BATS: Defending Human Life=Theocracy?

Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness


One of least sensible things I've heard the "Blogging Against Theocracy" crowd list among their shopping list of things to exorcise religious thought from is the protection of human like, e.g. Terri Schiavo.

Without even exploring the overwhelming evidence that Terri Schiavo, while severely disabled, remained cognitive (e.g. she laughed, she expressed irritation at an invasive medical procedure, she tried to talk, she clearly recognized her parents, she followed a balloon around with her eyes), religious faith had EVERYTHING to say about Terri's situation and other situations dealing with euthanasia.

Life, death and the afterlife fall into the purview of religious thought even more so than that of government. Yet government does have a certain amount of jurisdiction over these areas because it is charged, both in God's law and by man's law, with the protection of human life.

That her threadbare excuse for a husband's petition to kill his "wife" was even entertained was a travesty (amidst allegations that he might have abused and/or assaulted her, the fact that he'd been living with and having children with another woman while trying to end his "wife's" life, that he stood to gain financially from her death, and that there was no documentary evidence that Terri would want to die in a situation such as hers), was a moral and legal travesty.

When the normal system breaks down and is about to allow a terrible miscarriage of justice, others within government not only have a right but a responsibility to intervene and prevent that miscarriage. Governor Bush should have done much more than he did, and the U.S. Congress, though they took some action, should have done more. But in the end, they all subordinated what was right to the will of a judge.

What's more, the murder of Terri Schiavo went well beyond just turning off the heart or lung machine of a person who had no brain function. Terri obviously had awareness, and her autonomic functions were working fine. She just needed a feeding tube for food and water, since her "husband" wouldn't allow her any therapy to be able to eat and drink on her own.

Since when are food and water "medical treatment?" Do you plan to have some "medical treatment" tonight? Will you go to a restaurant for some "medical treatment" this weekend? What kind of "medical treatment" do you prefer: Italian or Chinese?

Secularists and purveyors of the culture of death would have us believe that because an argument may have religious standing, it is therefore invalid for consideration in public policy. What utter nonsense! We'd better repeal our murder, rape and theft laws, then, because these issues are religious in nature (i.e. the Bible speaks to their morality).

You might think at first glance that even secularists would appreciate the unique and fragile nature of human life (after all, in many of their minds, this life is all there is). You might think that even they would realize the rightness of not killing a woman too disabled to fend off her murderers. The fact that this moral truth escapes secularists is indeed further truth that if our faith values do not inform our public policy, our public policy will become cold, callous and barbaric.

Placing value on human life and defending the disabled does NOT constitute "Congress [making a] law respecting an establishment of religion." Nor does it constitute a "theocracy."