And my opinions were only firmed up even more after a brief, …

Great to read your comments…I guess their reaction could be best described as quizzical…I wasn’t invited back but they were not unkind…I think that most of them probably weren’t Christians but they were making a very honest, good-hearted effort to help black folks and probably felt that they were following Christ by helping the poor and oppressed. I had never uttered a statement like that to anyone in my life and actually couldn’t believe the words that were coming out of my mouth because I was just coming out of 3-4 years of Socialist and Communist political philosophy myself.
Ironically, within a year my family and I moved to Phoenix and settled into a predominately black and very poor and dangerous neighborhood. Discovered quickly that almost all of the kids we worked with couldn’t read at much above the first grade level. Wish Chris Roberts could have been there to help us! (Seriously)

Point taken on the “You can’t change peoples’ hearts with legislation and court rulings.” That’s why I used the word “permanent” in the last sentence. Legislation and judicial rulings can only affect behavior, and that only as long as the majority of people believe in the enforcement power of the State. Once the majority (or even a sizeable minority) of citizens refuses to obey a law, the State must either discard the law, or simply look the other way. No amount of police power (at least in a democracy) can force people to obey a law, once they decide not to. There simply aren’t enough enforcers.

I agree totally with you that Christians have duties as citizens; in fact, our commitment to those duties should be greater than anyone else’s, since we know what is the alternative to Christ-centered leadership. I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t make our voices heard in the public arena, since only a changed heart will effect a permanent change in behavior. Nor did I mean to imply that we should tolerate injustice. What I was trying to say (poorly) is that only a changed heart produces a self-enforcing, self-monitored commitment to Christian principles and behaviors. Externally enforcing such behaviors works only as long as you’re prepared to enforce them, and only until a sufficiently large number of people begin to ignore them.

So, while I think Christians need to stand for the right, even if we stand alone, my greater desire is for that which will pull the crowd to my side of the line. That can only come through accepting Christ…not through any arguments I can proffer.

Early in the 20th century, Walter Reed showed that Yellow Fever (a deadly disease) was spread by the female Anopheles mosquito. The US Army needed to eliminate the disease, else the Panama Canal couldn’t be built. Instead of fighting the mosquitoes, they opted to drain the swamps that were the mosquitoes’ habitat. Rather than seeking victory one mosquito at a time, they did it one swamp at a time. The rest is history.

We need to do everything possible to drain the cultural swamps here in the US…after that, the mosquitoes simply vanish.

Great talking with you, Stan. BTW…how did your friends react to your statement back in 1972? If I take your context accurately, I’d say it didn’t come off too well. It’d be interesting to see what their reactions would be to the same discussion today.

Cheers//HEKTOR

Great work and great Scriptures. I always wrestle with how much Christians should involve themselves with politics because in one sense you’re absolutely right, only the Lord can change hearts. I remember going to a meeting of some “Christ-like Black Panthers” in 1972. I had been invited by a friend of my sister, who now heads a major International Relief Agency. I listened intently and said nothing because I was a guest. It was clear that they were all sincere and really had the interests of black folks in their hearts. But I also saw that they weren’t really centered in Christ, so even though I was so sympathetic to the civil rights movement and their efforts (they really had nothing in common with the Oakland-based Panthers), I blurted out as we all left that only Christ could change hearts and without Him all their efforts were in vain. I have no regrets…it was the right thing to say at the time.
I have learned since that Christians have responsibilities as citizens, too, and that statements like your second to the last line have to be discreetly used. This statement was used by white southerners and other conservatives, including Billy Graham during the days of the civil rights movement. It almost became a mantra. It was used, not necessarily by Mr. Graham, disingenuously to avoid the issue of the day, which was that blacks were being denied some of the rights expressed in the Constitution. So, I apologize if it pushes a button in me but the phrase has a two-sided history, one which reflects a Biblical truth and one which reflects a desire to justify unjust policies and hide behind a “Christian” facade.
And I would still say that the reason that all these things didn’t enter the Founding Fathers’ minds was that they didn’t agree with the Scripture’s analysis of the human condition because of the Enlightenment thought, as you said so well.

Cheers//HEKTOR

The bottomline issue here is whether or not human life is really sacred. Stan is spot on with his earlier observation that the ideas of the Enlightenment (a la John Locke) are the fundamental assumptions upon which the Constitution was developed. However, those ideas had a firm Christian basis, and it would never have entered the Founding Fathers’ minds that the nation would abandon those ideals.

The Bible clearly describes this generation:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1.22) and
“…but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing theselves among themselves, are not wise.” (II Cor 10.12).

Lastly [one of my favorites for these times],

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron…” (I Tim 4.1,2).

The things I see these days, of which the Schiavo case is but one more instance, reminds me of Mark 6.34, when Jesus fed five thousand and “…was moved with compassion…because they were as sheep not having a shepherd…” Can you think of any more compelling description of these times? We’ve cast aside the principles upon which our nation was founded, and are now trying to make ourselves understood to people who perceive things through a totally different lens.

Asking those who scoff at Christianity to behave in a Christian fashion is pointless. You can’t change peoples’ hearts with legislation and court rulings. The only thing that’ll make a permanent difference is for revival to come to America.

HEKTOR

Thanks for such a clear response. I think you make my point in that Madison “assumed” that the states and locals, etc. would make laws based on God’s laws and religion would, for the most part, insure that most people lived a more or less “godly” life. Because the Constitution is silent on moral issues, it provides no solace nor relief for those interested in upholding moral values. I think that Madison’s assumption was fatally flawed. My main point was that many, many Christians DO believe that the Constitution makes moral laws and statements. They are holding out the hope that it will be their ally in areas of abortion and homosexual marriage, etc. They don’t seem to realize that each of these areas and others, past and present, have and will require specific amendments to make clear statements of law.
As to the free speech issue, I don’t think I said that the Constitution protects everything. But it is silent, even in the area of speech, which promotes the overthrow of the government. In fact, the Declaration quite clearly states that peoples have the right and duty to throw off the government that is abusing and oppressing them. Fortunately, the Declaration doesn’t have the force of law.

Hektor,
I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with the Schiavo case. I just said that it appears that Florida law puts full faith and value in the spouse’s statements, not in the statements or opinions of other parties of interest. We have to be careful before we make broad, sweeping generalizations of all the implications of this case. It appears to be a result of some flaws in the Florida law. I haven’t seen any real specific quotes from the Florida constitution that clarify anything one way or the other. Maybe we need to try and get Florida’s constituion online and take a look for ourselves. And I personally wanted the courts to take a new look at this. I’m just trying to understand why her parents appeals have been denied for all these years. I hope Florida will clarify and tighten their law in situations like this so it doesn’t happen again.

here is one article (or POV) that proves your point exactly:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1363122/posts

Pursuing the euthanasia theme, one wonders at the lack of outcry from the Jewish and senior citizen communities. The Jewish point is self-evident: the Holocaust. Thousands of concentration camp victims were so emaciated that feeding them was dangerous—we still did, because the alternative was to not attempt to save them. I’d think Jewish citizens would be outraged at anybody being slowly starved to death at government direction. After all, the German government sanctioned a similar approach to Jewish citizens 1939-45.

With respect to senior citizens, I’m equally flabbergasted at their silence. With all press Social Security’s looming bankruptcy is getting these days, I’d think the elderly would draw some uncomfortable conclusions from the State’s willingness to terminate Terri Schiavo. Social Security is endangered because of the number of people drawing it, compared to the number contributing to it. An easy way to help keep it solvent is to reduce the number of people on it. Tens of thousands of elderly are in nursing homes today, in circumstances similar to Terri Schiavo. It’s not a big intuitive leap to decide that an 80-year old Alzheimer’s patient no more “quality of life” than Terri Schiavo.

HEKTOR

On 26 Mar 05 Stan said

“…No one else can recall her saying that she definitely wanted to live in this situation and even if they did, the fact that he is her spouse trumps their testimony.”

Hopefully I’m not rending Stan’s context, but the logical outcome of law based on such a premise is that it’s my responsibility to daily affirm to all I meet that I want to live, and that my failure to do so is sufficient grounds for disconnecting me from any kind of life support. In other words, in these situations, the legal default would be Death, not Life.

Stan also says her “husband’s” testimony isn’t considered hearsay, but first-person. I’m not a lawyer…I’ll accept that. However, I will speak of what I do know. I’ve spent my entire adult life in the military, and have had to understand the implications of a “conflict of interest” (COI) in order to discharge my duties. Allowing Michael Schiavo, who has fathered two children with his common law wife (with whom he is still living) and who will apparently receive an insurance settlement upon her death, is an obvious COI. The federal government states that individuals in a position to benefit financially from a contract award are specifically excluded from the award process. In other words, if you stand to make a buck if the contract goes to a specific client, then you’re not allowed to help determine who gets the contract. Sounds a lot like what I’m seeing in Florida today…Michael Schiavo stands to benefit financially from Terri Schiavo’s death. How a judge can conclude he has no COI and allow his testimony to be a key determinant in her life or death is beyond me.

Second point. Do any of you not think this won’t breath life into the euthanasia movement? Any laws established by this precedent will, if drawn according to the criteria whereby Terri Schiavo was put to death, will conclude that a deaf, mute, blind quadriplegic who lacks a living will should likewise be put to death. After all, he/she can’t speak, hear, see, or move…the same argument used to put Terri Schiavo to death. We are indeed on a steep, slippery slope.

Last thought…I wonder how many people were robbed, mugged, assaulted, or murdered in Pinellas, Florida, while most of it’s police force was handcuffing pastors and children, and strip-searching elderly parents at the local hospice? If I were such a person, victimized because of misaligned police priorities, I’d preparing my lawsuit against the city.

HEKTOR

This needs to be cleared up. The CT scan available online (one slice only) does not show liquefied brain. It shows atrophy and distension of the ventricular space. There is cerebral cortex present. A radiologist who has analysed over 10,000 CT scans, and who recently submitted an affidavit, has stated that it is no worse than that of an elderly person. In fact he has seen worse CT scans from people not PVS. Notably, he has seen more than one slice, which one would expect from a medical professional before they make a conclusion.

Re: comparisons to Jesus. Agreed the comparisons can be overdone, i.e. substituting people connected with the case for the key players in Jesus passion. However Jesus also said that whatever is done to the least is done to him. I think some comparisons can be made.

I agree and disagree with your arguments (at the same time), based on my limited knowledge of the Constitution as I see it. Bear with me, I want to be as thoughtful in my dissent as you were in presenting your case.

In the former, you state that James Madison did not put morality into the Constitution, and you would be right. Why would he? And whose morality would he put in there; Washington’s, Adams’, Jefferson’s, his own? He and the others knew this (especially Hamilton) and did not attempt to. What they did was put in place a framework, a structure, of how to create the laws of the states and of the Federal government. Since Madison and the other Founding Fathers were Christians, he assumed that Christian ethics and morals would create laws that followed in the tradition of the Ten Commandments. In this he was clear, but not clear enough. Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, allowed the courts to overrule unconstitutional law, establishing judicial review. But judicial review has been misused by the courts, according to the Constitution, thus creating today’s judicial activism. This is the conundrum we face today.

This is where I disagree with you. Again, you mention that the Constitution mentions nothing of Christian morals. But you assume it protects all speech and behavior, and it does no such thing. What it does do is protect speech that doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Where you find this kind of speech as protected by the First Amendment, you will see judicial activism interpreting the Constitution as a judge sees fit, not the people. After all, what people would actively seek an overthrow of their own government, especially this government? We’ve seen legislative idiocy that violates the Constitution (Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson). But laws are eventually corrected as outlined by the Constitution, especially those involved with civil rights.

You are correct when you mention that the Constitution is silent on issues as abortion, the definition of marriage, and right to die issues. What you seem to not understand is that it is designed to do that. The Constitution tells us how to create laws that support these positions, not that it will. This is the democracy part of America. We elect representatives that support our positions, they create legislation that creates laws defending our position, they convince the executive (the President) to make our position law. If there is a question of the constitutionality of our position as law, the Supreme court gets involved. This is true within the state governments.

However, as is sadly the case of Terri Schiavo, judges seek to legislate what is to be law, not as how the Constitution allows laws to be legislated. The Constitution states that the President cannot legislate. What he can do is help, but not dictate, the legistative agenda.

What the courts have done is far more insidious and illegal; they’ve taken their right to judicial review to override legislation to create their own laws, instead of letting states and the Congress do this, according to the Constitution. Too many judges in the Terri Schiavo case have used judicial review to ignore Congress’s wishes in the Terri Schiavo case.

Hope this helps.

The one thing I am praying for in this whole thing is that while Terri still has a breath in her body, that whoever is with her (her parents, her siblings, the priest), they are talking to her about Jesus (if she has never received him) and that she recieves him before she draws her last breath. That is my onley prayer.