Monday, February 28, 2005
Once again I must ask the question I asked in a previous post, where are the liberal defenders of human rights? Where are these champions of justice? Why are they silent on the Terry Schiavo situation?
Too busy watching the Oscars I guess.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
I do not know Robertson McQuilkin but his story has touched my life in ways that I could not ever have imagined. I first heard Mr. McQuilkin while traveling to a weekend getaway to
McQuilkin married the former Muriel Webendorfer in 1948. Muriel was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1981 and became increasingly dependent on Robertson. The dependence of his wife forced a decision on Robertson in 1990. McQuilkin knew that his wife needed him full time while at the same time his ministry needed him full time as well. Since returning to the
recently it has become apparent that Muriel is contented most of the time she is with me and almost none of the time I am away from her. It is not just "discontent." She is filled with feareven terrorthat she has lost me and always goes in search of me when I leave home. So it is clear to me that she needs me now, full-time
Oh what a commitment that these days seem like foolishness to some of us. This man gave up his career to care for his wife until her death in 2003. This is the sacrifice we sign up for when we say I do. The marriage vow is not to be entered into lightly but reverently. This is what most puzzles me about the Terry Schiavo story so much. Beyond the right to life issue, which is of the most importance, where is our commitment to the duty to care for those that we have vowed to love? Where is the sense that the vows that we make before God are to be honored?
The host of the radio show said that the first time he read this story to his wife they where both in tears and his wife asked him will you love me like that. While I am not by any means the perfect husband I am committed to love my wife like that till death do us part.
The story touched my heart back in 2000 and has even more meaning to me now that I have watched my father care for my mother for the past two years since she too has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. He struggles from day to day taking care of her but I can see that there is no quit in him, it will be until death do them part.
If the Schindler family looses the battle to keep their daughter alive or, as I pray, God intervenes and stops them from removing the feeding tube, what then shall we do?
What we should do is change the norm of it all being about me by modeling that which is the right way to care for our loved ones, Choose Life. Robertson McQuilkin and my dad have modeled it for me now its our turn to model it for others.
When I first heard the story of Robertson and Muriel McQuilkin I wanted to be a man like Robertson, but God has worked it out and shown me that what I suspected all along is true I want to be just like my daddy too.
So those of you who are married stop right where you are call her/him and tell them how much you love them and renew your commitment to do so till death do you part.
The post above with links and quotes are taken from a FamilyLife.com article Till Death Do us Part by David Boehi. Used with the permission of FamilyLife A division of Campus Crusade for Christ.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Now keep in mind that throughout this whole controversy Mr. Schiavo, his attorney, and many other right to die advocates have cited that she would not suffer any pain. That dying by starvation would be the most natural and painless way to end her life. Take a look at this report and decide for yourself whether or not this is true.
One question looms in my mind, how does anyone know to an absolute certainty that a person will or will not suffer when dying? Especially in such a manner as this?
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Where are the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons when it really matters? They can come to the rescue of chickens but not someone who truly cannot help themselves! Amazing!
Lord I pray your will be done.
World Net Daily Reports that Judge Greer ordered an emergency stay until 5 p.m. tomorrow.
Florida's 2nd District Court of Appeal issued a one-page mandate today dissolving its stay -- the last judicial block to removing the tube.Thats tomorrow Feb. 23rd. I pray that this will turn the tide in favor of Terry and her parents. Glory be to God.
Later, however, Pinellas-Pasco, Fla., Circuit Court Judge George Greer ordered an emergency stay until 5 p.m. tomorrow, ensuring the tube will remain in place until after a scheduled 2:45 p.m. hearing.
Wouldn't that in some way put all of this to rest?
In the last post I mentioned having reservations about the state intervening by passing a law to explicitly stop Mr. Schiavo from killing his wife. I wondered if this should be kept a matter handled by the people and the courts? I am in no way a constitutional scholar or legal or anything else, but I do believe in limited government, but usually that is in reference to money and property rights. The case of Terry Schiavo is about neither one. This is about saving a life worth living, it is about upholding the unspoken standard that all human life, as established by our creator, is a precious gift to us. This is about doing what is morally, ethically, and naturally right. One big responsibility of the government is to protect the people. The state intervening in the way that it did was an extension of that responsibility, protecting a human life. To me, regardless of whether or not Terry Schiavo expressed a desire to be terminated in her present state, it is wrong to end a life in this manner, period. Neither the state nor the people should tolerate such practice. Dying with dignity is not about dying the way you want, it is not about not allowing others to see you deteriorate, it is not about being ashamed to suffer, for in all of those things having done so, your life and subsequently your death becomes a testimony of an unending truth. You compel sympathy, grace, love, sorrow, and appreciation from others by your example of suffering and ultimately death, while at the same time, you provoke courage, optimism, hope, love, and determination by fighting for life until the end. This is truly living and ultimately dying with dignity, to live pursuing life to its fullest, and if it befalls you, to suffer and die holding on to it to the end, and in doing so you demonstrate just how precious your life and life in general truly is.
For one to simply give up, pull the plug, afraid for others to see them suffer, afraid to experience real suffering, is to die in the most shameful and degrading form of all, as a coward.
Monday, February 21, 2005
My response is who cares!? Obviously, whether Mr. McClellan or anyone else named/accused truly are homosexual, it is none of our business since they have made efforts to not make it our business. So why all of the reporting within the Gay press? Just blind anger and ignorance.
Homosexuality becomes the business of the public when the public is forced to accept it against their own will and better judgement. I am sure it is common knowledge that there are gays within the ranks of the GOP. Isn't such information supposed to be a private matter though? Isn't this the Lefts' mantra, that what one does in his/her bedroom is none of anyone elses business? So why all the fuss over whether or not these gentlemen are gay? In attempting to show that members of the GOP are hypocrites, once again the left only serves to demonstrate their own hypocrisy in the matter. Sad indeed.
Then it dawned on me. Mr. Schiavo continues to contend that Terry would have wanted to die this way and not have her life sustained. That she stated this to him, according to a Larry King Live interview, after she watched some type of t.v. show on the subject matter. Yet, no where in the interview or anywhere else I've read has it said that she made him promise to carry out her wishes. No where is it indicated that he assured her that he would. No where is it stated that she was difinative about this choice. So, what has him beholden to this one choice of ending his wifes' life? How can he be sure that this is exactly what Terry would want given that the comments were made at such a young, inexperienced age? Was the question every asked as to how much time progressed between this statement and her untimely illness? I mean, it would possibly be more cut and dry had this been an ongoing conversation between Terry and her husband, or if after making such a statement, the following day she falls ill.
Interview With Michael Schiavo
Aired October 27, 2003 - 21:00 ET
SCHIAVO: Now, they keep saying that I'm the only one that came to the court with these comments that Terri made. There was two other people that testified also.
I disagree with Mr. King, I think a lot of 25 year olds probably do, including myself, and many change their minds several times over, including myself. That is not really the point, to me, what should have been asked is whether or not Terry Schiavo not only expressed such concern but would she have changed her mind as she became older? Was this one moment in their marriage the deciding event? What was her thinking prior to her untimely illness? Is it even honest to actually decide the fate of an individual based on one comment or conversation?
KING: That she did say that?
SCHIAVO: That she did say that.
KING: But why do you want it taken out? Why do you want the feeding tube removed?
SCHIAVO: This is Terri's wish. And I'm going to follow that wish, if it's the last thing I can do for Terri. I love Terri deeply. And I'm going to follow it up for Terri.
KING: How old was she when this happened?
KING: A 25-year-old said to you, if I die, if I'm in this kind of state, most 25-year-olds wouldn't think of something like that?
SCHIAVO: It was a comment from watching certain programs. She said, we were watching some programs, and she says, I don't want anything artificial like that. I don't want any tubes. Don't let me live like that. I don't want to be a burden to anybody. She's also made comments to other people about different stories.
I may be wrong here, maybe she did make him promise and he has made this known. Maybe I just havent' read or heard of it yet. If anyone out there knows, please comment and let me know.
Personally, I do not believe this tactic will be effective, nor do I believe it is right. Offering money to someone to do what is morally right could lead to a slippery slope. While I understand the intent, what is the message being sent here? Can we really put a price on a human life? Is it even ethical to do such a thing? Not only that, but I do not believe that a man of such seemingly low character as Micheal Schiavo would even go for it given that his obvious intentions are not just monetary. He continues to insist that it was Terry's wish to not be kept alive. So what would he gain from allowing her to die? He already has plenty of money stemming from several lawsuits and would stand to receive even more upon her death. He claimes loyalty to his wifes wishes and to love her deeply yet he has cheated on his wife with several women and has fathered a child with one of them.
In a Larry King interview he brought out the point that the video taken of Terry Schiavo was edited down from 4 in a half hours of footage. The point being that the reactions and responses made were the result of merely watching and waiting for some type of automatic, unconscious motor movements. Micheal Schiavo contends that his wife is a vegatable.
One thing comes to mind after reading up on some of the history of this case. Does the state have a right to intervene and if so on what grounds? It is one thing to allow the courts to decide in such a private and personal matter, but when the governor steps in and actually passes a law designed to thwart an individuals efforts, that is a whole different matter altogether. We as the public, I believe, have a right to disagree, intervene, and protest, but what about the authority of the state? In this particular situation, the courts are not necessarily acting on their own will but merely honoring the so called wishes of a dying women based on the evidence presented. On what evidence is the state acting on? A video clip edited from 4 hours of footage?
I don't agree with Terry Schiavo's husband at all. Yet, he has been demonized by the media, writers, and bloggers, including myself for what he is trying to do. My contention is that he nor anyone else, including Terry Schiavo, have no right to decide when and how they are going to die. Only God almighty is able to do such a thing. Believing that you as an individual, can and should decide when and how do die is a sign of great ignorance and arrogance. I pray that some how Micheal Schiavo's heart will be compelled to do the right things, divorce his wife and marry the 'other' women, become transparent and disclose to the parents and general public all financials, and allow his wife the true dignity of life, and a second chance at treatment.
The methods being used by the parents in the form of state intervention is unsettling to me still. Ultimately my contention is this, if you are going to disagree with Mr. Schiavo, do it for the right reasons. Whether we believe it or not, it actually may be difficult for this man to carry through on this matter, yet he is. Why? Why not walk away and say forget it? I suspect that he is being used as a pawn for the right to die crowd, just as the parents and Terry Schiavo are being used by the right to life crowds. That in and of itself makes the whole thing wrong on both sides. Like I said, if you are going to disagree with Mr. Schiavo, do it for the right reasons. I wonder, has anyone approached this man and simply had a compasionate conversation with him about the truth of God's word and will for his life?
Is this really an issue of having the right to decide one's own destiny without influence from the state? I say.... well, what do you say?
Friday, February 18, 2005
It is shameful that we have to legislate common sense.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Some big questions seem to loom in my mind regarding her husbands claims that Terry did not want to be kept alive, if this is so, why keep her in this condition for so long? Why allow her to die by starvation? Why not inject her with something, allowing her a quick, painless death? Why starvation? Lashawn Barber remarked about this stating that maybe it is because the doctors and husband want to claim that she died of natural causes, to avoid accusations of murder I suppose. Yet, why worry about that if she truly did request to not be allowed to live under such conditions? Another question I have to ask, why didn't she write this down anywhere? No will, no legal document, not even a letter or note.
Wouldn't the lack of such information actually give more credence to Terry's parents when they state that she wouldn't want to die this way? Wouldn't it at least cause a thinking individual to doubt the word of the husband?
What is wrong with our society when rather than choose the side of caution and maintain life, we simply choose to end it based on the unproven assertion of a dishonest, cowardly husband? Is Judge Greer deaf, dumb, and blind, that he cannot see through this chirade that Mr. Schiavo is putting on? Surely the law would allow for the judge to excercise common sense, allowing Terry Schiavo to receive some treatment, or at least be examined by a non-biased third party physician before rendering such a serious and potentially devastating decision.
I pray that truth will prevail in this.
Other Terry Schiavo links and blogs includes Hyscience; The list of Terri's bloggers continues to grow.... and World Net Daily; updates on the legal battle.
Also, InTheBullPen; who doens't usually write about such topics, says he feels for Terry's husband and believes that he is merely acting on his wife's wishes, yet his love for Terry should at least allow her the chance to recover. That maybe true, that Mr. Schiavo is sincerely acting on behalf of his wife, yet, that doesn't justify his actions, especially fathering children by another woman and carrying on a relationship outside of his marriage. Among all of the emotions, hype, and controversy we seem to forget the moral implications involved here. This man's character is in question, not just because he wants to end the life of his wife, but because he has shown that he is unfaithful, that he doesn't care for the interests of Terry's family by not at least allowing them contact with her during this tough and arduous time.
Here we have another instance of the devaluing of human life. Personally, I don't believe Terry Schiavo ever requested that she be terminated under such circumstances, but even if she had, and I am sure there are others who actually do request such things, what kind of thinking would cause one to come to such a conclusion? That one, you would not want everything that could possibly be done to save or maintain your life, and two, that you actually have the right to make such a dicision? It all points to a type of arrogance and ignorance of the divine truth, that life is a precious gift from God, and only He has the right to take life in such a way. That is what makes suicide wrong, we are made in God's image or likeness, ending your own life completely rejects this. In addition, the willful death of an individual has unseen implications on other individuals and society at large. Not only choosing to end our life but also how we choose to do it can affect our world in astronomical proportions. It is an incredible act of selfishness for it only serves one person and even then it is not beneficial.
Just another clear sign of a fallen world. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
That scene has been on my mind since Sunday and I am still fuming. I've made efforts to look for these people as they probably do live in that building, which is right next door to my own, but to no avail. I am still keeping my eye out for them though. Then this morning I read Lashawn Barber's Corner about Terry Schiavo. The woman Florida in a vegetative state, whose husband wants to pull the plug on her and starve her to death, inspite of the fact that she has shown definitive response to external stimulus from family members. Her husband has expressed no real reason for doing this other than his claim that Mrs. Schiavo would not have wanted to suffer as an invalid. Terry's family disagrees and is fighting for control of her medical dicisions. As a result of their brave and difficult efforts, this story has been in the national spot light for some time now. On her blog, Lashawn Barber points out that in the Blogosphere, bloggers are mounting an effort to bring further awareness and pressure to the powers that be by blogging about Terry Schiavo at least once a day. Any blogger wanting to do this can join their blog roll here.
I plan to join the effort, I don't usually blog but a couple times a week, so this really will be a stretch for me to blog once a day about this particular subject. I hope that our efforts will truly make the difference in saving this woman's life, and not only her but all who are in this situation. I hope that ultimately we can begin to steer the general public back to the idea of human life being precious, sacred, and something to be upheld and not denigrated. Something that is established and ordered by our creator and not subject to the whims of man. This is at the crux of the matter. I pray God's blessings be upon this endeavor.
Friday, February 11, 2005
If you would recall, we had a similar situation back in the 90's with an individual named Rodney King. Which subsequently lead to the officers being acquitted and a riot ensuing as a result. Is this the same thing all over again? My answer, surprisingly enough is yes, it is. But not from the perspective of police brutality or racism, but from the stand point of blatant political meandering, hypocrisy, blind anger, hatred, and ignorance. Not on the part of the officers in question in any of the incidents but with our city and community leaders along with the residents of Los Angeles, particularly black people.
If blacks don't wake up soon we surely will have another L.A. riot on our hands and for what? A convicted felon and car thief hit over the head with a flashlight for resisting arrest? A 13 year old boy, who stole a car for a joy ride at 2 or 3 am, and for all we know was involved with gangs and demonstrated problem behavior prior to this incident? I'm sorry but it is just not worth it. One thing I noticed in all of the Mainstream Media reporting, no one ever comments about the home life of the alleged victim. No one emphasizes the character of the so called victim. Who is he? Why were the police interested in arresting or confronting him? The actual crime that is committed, which lead to the subsequent herrassmentof the "victim" is never called into question. It is blatantly de-emphasized and the integrity of the LAPD and the officers in particular are put under a microscope. Anyone who says otherwise is either racist or ignorant. A good example of this is in this LA Times editorial where the argument is made that the LAPD has a culture of shoot first ask questions later. I ask, is that really at issue here? While I would agree that it is possible that the officer didn't have to fire as many shots or even at all, this one incident should not be used as an indictment of the LAPD. This has been the case for many years now and is still going on today. Black leaders and the press are quick to scream racism for ratings or media attention. Therefore the truth is put to the side never to see the light of day.
In the case of the 13 year old boy, Devin Brown , it is tragic that this incident occured. It is horrible that he will never have the chance to grow up, graduate high school and become a real man, but what is even more tragic is that first and foremost, he is being made into a martyr with the use of such terms as "...the slaying of Devin Brown...", etc., when he is definately not a martyr nor was it a slaying. His death should be a lesson learned for his mother, teachers and the community at large regarding the state of our black youth today. Yet, another article in the LA Times makes excuses for Brown's behavior with statements like Brown was a "go-with-the-flow" kind of boy", and as one having "... a sweetness about him,". This all sounds good but it doesn't preclude the fact that he, along with another youth, stole a car and lead the police on a chase in that stolen car, then through the use of that car resisted arrest. And while the article does point out that prior to this incident Devin Brown's behavior had begun to change for the worst, including missing a month of class at one point and hanging out with the wrong crowd, it is played down to a point of harmlessness. Being used to somehow justify outrage towards the police and imply that it was unnecessary for the officer to shoot since he wasn't a hardened criminal.
Ultimately, the truth of the matter is this, the officer who fired the shots didn't know Brown nor had no way of knowing what kind of boy he was, whether a good kid or not. He was in the moment, defending the public good by stopping a car thief who, for all we know now, attempted to end that officers life with that automobile. Instead of holding vigils, townhall meetings, and crying racsim, which only serve to incite more hatred, anger and bitterness in the community towards the police, why not allow a mother to mourn the death of her son properly, in peace and in private. Then allow the processes in place to reveal what really happened on that early morning. Whether or not this officer used bad judgement isn't the point, and will not justify the actions of many of these so called black leaders using racism as an excuse for every unfortunate occurance within the black community.
If anything, the incidents with Rodney King, Devin Brown, Stanley Miller, and Donovan Jackson should wake the black community up to a harsh reality, that our black men are misguided and in trouble and need real, serious help ASAP! I believe the only way to save the black man is through the truth. The truth about responsibility, accountability, racism and ultimately about our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
As Ms. Parker pointed out, excellent response. While her article discusses and even defends Gen. Matti's remarks, which by the way I feel do not need defending at all, her citing an example from this movie reminded me of some key points that the movie made. This particular film speaks to some of the issues we are facing today in regards to questioning the need to go to war vs. Diplomacy. If you haven't seen it I highly recommend you go out and rent it, especially if you are a sci-fi fan like myself. You won't be disappointed. In relation to today's message of multicultural meandering, and pusillanimous posturing, it actually serves as a healthy reminder that, for the most part, both diplomacy and war are necessary for individual and national survival. The scene that displays the importance of aggression or war perfectly in my opinion is when, after Todd is taken in by one of the stranded couples on the garbage planet, he teaches their son, who is mute for some unknown reason, how to defend himself when a snake infiltrates their home. The first time the snake comes in the boy just sits there and looks frightened while the snake makes ready to strike a blow to the boy, Todd steps in and attempts to encourage the boy to smash the snake with a heavy boot before he is bitten, before anything further happens, the mother steps in and rebukes Todd for attempting to show her son how to kill. This becomes significant as later in the film the couple is sleeping and the same snake comes back in and comes within a few inches of killing both parents when the little boy steps up and smashes the snake with the very same boot in the same manner that Todd had previously shown him to do. Fascinating! The point, well here you have a couple trying to teach their son piece through inaction and avoidance, yet having to learn, almost the hard way, through their son that sometimes aggression is good and necessary for survival. While at the same time a soldier who is bred from birth to murder and kill, learns compassion, trust and to an extent finds something worth fighting for, friends, family and freedom.
David Limbaugh also writes about Gen. Mattis and rightfully condemns the left for their foolish attempts at once again weakening our military and attempting to force on them misguided standards of tolerance and political correctness. Failing to realize that this is what they are trained to do, kill the enemy!
Friday, February 04, 2005
In 2002 Oklahoma voters added an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution banning cockfighting. Ever since then, Shurden has been trying to thwart the will of Oklahoma voters.So, here we have an elected official willingly and intentionally going against the will of the people, the very same people who put him into office most likely. Why is this man waisting tax payer money and the people's time on what is seemingly a trivial issue at best?
How do these people get elected and why do we vote for them?