. Paradoxically, the more tightly you focus on your Circle of Influence, the larger it grows.
Thank you for the practical, not rhetorical, reply. I very much appreciate it.
Terms of Endearment
ugh! who needs to hear from the gross, selfish, lunatic vacuous likes of that?
{let's get to the diagnosis of your insanity, already)
... "Thank you for banning the person who wanted to reduce what is happening to Terri Schiavo to trivial and disgusting debate fodder."
Twit.
Are you even capable of being less of a troll?
WHAT A SELF-DESTRUCTIVE PUTZ!
Perhaps the mirror will help you define Nazi more accurately.
Feel the Love!
Mr. Poe, that thread has over 120 messages, ten times the average number for a thread. Not many have praised my sterling character.
But the above are actually quite unimportant in as much as they only reflect frustration. It is the lies told repeatedly about my positions that show the power of faith to blind people.
I said over and over that I oppose anyone being put to death or forced to live against their will. Yet, I am continually being accused of being a Nazi. The two are mutually exclusive unless you believe that Eichmann asked 11 million people "Now, are you sure that you want to be tortured and killed?"
Has anyone on this line ever said "Oh, I misunderstood your position". No, because it doesn't matter to them what I actually believe except in one respect. I do not, and will not, take seriously a belief held solely on the basis of faith.
You have accused me rightfully of believing that faith has no value. As a straight jacket for the mind faith forces people to accept impossible ideas and to direct enormous hostility to anyone who points out the obvious absurdity of their beliefs.
If I point out that a person without 90% of their cerebral cortex is no longer alive because the capacity for consciousness has been lost then I must be truly evil because every "good Christian" knows that consciousness is a property of the soul. The soul is divine and eternal and therefore, it cannot be destroyed.
It is no longer possible to scream "Heretic! Blasphemer!" so the cry becomes "Nazi!"
Dear Snowy:
My last reply regarding the Circle of Concern may strike some people as vague. Let me try to make my thoughts more concrete.
The U.S. Army took a lot of heat back in January 2001 when it switched its recruiting slogan from "Be all you can be" to "An Army of One."
The slogan debuted in a TV commercial showing a soldier running across the desert, alone, and saying to himself, "Even though there are 1,045,690 soldiers just like me, I am my own force. ... The might of the U.S. Army doesn't lie in numbers, it lies in me."
"Too self-centered!" critics complained. What about duty, honor, trust, sacrifice, leadership, unit cohesion and so forth?
The critics had their points. Critics always do.
But the "Army of One" concept has its uses. The fact is, we don't need to wait for anyone's permission, nor do we need anyone's help, to take stock of ourselves today and ask ourselves, "What can I do to prepare myself mentally, physically and spiritually to defend my country against all enemies, internal or external? What can I do today to make myself a more effective and viable warrior?"
Maybe the answer for now is nothing more than to start doing a few extra push-ups each morning. But one step leads to another.
One project I have undertaken to make myself a more effective "Army of One" is to memorize the entire Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Don't ask me to recite them. I'm still working on it!
Mr. Meyer writes: "Has anyone on this line ever said "Oh, I misunderstood your position."
No one has misunderstood your position, Mr. Meyer.
Like the foolish Emperor in the old fable, you have convinced yourself that you are strutting about in a beautiful new robe, but everyone sees you are naked.
Mr Poe
All countries including this one have a culture that defines us.You
are correct that I am hesitant to
impose my beliefs on others. Yet there are culural practices that are abhorent. Not adressing the issue would be moral relativism and
much worse.
Female infanticide,footbinding and genital mutilation are accepted practices in some cultures. Honor killings, execution of homosexuals and dowery burnings occur in others.I do not want to live in a culture that practices any of those things.Hopefuly all posters would do the same.Therefore you are correct that moral relitivism is far worse in reality .
Where do we go from here ?
I see the other side as almost missionary in its zeal to push secularization. Sadly, this has yielded death and destruction. I hope these people are not trying to create another cult of Man. Haven't we learned from the French Revolution, Communism and Nazism that that is a dead end.
Bob Meyer:
I will leave this topic alone until it comes up again. You may anticipate my questions, they will be the same:
Was Terri Schiavo starved to death because of her alleged contempt for the disabled, or the actual contempt for the disabled held be her husband?
Which of the patients terminated by Nazi Germany's T-4 Euthanasia Program were justifiably killed. Why or why not?
Richard Poe:
One project I have undertaken to make myself a more effective "Army of One" is to memorize the entire Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Don't ask me to recite them. I'm still working on it!
Just wait until you delve into learning the Federalist Papers or even the biographical details of each of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
John Hancock signed his name really big to be noticed, yes, but also because he had been arrested attempting to bring food past England's blockade on Boston Harbor.
Funny skip in the repeating history record...
__I do not, and will not, take seriously a belief held solely on the basis of faith__
Under what circumstances WOULD you take seriously the belief that it is best for society to have a healthy respect for life? I suggest a mind trick: transform transcendental or spiritual arguments and rhetoric to a more instrumentalist framing of the same issue.
Example of instrumentalist argument: if our society has sufficiently healthy respect for life to the point where we ban infanticide (even though the ban is not always CONVENIENT), it follows that such a society has it within itself to stop slavery even when that task requires war and death.
Mr. Poe says, with respect to my and Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit's "Florida Constitution" exchange.
"Gentlemen, I think I can help sort this out."
Whoa!
That's an understatement. Terri could have used you on her legal team.
Perhaps some of her malpractice award, to provide for "her care," should have been used to defend her life, instead of helping her murders to end her life.
FIRST CLASS THOUGHT MR. POE!
>Feel the Love!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was never intended to be LOVE. Fact is, I LOATHE moral relativism.
Moral relativism simply adds ZERO merit to any discourse. It talks way too much, is boring, repetetive, fallacious and always must have the last word. Plus it's FOREVER yelling and screaming about its right of freedom of speech, mistaking its right to be a bloehard to mean that others have to listen to it.
Well, they don't.
Moral relativism's first mouthpiece was the serpent in the garden -- and there's a BIG lesson there about the effects of taking moral relativism seriously.
HINT: DON'T
>everyone sees you are naked.
And it's a far from pretty sight. :-)
Mr. Poe,
While you are memorizing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence I will spend my time understanding it.
I meant to say in the ***allegory*** of the serpent in the garden; it's not a story I believe literally, however I do believe it holds important lessons.
"ye shall be as gods" was a statement of moral equivalency.
Actually, Snowy, modern moral relativism has a religious basis. It came about after Martin Luther announced that he could interpret the Bible better than the Catholic Magisterium by pinning the famous theses on the door. Once the sole source of moral knowledge was challenged there was no going back.
Subsequently there were movements that invoked a "right of conscience" claiming that no person should be required to do things that violated his innate moral sense.
When people tired of religious wars there was a spirit of ecumenism in which it became respectable to say that there are many ways to find God. Today, Catholics, the various Protestant sects and Jews are spending more time trying to find what they have in common but to do so they must ignore major differences in their theologies.
Frankly, either Jesus Christ is the son of God forming part of the Trinity or he is not. If it is true that "No one cometh to the Father but by me" then Jews are necessarily doomed to eternal damnation. I am aware of the modern exegetes who claim new interpretations for the Bible but then aren't they looking at the Bible as a "living document" in the same way that the liberals look at the Constitution?
While damning moral relativism among the secular types, religious fundamentalists of all stripes are forming a union in the US that is itself based on a form of moral relativism.
It could be expressed best by "We all agree that there is a God and the He is the source of all that is good. We'll worry about the details later after we take over the country"
If there is a religious revival in America and the Religious Right comes to power I am quite sure that ecumenism will fade and the old forces of bigotry will return. Once again we will hear the cry "Light the fires! Burn the heretics!"
You are sub-consciously saying you know he was doing what he wanted, and not what she wanted.
I am? Please stay out of my head, Grandpa. The dirty pictures and religious objects might give you a fright.
People do not slip up on matters such as these. They slip up when they lie.
Well, that could explain a large number of Bushisms, then ; ) (Along with a few Kerry Whoppers)
In all seriousness, that's nonsense. People screw up all the time when they're talking, and it isn't always a Freudian Slip or 'liar liar'-type situation.
As for the articles you dug up, they're hardly from unbiased sources. That said, I will have to look into them.
J
You know Mr. Meyer, I do not know what the short of "Moral Relativism" is on your planet, but on God's Green Earth it goes something like this.
Positions of right or wrong, MORALITY, are culturally based, and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. Individual gratification is paramount, and we can all decide what is right for ourselves. "It's true for me, if I believe it," so says the Moral relativist.
This position is diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian Tenants, and yet you try to somehow connect the Reformation to Moral Relativism.
I liken the above to your nonsense concerning Christianity, The Founding Fathers, and their intentions.
YOU ARE A INTELLECTUAL CON-JOB!
P.S. In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars."
William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man." Where do you think the world is heading today?
Well, Bob Meyer's world is holding up the sensual pillar of porn that holds up the pillar of child rape, and at times, child murder.--just one example there Bobby, more to follow!
Bob Meyer said...
"Mr. Poe,
While you are memorizing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence I will spend my time understanding it."
Yeah right!
You mean to say, I will spend my time, concocting cons, and spin to meet my "moral relativist-secularist ideology."
J.E.T. says,
"In all seriousness, that's nonsense. People screw up all the time when they're talking, and it isn't always a Freudian Slip or 'liar liar'-type situation."
You are a strange little fellow!
We are talking about the justification used to kill ones wife by dehydration, not politics, or casual conversation.
THE EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR THOSE WITH A MIND TO SEE, WITHOUT A DEATH AGENDA!
MICHAEL SCHIAVO NEVER KNEW WHAT TERRI WANTED, AND THE CULTURE OF DEATH DID NOT GIVE A DAMN. THEY LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH, TO EFFECT THEIR UNHOLY RESULT, AND FORCED TERRI'S KIN TO WATCH UNTIL MINUTES BEFORE THE TIME OF CROSSING JORDON, AND THEN THREW THEM OUT.
As I said, previous, EVIL EVERYWHERE UNDER THE SUN!
Moral relativism allowed Terri Schiavo's murderers to convince a judge that humanity is a euphemism.
We are all doomed in a sense by that.
As I said, previous, EVIL EVERYWHERE UNDER THE SUN!
Along with a broken caps-lock button.
And with that, I'll be back on this subject when the autopsy reports are in. Until then, good luck getting your keyboard fixed, grandpa.
J
J.E.T. said,
"Until then, good luck getting your keyboard fixed, grandpa."
Hee! Hee! Now that's funny!
You are not totally void of charm, unlike Bob Meyer.
J.E.T. also said,
"And with that, I'll be back on this subject when the autopsy reports are in."
HMMM! Do I detect dubiety? You need a autopsy report?
Any scintilla of doubt should have made you one of us, The Culture of Life!
FOR SHAME!
__If there is a religious revival in America and the Religious Right comes to power I am quite sure that ecumenism will fade and the old forces of bigotry will return. Once again we will hear the cry "Light the fires! Burn the heretics!"__
The last few religious revivals in America have been beneficial. Why predict the opposite? Paranoid much? Reminds me of those who predicted The Passion would trigger a rise of anti-Semitism. Not going to happen.
How many heretics were burned by the Church hierarchy compared to clerics murdered in the French Revolution, undesirables starved by Stalin, Red Chinese tortured and killed during the Cultural Revolution?
I think we are agreed violent intolerance is bad. SHOCKER!
Religion is a powerful cultural glue. It raises the stakes. The great achievements of Western Civilization were fueled by it. I see no evidence that irreligion is superior.
A question only for left.
Are some accepted cultural practies abhorent ? Slavery, Honor
Killings, Execution of Homosexuals
and female footbinding.
If all cultures are equal and the practices are accepted why are they wrong. This is not the world I wish to live in. Moral relitivism
is a dead end. Mr Poe can probably
Frame my question better.
rightminded:
You are confusing innate moral relativism with cultural moral relativism.
Innate moral relativism - the belief that man has a built-in moral compass that informs his decisions. He must be allowed to act upon it because it is the only moral guide men have. Men differ in their decisions but each is valid for that man only and no man may judge another. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is commonly quoted by believers in the right of conscience.
Cultural moral relativism - A tribal view that all morality is cultural and because of that there is no way to compare one culture to another. People within a culture must follow their culturally approved moral norms. This is the secularized and collectivized version of relativism.
Both forms of relativism are baloney.
Moral codes are not arbitrary, they are not cultural and they are not driven by some internal moral guide (conscience). They are a requirement for life on earth.
As for the deeply religious George Washington: Washington was a prolific letter writer and there are well over a thousand verified letters written by him. Washington never once (pay attention here rightminded) never once mentioned Jesus Christ.
When the Founders spoke about religion it was always in the context of "religion and morality" meaning the context of making moral decisions. Washington said, in essence, that people need moral codes to guide their actions because no society can exist in moral chaos. That is incontravertibly true. It also has nothing to do with accepting Christianity.
As for McGuffey's condemnation of "selfishness and sensuality". This is pretty standard religious nonsense.
Selfishness is the root of capitalism which has provided the world with extraordinary wealth and long life. Sensuality is occupation with the pleasures of life on earth which Christians view as sinful.
So what McGuffey is saying is that God forbids men to "selfishly" spend all their time producing wealth and enjoying life on earth. So? When have the religious life-haters ever said anything different?
If you want to be unselfish and cast off the world of the flesh then join a religious commune like the ones in Waco and Jonestown. I hope you like Kool-Aid and very warm surroundings.
Or you could join a monastery -
You could be "Brother Rightminded". That works pretty well. I think you'll fit in just fine.
Bob Meyer
>Actually, Snowy, modern moral relativism has a religious basis. It came about after Martin Luther announced that he could interpret the Bible better than the Catholic Magisterium by pinning the famous theses on the door. Once the sole source of moral knowledge was challenged there was no going back.
Untrue. Moral relativists think the Ten Commandments are negotiable. Luther never did. Moral relativists believe that the first commandment, that there is ONE God -- with ONE set of rules for everyone -- one standard of good and evil -- is untrue. Luther never believed that either.
His pinning his theses on the door expressed MORE moral absolutism than the man-made dogma and hypocrasy he was dissenting to.
Scholastic theology whether in mosque or church or temple has nothing to do with man's inalienable relationship to God. Luther was getting close to that spiritual realization.
prowlerneedsajump:
The death tolls of the various forms of intolerance have to be viewed as percentages of the total population. Obviously, when the population of Europe was only 25 million no one could be responsible for 50 million deaths.
During the Thirty Years War the population of Europe fell from 23.5 million people to 16 million. Although combat deaths accounted for less than half a million of the total, disease, starvation and plunder by the opposing armies accounted for the rest. No dictatorship of the 20th century ever exceeded that percentage.
Have religious revivals been good for America?
The one just before the First World War resulted in the passage of Prohibition. Prior to the Volstead Act alcohol consumption had been dropping for ten years, due at least in part, to the condemnation of alcohol by various churches. But the churches couldn't stop with success, they pushed for legal prohibition. Billy Sunday said the prisons would empty and divorce would disappear after alcohol was banned.
The actual result was an increase in alcohol consumption in every year from 1920 to 1929. But there were far worse consequences that we still live with today. Police forces became corrupted and ties were forged with organized crime that still exist. Al Capone actually got to choose the mayor of Chicago!
Gang wars raged much like the ones of the 1990's over drugs. We have all seen the old movies of cops and gangsters shooting it out with Tommy guns.
The extraordinary drop in the murder rate in 1934 has been a mystery to some. Yet the reason is not that hard to determine:
Prohibition ended in 1933!
Deprived of a source of income gangsters had fewer reasons to kill.
While the deaths due to drinking badly processed alcohol and the street slaughters of gangsters aren't attributed to the Women's Christian Temperance Union or Billy Sunday, they should be. Even the most conservative estimate would place the death toll for Prohibition above 50,000, comparable to the combat deaths in Vietnam or Korea.
America, wisely separating church from state, avoided most of the direct violence that religious intolerance leads to. But the indirect effects are still with us.
Snowy:
You misunderstand. You are right that Luther believed in moral absolutism, but so did the Catholic Church, yet they disagreed on specifics!
Soon Calvin disagreed and Zwingli and the rest of the voices of Protestantism. But which one really hold the keys to the truth?
It was the fact that there was no way to determine which "absolute truth" was the true absolute truth that led to "rights of conscience" and moral relativism.
bob meyer: you've recovered somewhat from the hysteria I called you on: fear that America's future includes burnings at the stake. You've downgraded the dangers of our religiosity. The profound revivals that tamed the West, ended slavery, and so on, also may contribute to the passing of stupid laws. Sorry to say the Congress, and the Left, do not have a monopoly on that.
Along with bending the term "religious intolerance" out of shape to make it cover Prohibition, you've, incredibly, conflated America's right of conscience with moral relativism. This subject is in need of clear-thinking: not opportunistically sloppy terminology.
bob meyer wrote: Moral codes are not arbitrary, they are not cultural and they are not driven by some internal moral guide (conscience). They are a requirement for life on earth.
Paper-thin. There are thousands of years of traditions, experience and moral reasoning to draw from and this is all you got? What's this tradition of yours even called? Looking back over your posts, the importance of culture toward our understanding of these questions is consistently minimized. Christianity is profoundly tied up in our national identity. The right to conscience, the moral promise that we won't come to your house and kill you if you don't convert, was there. The Constitution reinforced it.
bob meyer wrote: America, wisely separating church from state, avoided most of the direct violence that religious intolerance leads to.
Yes it was wise not to establish a national church. And it was very wise to create a limited government; one that does not arrogate upon itself authority over morality. It is a nation, in Washington's words, under God.
Post a Comment
<< Home