The will of the people has been served: Terri Schiavo is dead.
That sounds like a harsh statement, and it is. It’s intended to be. I didn’t want Terri to die. Nobody I knew personally wanted Terri to die. Some corrupt judge, overextending his power, determined that an innocent, debilitated woman should be put to death by removing her access to basic sustenance: by far the cruelest termination to a life currently practiced in the western world. There are crueler ways to end a life, but none of them are legal. Their perpetrators will not go unpunished. This judge will.
Nevertheless, the will of the people has been served. Elected representatives and state and federal exectutives passed laws and made noise, but were unwilling to take the final form of interference, and call in the military to enforce their will. 30 years ago, the National Guard was called upon to defend a girl’s right to go to a certain public school. This week, the National Guard was *not* called upon to defend a disabled woman’s right to life. The independence of the court was deemed more important than the life of Terri Schiavo.
Nevertheless the will of the people has been served.
“How?” you ask “Because majority of Americans wanted Terri to die?”
Maybe. But that isn’t really what I meant. Modern democracy is representative. You don’t get your political will obeyed on the spot. It’s too hasty; it leads to mob rule. Rather, the decisions that were enacted today were made indirectly over the past years, ranging from the appointment of the William Rehnquist, longest standing Supreme court justice, to the election of President Bush, just a few months ago.
Democracy is the best form of government known to man. It has a lower tolerance for abuse than any other form we’ve ever tried. But it’s slow in a crisis. Democracies can’t change direction on a dime, like a Monarchy or a dictatorship. We’ve been rumbling toward Terri Schiavo’s legal murder for at least 30 years.
Or maybe less than that. You’d be surprised how many government officials are elected. Chances are your local sheriff is an elected official, as well as your local prison warden. George Greer, the Judge who sentenced Terri’s death is also an elected official. We know this because there was a [story](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43493) out that George Felos made a $250 contribution to Greer’s campaign last year. First, of course, that contribution reveals a possible conflict of interest, though $250 is hardly significant enough in a campaign fund to actually sway anybody’s opinion. But it also brings to light another issue: Terri’s case was under Greer’s jurisdiction for a long time. Something around 12 years, I’m told. In all that time he kept his office.
Greer was [last elected](http://www.pascovotes.com/pri04all.htm) to his office August 31, 2004. He won by 25% of the vote. [This article](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1371099/posts) gives a very colorful picture of Greer’s political background. So in August of last year, 28,930 people voted to have Terri killed. No one who was even remotely familiar with the situation could have seen any alternative consequence from Greer’s re-election. Terri’s Law had already been declared unconstitutional. There should have been no doubt in anyone’s mind that it was coming back to the court of whoever was elected in that election. In 1998 there were 209,803 registered voters in Pasco County. In 2004, twenty-nine thousand of them voted for George Greer. And he won. Terri Schiavo’s fate was decided not by Justice George Greer, who’s ruling was already a given, but by 28,930 people who voted for him, and over 100,000 who didn’t vote against.
Democracy is the best form of government known to man, but it’s slow in a crisis. In many ways, Terri’s fate was already decided in August.
In my mind, the sad part is that Greer has decided to make this his last term in office. He [plans to retire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Greer) in 2010, when his term is complete. If he does this, Greer will never have had the pleasure of having been voted out of office.
Democracy is not broken. The will of the people has been served
This is the scary thing for me though: I am fairly confident that I am guiltless in this case. I’m not even a Florida resident. *My* representatives did their part to ensure that Terri Schiavo’s life was preserved. The only thing more that could have been done was for my President to send in troops to protect her life. I voted for that president, but there was little chance that I could have persuaded him to intervene any more, and I am confident that his opponent in the last election would have done less, not more. But I remember in the last election where I abstained from voting for a lot of candidates because I didn’t know the issues at hand. I’m not ashamed of not voting for those – imagine my horror if I had found myself part of Greer’s 29 thousand – but the fact that I wasn’t involved enought to know. Who can tell what other Terri Schiavos are in my district, where I could have been so much more constructive than by not voting.
More and more I am coming to recognise that, in democracy, I am Caesar. The greatest abuse of power of all is not when Caesar acts incorrectly, but when Caesar fails to act at all. Political activity in a democracy is not a priviledge, but a solemn duty.
Evangelicals are very much aware of our responsibility to be salt and light, to preserve the world from evil and shine God’s glory into darkness. It’s easy to understand this in terms of evangelism and being a Christian influence on our peers. But in a democracy, we have a duty to more than that, a duty to do more even than vote. Political agendas aren’t set by referendum. They’re set by candidates. They’re set by debate. They’re set by involvement.
Will Hinton (I think that’s his name) at [Dignan’s 75 Year Plan](http://lawnrangers.blogspot.com/) has a post up [describing](http://lawnrangers.blogspot.com/2005/03/lets-take-back-our-party.html) how Pat Robertson dramatically influenced the Republican party towards a more Evangelical Christian platform during his run for president in 1988:
> One of my most vivid memories of that campaign was attending the Georgia Republican Convention to select a slate of delegates to represent the state party at the national convention. A tremendous battle ensued between old-line Republicans and Robertson people to win the slate of delegates. I think I memorized Roberts Rules of Order that day. This battle had been foreshadowed by similar skirmishes at county and precinct meetings. Long time Republican activists were completely taken by surprise by the challenge to their long-held positions. Eventually, Georgia sent two competing delegate slates to the national convention, where a compromise was reached to allow some of the Robertson delegates onto the national slate. Georgia was not the only state that saw such events, but was probably the most dramatic and was in my estimation the central fighting ground.
> The long-term result of these battles was quite surprising. It would be easy to assume that such a schism would break a political party in two. Quite the contrary. As a result of the Robertson campaign, the Republican party assimilated the new “Religious Right” into the party as part of the conservative coalition. Not only was the “Religious Right” assimilated into the party, but they have greatly affected the platform of the party. I believe that this event has been one of the primary reasons that the Republicans have been able to build a large enough base to supplant Democrats as the party in power in this country.
This is a very inspiring story for me. It wasn’t the *votes* that changed things, it was the political involvement.
Many people who know me probably won’t believe this, but up to now, I’ve been very reticent when it came to politics. I came from a family that had no desire to be inquired into on live TV. In 1996, I refrained from voting for the president because I had a strong inkling that God wanted Bill Clinton in office, and I didn’t particularly like Bill Clinton. My family *hated* Clinton (as a president), and here I was thinking he was probably supposed to be in office. So I didn’t vote. I’ve never registered for a political party.
Come to think of it, I’ve never joined a fraternity, ran for school office, joined a club, or rooted for my favorite team. I’m … not a joiner.
I *have* written two letters to the editor.
However, it has come to my attention that I may have a responsibility to be politically active. If you have the ability to intervene for good on somebody’s behalf and you do not, does God not see it?
How is politics any different?
Some Christians might respond that it is primarily our duty to pray and to spread the Gospel. Absolutely. But if you see your neighbor being mugged on the street and your response is to pray, does God not see it? Is there any better way to evangelize than by physically saving his life?
I have no plans to run for any major office, or anything like that. I’m going to seminary. But I am going to join a party and I am going to see about getting involved. God will hold me responsible for my community and my country, so I had better be prepared to actually do something.
I’m going to join the Republican party, not because I agree with every item on the platform (I don’t currently *know* their platform), but because, from what I’ve seen, they’re already more in agreement with my views than the other teams.
> But as for you, keep a clear head about everything, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. [(2 Tim 4:5)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20timothy%204:5;&version=77;)
neumatikos 
I too have been moved by the debate. In counter point to you working in to political arena I will be going our church’s newly formed political action committee and tell them it is not right that we participate in the hate spreading political issues. Hate is selling well now a day in the political arena. Hate for a husband, hate for judges and the judiciary in general, hate for opposing political party, hate for doctors, hate, hate hate. If you don’t say it’s wrong you are saying it’s right. I have listened too long to the adage Love the sinner and Hate the sin. Love ones of mine have used that too long to rationalize their hatred. The way I see it, no one sees the love just the hate. They will know we are Christians by our love. What will they know about us if all they see is our hate?
I am politically active, and vote my values. What I value in our country is the freedom of the Christ choice. I believe God has blessed this nation because we have the freedom of religion. If we make man’s interpretation of Christ’s Law the law of the land then we will have destroyed the Christ Choice. We would then send in troops to Florida. In my opinion that kind of political system, is closer to the Talaban than the one our founding fathers fought for.
I guess in summary, I am religiously and politically opposed to your positions, but I Love you as a Christian.
LikeLike
I take issue with your use of the word ” debilitated” to describe Terry Sciavo’s condition before death. In every report of her condition that I read Terry was described as being brain dead. Her body was being kept alive by extraordinary means. In my mind Terry’s soul has been with her maker since her cardiac arrest. I don’t know if you have had to deal with this issue with a loved one but it is an excruciating painful one even when the loved one has a living will as in the case of my father. I have a hard time as a Christian and as a person who has been in his situation feeling anything but compassion for Terry Sciavo’s husband.
LikeLike
Does a braindead woman turn her entire body to try to look out the window when she is told it is a beautiful day?
Does a braindead woman laugh?
Does a braindead woman suddenly show extreme excitement when she is asked if she knows what the day is, on her father’s birthday?
Does a braindead woman cry “I WAAAAAAA” when she is told by a friend that this would be over if she could just tell them what wanted – only to be taken away without anyone trying to find out what she wanted to say?
The media is good at getting people to believe lies. Most of what is presented is just that. They don’t want truth to be known, because they don’t want to feel the guilt.
On a similar note, did you know that the court cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were based on lies & deceit – on the parts of the lawyers bringing forth the cases? And yet now the atrocities those cases have brought about are now considered “normal.”
It’s not normal to kill a helpless human.
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
I must disagree.
I was not with her on a beautiful day, heard her laugh, on her father’s birthday, or witnessed her cry.
This is a report from some form of media that does want me to feel guilt. The clam that these things are the truth is based on a common human engineering device. The device is if you want someone to believe something simply attribute the opposite stance to something that someone you are trying to convince suspects as not being totally truthful. This is the basis for some of the popular conspiracy theories: The CIA killed Kennedy, We never landed on the moon, and That Elvis is still alive.
I suspect origin of these statements come from politicians, lawyers, and grieving parents. These people have vested interests in the case; some of these interests could be selfless interests so they should be considered by our society. Doctors examined Terri, reported the finding and what they thought the findings meant to civil judges. Neither given the length of time and the number of judges that heard the case I am convinced that the decision was not made in hast nor were ramifications unconsidered.
I am also convinced that since you mentioned Roe V Wade and used the word atrocity that your issue is not Terri, her husband or her parents. For me I feel grief, empathy and love for these people not for the hidden addenda they may represent to some.
On the issue of hidden agendas I would remind you of the case of the girls from Texas that went to Afghanistan while it was under the rule of the Taliban. The went under the guise of aide workers but were there to evangelize which was punishable by death in Afghanistan at that time. They lied about what they were doing basically justifying it as Lying for Christ. In my opinion, hidden agendas, and lies serve someone but don’t serve Christ. If you add some hate into the mix then I know whom it serves.
LikeLike
You also were probably not there when the judge ruled in favor of lies. Does this mean it never happened?
You were not there when Jesus spoke. Did that happen?
Doctors examined Terri to the extent they were allowed. They were not allowed to peform an MRI which would have shone more light on her condition. Yes, it was Michael’s right as her guardian (I will not call him her husband – the word denotes a sense of unity, and I do not see any evidence of that in Michael from the past 9 years of what we’re shown) to not allow the tests to be run, but without these tests all we have is guesses.
I don’t feel that being angry about what Michael has allowed and what the judge is allowed to happen as being hate. I think that Michael refusing to let her immediate (true) family be in the room when she died, and refusing to let them know where her ashes will be spread is hate. He says that it is to avoid a spectacle, but since she is already dead, I would be more likely to expect them to be more concerned with grieving than getting into it with Michael.
And likely you will disagree, but I truly believe that Michael was the instigator in all of these “spectacles.”
Disagree, agree. God knows either way, and it’ll be dealt with eventually.
LikeLike
On this last point we agree, what Gods plan in this we do not know nor are we promised to know all of Gods mind in salvation. However we are promised He will make all things right. I would like to see the family’s brought back together in love and maybe with prayer and grace they will. That would be a light worth lifting our faces to.
LikeLike
Wow. I guess I do know some people who thought Terri’s feeding tube should be removed.
I did struggle in the debate a little, concerning whether or not Terri was in a PVS. She is certainly not brain-dead, which has very strict medical criteria: Each cell lives individually, but with the brain dead, the rest of the body will die within hours because the bodily functions have stopped. If Terri had been brain dead, the rest of her would have followed suit within 24 hours. A lot of the debate was over whether she was in a persistent vegetative state, which is much more difficult to determine.
However, regardless of whether Terri was in a PVS, the courts did not properly follow law or precedent in determining whether to have her feeding tube removed. The criteria they used were far to broad, and tilted in favor of ending life instead of protecting it (contrary to what has been required up till now). They gave authority and credence to people whose motives were suspect, and they made autonomous decisions about what should be done with this woman’s life, instead of remaining an impartial arbiter. This article provides a good explanation of how the court adjusted their criteria.
Our government system is designed with the idea in mind that no one can be trusted to consistently act with altruism. Instead, we rely on the assumption that each party will zealously guard the authority it has, and even attempt to enlarge and abuse it. We divided the functions of government into three parts: legislative, executive, and judicial, each with significant overlap into the authority of the other two. For instance, the president controls the army, but the congress controls the army’s purse. Our government was the first to create a truly independent judiciary, which could rule according to the laws as they are, instead of arbitrarily changing the law to fit the occasion.
However, an independent judiciary is not an autocratic judiciary. A judiciary system that makes rulings without regard to the laws as they are, and instead creates its own criteria whereby to rule, and continues to do so despite the urgings of the other two branches of the government, has every reason to fear because it has trampled the authority of the separated powers. If the president attempts to declare war on a foreign nation and proceeds to invade, despite the urgings of congress and the court to desist, doesn’t congress have the right (and duty) to withhold funding from the army until it returns home?
If any branch becomes autocratic, we have left democracy.
LikeLike
The reporting that Terri was PVS does not seem to square with the videos of her that were posted on the internet, nor with the fact that Barbara Weller, the Schindler’s attorney, thought that Terri was trying to communicate with her. For me, and I suppose for many, this is the most disturbing fact.
LikeLike