A Question For The Schiavo Triumphalists
Dean
Do you think for one second that Terri Schiavo would appreciate the vile things you're saying about her mother, her father, her sisters and brothers?
Do you?
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Question For The Schiavo Triumphalists
- How Much More Like O.J. Can You Get?
- I Don't Remember...
- Schiavo Triumphalism
From dollar bills in a Swiss Miss box outside a Pinellas Park hospice to $300,000 donated by an Arizona "family values" group, Americans have opened their wallets to Terri Schiavo.
Conservative advocacy organizations are raising money through their Web sites and newsletters. Schiavo's parents and siblings have a foundation dedicated to keeping her alive. Even bloggers have chipped in, raising money for newspaper ads.
"Help Save Terri Schiavo's Life," read the top headline on Friday's home page of RightMarch.com. Just below the headline, a button allowed visitors to listen to 31/2 minutes of Schiavo seemingly moaning after her feeding tube was removed March 18. Below that, people were encouraged to "give an emergency donation."
According to the Web site, RightMarch was formed in 2003 "to give hundreds of thousands of hardworking, patriotic Americans ... a strong collective voice."
"They're Going to Kill My Daughter Terri Schiavo Unless Good People Like You Help us Stop Them," writes Bob Schindler, Schiavo's father, in an Internet solicitation letter for the Life Legal Defense Foundation, which helped underwrite the Schindler family's legal fees.
Donors of $100 or more can receive a videotape of Schiavo in her bed, as can anyone who promises to show the tape and the solicitation letter to friends.
See this article in the St. Pete paper and the tell me who the good guys were.
dale
I think all of Terri's family members, both her original family and her family by marriage, have behaved abominably at some point or another during this saga. I can imagine her parents' feelings of rage and helplessness at not having more control of their daughter's situation and being unable to defend her when they felt that a wrong was truly being committed by a man who did not care for her. I can also imagine the anger of Michael Shiavo, because I can picture myself having to try to end a family member's life at their request while being fought tooth and nail and having every aspect of my life and character questioned. (Ordering cruel words carved on a rock is a little different than fatally stabbing two people with a knife, to clarify how he's unlike OJ.) So I can grant the feelings, but all involved allowed those feelings to prompt them to say and do some unforgivable things; I don't really think there's such a thing as a moral high ground between these parties. A plague on all their damn houses. May Terri rest in peace.
In the war between Good and Evil there is much colateral damage.
Yours,
Wince
I'm confused by the question, frankly. Not much context. What "triumphalists?" Where? Saying what?
Meanwhile: "Videos! Get your red hot videos! Only $100! Get 'em while they last! Do your own diagnosis! Sink your presidential campaign! Videos! Only $100!"
I wonder what happened to all the money that was left over. Maybe they donated some of it to the Catholic Church's altar boy buggering fund.
A fan of red-herring are we?
Answer the question, and save the anti-Catholic rant for an appropriate topic.
I think the Schindlers would be happy if Mike added this to the end:
"For videos call 1-800-I-PANDER"
This is the point at which I require an apology:
Maybe they donated some of it to the Catholic Church's altar boy buggering fund.
I'm an ex-Catholic and parents are still Catholics. You've stepped over the line.
Yours,
Wince
You're delusional.
I'm not holding my breath. I'm withdrawing my respect. I believe I have always treated you with respect, and indeed had been respectful of pleased by your willingness to share your knowledge. But you trotted out a disgusting and gratuitous insult against more than a billion Catholics. That is bad behavior and I want an apology.
Yours,
Wince
You're showing an impressive inability to make a coherent point. Let me introduce you to my favorite website:
Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies
Read it, learn how to argue civilly, and come back when you can refrain from pointless ad hominem attacks and strawmen.
Continuing on this tear will only result in further humiliation, and terrible embarassment to the rest of us so-called "triumphalists".
I told the truth, deal with it.
This is the usual unethical justification given by those who trot out disgusting and gratuitous insults. Your behavior crossed the line from pure, continuous rudeness, which I was not interested in confronting, to outright bigotry, which I am. I count myself a member of the Catholic Anti-Defamation League. You, like Dubin and Lott, need to apologize.
Do you have the courage to do so?
Yours,
Wince
Way to prove a point, Richard!
Of course, the point you're proving is that you have no point. Or maybe you have evidence or a chain of reasoning that shows how priestly pedophilia is relevant to the topic at hand?
Wait, wait, I can guess what your answer will be: "You just refuse to see it!" OK, then demonstrate it for me.
I made it all up, you see, and he wants an apology. I want a pony. I wonder who'll get what he wants first.
there was no priestly pedophilia, no coverup, and no payoffs
Never said it (you can look!), don't believe it's true. There was priestly pedophilia, there were multiple coverups, and there were plenty of payoffs. I said you made a disgusting and gratuitous insult which crossed the line to outright bigotry. Digging in your heels has only confirmed my opinion of your character.
Yours,
Wince
So can we all please write him off, and stop taking us off-topic by screaming "STAY ON TOPIC!"
Live and learn.
The insult was all in the presentation, not the content. This sort of thing is obvious to folks who aren't purely and continuously rude to the point they cross the line into bigotry.
which you'd rather forget about
Mind reading? Actually I often consider the subject. It has many sobering lessons.
I'll feel free to make fun of the Catholic Church as long as there is one
OK, a self-confirmed anti-Catholic bigot.
Yours,
Wince
Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing my ass off at the idea that the Holy Roman Church is beyond criticism, derision, or ridicule.
The intense vitriol Richard feels was revealed in his aside attacking the Catholic Church. As most here know, I am a Protestant with strong opinions about the errors of the Catholic Church in both their theology and their practice. But gratuitous attacks against them within this thread reveals that Richard has a much deeper problem.
Maybe he is just a troll trying to get a reaction. Or maybe, just maybe, his expressed hatred of the Catholic church infers a deeper hatred for God and those who follow him. I don't know the man. But the ranting and raving in this thread makes you wonder.
Bummer.
the idea that the Holy Roman Church is beyond criticism, derision, or ridicule
Never said it (you can look!), don't believe it's true. You might note I said I'm an ex-Catholic. It's the kind of detail that some people overlook when they are angry.
So here's how I figure it. You are the kind of guy who would do something like this. You are commenting on a white guy's blog, but he is married to an African-American. You are in the midst of a heated discussion about Condi's failures as National Security Advisor. You write a gratuitous insult like this: Then you can't figure out why some African-American fellow commenter, who has always treated you with respect before, calls you a bigot.
Yours,
Wince
Not too bright, are you?
"Yes, Scott, I'm a heretic, but you still don't get to burn me at the stake.
Bummer."
1) Actually, the heretics of the Middle Ages and Reformation era never called themselves heretics. They called themselves orthodox (i.e., right) and thought the church or those burning them were heretical (i.e., wrong). Joan of Arc was burned, but she was not a heretic. Indeed, she was later canonized.
2) I'm, therefore, a heretic in your eyes, a superstitious idol-worshipping slob. But you still don't get to send me to the gulag to be "re-educated".
Bummer.
The man writing the well-thoughtout and lengthy responses is the dumb one - you, with your faux-witty two-liners is truly the genius among us.
"Richard makes the point I discussed in a previous thread. Many of those who rushed to side with Michael Schaivo against her parents are driven not by the facts of the case, but by hatred for those who sided with her parents - namely Christians.
The intense vitriol Richard feels was revealed in his aside attacking the Catholic Church. As most here know, I am a Protestant with strong opinions about the errors of the Catholic Church in both their theology and their practice. But gratuitous attacks against them within this thread reveals that Richard has a much deeper problem.
Maybe he is just a troll trying to get a reaction. Or maybe, just maybe, his expressed hatred of the Catholic church infers a deeper hatred for God and those who follow him. I don't know the man. But the ranting and raving in this thread makes you wonder."
True. That is exactly what I have thought about this whole controversy, and Mr. Bennett confirms it for me.
"....And yet the thing still hangs in the heavens unhurt. Its opponents only succeed in destroying all that they themselves justly hold dear. They do not destroy orthodoxy; they only destroy political courage and common sense. They do not prove that Adam was not responsible to God; how could they prove it? They only prove (from their premises) that the Czar is not responsible to Russia. They do not prove that Adam should not have been punished by God; they only prove that the nearest sweater should not be punished by men. With their oriental doubts about personality they do not make certain that we shall have no personal life hereafter; they only make certain that we shall not have a very jolly or complete one here. With their paralysing hints of all conclusions coming out wrong they do not tear up the book of the Recording Angel; they only make it a little harder to keep the books of Marshall &Snelgrove. Not only is the faith the mother of all worldly energies, but its foes are the fathers of all worldly confusion. The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world."
-G. K. Chesterton, "The Romance of Orthodoxy", Orthodoxy
Nevertheless, I think Terri Schiavo was purposely murdered under orders of her husband.
You would make stronger points in these discussions if you posited your arguments on something stronger than prejudice. What if, for example, there were no pedophile priests? Would your obvious antagonisms toward the mary folks slacken off, or would you find some other excuse?
Think about this just a little. No human institution has a total lockup on justice, wisdom or a factual basis for the purposes for which it was organized.
Sure, I poke fun at catholicism and just about every other organized system of religion. And it took me a long while to recognize that these religions, even if I have no basis whatsoever for supporting either their creeds or practices, provide a unique combination of social stability and personal solace to billions of humans.
Who can say that is against the interests of all those people? And who can best say what those interests ought to be, if not each individual person? That is one of the specific meanings of liberty, and it should deserve respect.
Cut some slack, man.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
What you don't understand is that Richard was a beta tester for Preparations A through G.
Perfect. Thank you.
If anybody knows what happened to the money, and if there's ever going to be an accounting, please share.
As to the Catholic Church, I'll simply observe that it's past its sell-by date.
"As to the Catholic Church, I'll simply observe that it's past its sell-by date."
"Progressive" fads have come and gone, but the Catholic church still stands. The gates of Hell have not prevailed against her. There is no sell-by date on the eternal verities which the Catholic church continues to uphold.
"Buy the Truth and do not sell it."
As for whether the Roman Catholic church is ready to die off, one can only point out that their's is the sole large-scale organized institution that has survived from the heyday of the Roman empire into the 21st century. Therefore, it can be accurately concluded that Catholicism serves the beliefs, hopes and dreams of hundreds of millions of people and that it can be expected to continue this role for centuries to come.
Will it be the same church organization as it has been in the past? Not hardly, I am sure. It has evolved in all kinds of ways over two millenia, and this too shall continue.
But this future, and all these changes, are for the mary folks and the priesthood that they support to determine, and certainly not for those of us who reject them and are likely always do so. That, you ought to agree, is a fundament of freedom of religion, and it must apply for the benefit of the mary folks as well as for those of us who choose not to share communion with them.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
But we digress. I'm still waiting for an answer on what happened to the massive amount of money the Schindler family raised by besmirching their daughter's memory.
For some reason the True Believers don't want to touch that subject.
You just don't understand our point of view, at all. The issue isn't the money, nor is it the Catholic Church. The issue was whether the state had the authority to end this woman's life, and whether we had enough information to make an informed decision.
The information that we did have was that 1) Michael Schaivo won a lawsuit to provide medical care for his wife, 2) Upon winning that lawsuit, he interred her in a clinic known to support assisted death, 3) using the money from the first lawsuit, he brought another lawsuit in front of a judge known to be sympathetic to the Hemlock Society, 4) Terri Schaivo's parents did not have the financial resources to hire adequate representation to oppose Michael Schaivo's case, 5) there were medical tests which could be ordered to prove beyond a doubt whether Terri Schaivo was beyond help, 6) Michael Schaivo refused to allow those tests, and 7) the only artificial means of care being provided was a feeding tube. (note: babies also cannot feed themselves. Are their lives, too, subject to the rulings of the courts?)
Is it really beyond your comprehension why we would be uncomfortable with allowing the courts to order the death of a woman who had committed no crimes - other than being an invalid.
Here are some questions we asked ourselves.
1) Why won't her husband allow the requisite medical tests?
2) Why, if he has created another family, doesn't he give up guardianship, divorce Terri, and just go on with his life?
3) Why is it so important that HE be the decision maker?
4) Why are the parents being demonized solely for trying to save the life of their child - even if they were dead wrong about Terri?
5) What possible motivations could the recent very strident supporters of Michael Schaivo have? Why are they so quick to conclude that Michael is right and her parents are wrong?
You assume too many things about our motivations. Most supporters of Terri Schaivo's parents had very mixed feelings. We asked ourselves, "Would I want to be kept alive in that state?, and "Is feeding someone really artificial life support?"
If Terri's brain was able to keep all normal body functions intact, such as digestion, hormonal regulation, processing waste, regulating heartbeat, lungs, and body temperature, is she really dead? All of us "artificially" introduce food and water to maintain our lives. Is a feeding tube so different?
It is likely that the Schindlers would hold out until they gained control over the decisions being made. But for the rest of us who were only recently familiar with the case, we just cannot understand how someone like yourself can so quickly reach a conclusion when we did not have enough information to make the choice for death.
You also assume that we, like the Schindlers, would NEVER have enough information to make that decision. That assumption may be true for some of us, but certainly not for the majority of us. But the assumption that you can make is that all of us, given the lack of information, would prefer to err on the side of caution when dealing with life and death decisions.
Finally, our distaste for Michael Schaivo boils down to these two perceptions: 1) he ceased viewing his wife as a human being long ago. The inscription on her tombstone proves it. And 2) Michael Schaivo treated his in-laws with exquisite cruelty - not even allowing them access to her remains after she died.
Perhaps this is too much information for you. Perhaps you are just trying to provoke us. But I have made a good faith effort to explain the motivations of the Schindler's supporters. What can be said unequivically is that the Catholic Church or the money raised to try to rally support had little impact on our thinking. And the reason no one is responding to your bait is that it is just that - bait. It misses the point entirely, which not a few people in this forum have been trying, loudly and repeatedly, to tell you.
Um, no, that's not the issue and never was. It doesn't make a gnat's ass whether *you* have all the information *you* want because it never was *your* decision to make, it was Michael's and Michael's only. *Your* duty is to butt out of other people's business. That's Florida law.
*You're* also wrong on several of the facts as well, but it't not worth my time to set *you* straight.
If *you* know what happend to the money, I'd like to know, otherwise I have nothing more to say to *you* (all).
It is a woman's body, so we should butt out.
Gotcha!
Nah, it's Cabeza, as that last comment proved for the umpeenth time.
Put up or shut up. Stop asking, "Did the money go to the church?" Offer proof, or you're just a slime artist. Or perhaps as Dean might say, a deranged, death-loving fuckhead.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
"As they say in investing, Arn, past performance is no guarantee of future success. At this point the Catholic Church is growing in Latin America and Africa, and hemorrhaging members in Europe and North America. What's worse is that the Church has completely lost any ability to influence behavior in the West by sticking to its ridiculous positions on birth control, abortion, divorce, and the celibate/gay priesthood. So while the Church conferred an evolutionary advantage on its members in the past, it's largely irrelevant now. When a society reaches a certain point in its development, it discards religion."
That last sentence is quite true. When a society reaches its decline, it discards religion. Then, it either returns to that religion or else continues its slide into further and ever further decay, as we are doing now. While I have to disagree, based on my own spiritual premises, with the Catholic church on contraception and also on its exclusion of women from the priesthood, I have increasingly come to agree with its stand against abortion (which, save in the rare case where the woman's own life is in peril, is murder) and against divorce (the death of marriage, "the suicide of love", as G. K. Chesterton put it). In Chesterton's day, it stood against the cult of suicide as well, and it stood as a bulwark against Communism. Abortion and divorce are hemmorhaging the West. As Chesterton put it, what we need is not a church that moves with the world but a church that moves the world. Athanasius contra mundum.
I'd happily have a serious dialogue about the issues. Just not with Richard - yet.
Richard,
Not too bright, are you?
This is very poor tactics. In this thread every comment you've made in response to me except the first exhibits either a logical error or a reading comprehension mistake. Let's take this one, because it's less obvious:
I told the truth, deal with it.
This mistake is known as the Sucker's Choice. It's commonly used by blunt people who believe they can either tell the truth or be kind. But that's not true. People can express devastating truth kindly, so that minds are changed and souls are uplifted. And it isn't even that hard to do. In this thread, Elizabeth Reid has come very close, all that seperates her from that kindness is this sentence:
A plague on all their damn houses.
Myself, I hope they can figure out how to forgive each other. People in my extended family have made some pretty awful mistakes, and there is bad blood to this day. Nationally televised bad blood is even worse.
Can't people remember to apply their own experience of failure and the tradgedies of their own lives before popping off about someone they have never even met? Based on my own experience, the answer is all too often no.
Yours,
Wince
Go fuck yourself.