March 20, 2005

What Makes Me Angry About Schiavo

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 4:04 pm

So Congress has passed a law intending to prevent the death of a single individual. As I have already blogged, that may be the right decision (although I reject the idea that Congress knows better than the family and the courts.) What makes me angry is that while so much time and effort is being spent to save one individual,

I understand that these problems seem so big and intractable, and saving Terri Schiavo is something concrete and achievable. But the Bush administration and Republican Congress don’t even agree that our government has a role to play in helping solve these big, difficult problems. But they do believe it’s their role to insert themselves inbetween the Schiavo and Schindler families and the courts.

It just pisses me off.

17 Comments

  1. […] @ 11:30 am

    I had vowed not to post about Terry Schiavo again after my previous rant, but via Carlos at Jesus Politics, a poignant (but profane) Kos diary expressing anger at hardsh […]

    Pingback by I am a Christian Too » Schiavo Protesters — March 28, 2005 @ 7:32 pm

  2. I believe Bush would argue that he does care about AIDS, which is why he has mentioned it in SotU speaches and pledged money for it. He would also argue that creating a culture of life is an important step in solving those problems.

    I suspect, though, that your anger tastes better to you.

    Comment by Anon — March 20, 2005 @ 6:53 pm

  3. He mentioned it, but where the money? Nothing has been done.

    Comment by Bob — March 21, 2005 @ 6:58 am

  4. Anon… In government and in life, money and action follow passion. There is no sense of passion or urgency in our government to deal with the issues that affect millions of Americans everyday. What we get is occasional lip service that makes us feel better about ourselves without having to really do anything. Unfortunately the passion here is political in nature and has less to do with grieving families in Florida than the appearance of being a compassionate party. If we really want to save lives, then let’s bring our troops home from Iraq.

    Comment by Tony — March 21, 2005 @ 8:13 am

  5. Bush’s quote after signing the bill: “In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.” Where was this caution when executing more inmates than any governor in our nation’s history? Why not take issue with Scalia’s dogged insistence on following procedural rules of evidence even when exculpatory evidence could have been introduced after the deadline had passed? No, Bush’s commitment to a culture of life is as thin as the praxis of his alleged faith.

    Comment by greg — March 21, 2005 @ 8:25 am

  6. I’m linking to you on this. If you like to follow back, check out Tutterfly’s post on the same subject, too.

    XT

    Comment by Xpatriated Texan — March 21, 2005 @ 9:07 am

  7. I understand your frustration at the administration’s priorities, but I hope this blog can be more than “why Bush sucks today.” There are enough of those running around. 🙂

    Let’s get back to the subject of reuniting Christians under a dual banner of fighting for Jesus and for man. We need to work to inject a sense of social responsibility that has been lost among many evangelicals, and remind the Mainline denominations that faith in Christ must be paramount.

    I can go to any blog and complain about policy; here, let’s try and talk about bridging the gaps among ourselves.

    Comment by JasonB — March 21, 2005 @ 10:51 am

  8. You forgot to mention that conscious babies having their feeding tubes pulled on order of Texas laws on the basis that they are poor against all their next of kin’s wishes.
    Not that I’m picking on GWB… But apparently he signed off on that. Where are the right-to-lifers on that?

    Comment by Chloe — March 21, 2005 @ 11:02 am

  9. A very good post. And I don’t think that you should let up on Bush. The prophets didn’t let up on their nemeses in the OT and while there may be many blogs where this is done, frankly, there aren’t enough. Rightwing Christian media efforts have made the praise of Bush a 24/7 enterprise. When was the last time you heard a peep of criticism on Christian radio, for example? A different voice is required.

    Comment by Public Theologian — March 21, 2005 @ 11:49 am

  10. Bush isn’t your nemesis, he’s a brother in Christ; Satan is your nemesis. You don’t have to like Bush’s political choices, but ultimately you and he will be spending eternity in the same place.

    God sent those prophets to preach to rulers who had restored idol worship to Israel and Judah, and desecrated the temple, not because he didn’t like the budget the king had proposed. You have every right and reason to disagree with Bush politically, but ultimately you, me, and him are all on the same side.

    Comment by JasonB — March 22, 2005 @ 10:26 am

  11. Bush uses faith to get himself reelected, just like how the Republicans are using Schiavo to win points with some religious voters.

    We have every right to be angry and rebuke them for this. Particularly when there is so much more that could be done to save lives.

    I think Steve Knight is right that Knightopia about the need to redirect the energy spent over terri to get more done in Sudan.

    dlw

    Comment by dlw — March 22, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

  12. Politics aside, I am intrigued by the theological implications of what is happening. Terri’s parents are Roman Catholic and the position of that church is to preserve life at any cost. What we see is that the quality of life is not as important as the fact that the stomach works and blood continues to flow. All doctors are in agreement that there is no brain function and the physical body continues to exist because it is being artificially sustained.

    From a theological perspective, I personally do not understand this resistance and fear to the natural process of dying. As a Christian I believe in the resurrection to new life because of the grace of God. I would not want to be sustained artificially. Let me go, let me die, so that I might be healed completely. Then let those whom I left rejoice in my resurrection. There comes a time when death is not the enemy but the healer.

    Are such extraordinary measures demonstrating a fear of death and lack of faith?

    Comment by DaRev — March 23, 2005 @ 11:30 am

  13. Healthcare – here’s another major prolife issue that’s somehow been overlooked by the
    administration. As someone with a very rare disorder that market-driven healthcare sees
    no need to accomodate, take a look at http://www.hmoappeals.com for a view of hell on earth in the
    Philadelphia suburbs. Also a great site (if I do say so myself) if you’re having problems
    with your health insurer.

    Comment by Paul M. Martin — March 23, 2005 @ 7:10 pm

  14. DLW,

    2 Chronicles 6:30 says only GOD knows the hearts of Man. I would caution you making such statements.

    God Bless!

    Jim

    Comment by Jim B — March 25, 2005 @ 11:29 am

  15. For the record, it is not the position of the RCC to “preserve life at any cost.” The RCC has consistently held that it is not necessary to resort to “heroic measues” (e.g. breathing machines, etc.) in cases of terminal illness. The relevant differences in the Schiavo case are that a) Terri Shciavo is/was not terminally ill and b) food and water are not considered to be extraordinary measures for keeping someone alive.

    Comment by Lee — March 29, 2005 @ 12:51 pm

  16. Re. #13, Jim’s caution: Your word of caution sure makes it sound like YOU know something.
    You might want to read James Barr’s, The Scope and Authority of the Bible. I would describe
    him as a former fundamentalist who realized that if God gave us brains, he must have meant
    us to use them. Paul http://www.spiritualdiablog.blogspot.com

    Comment by Paul M. Martin — March 31, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

  17. Re #16 Hmmm… James Barr’s book and opinions… not bad. I still prefer the book I quoted. GOD is a much better author. I would describe Him as the Creator of all things, Omnipotent, and the only one who knows what is in the hearts of Man.

    Does James Barr disagree with that? Do you? I am making a simple point that is a quote directly from the Bible, not trying to debate.

    GOD Bless you.

    Jim

    Comment by Jim — April 6, 2005 @ 9:05 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress