Wonder about the belief’s of George Felos, the lawyer of Michael Schiavo and the legal architect behind the starvation of Terri Schiavo? Take a look.
National Review Online Eric Pfeiffer
“I wonder what it would be like to die right now?”
Many of us have asked ourselves this question and Michael Schiavo attorney George Felos is no exception. Unlike most, however, Felos has a story to go along with it.
In his 2002 book Litigation as Spiritual Practice, Felos expresses his belief in the “cosmic law of cause and effect,” in which the human mind is not limited by the constraints of reality. More specifically, if one wants a new car, one could make this dream car manifest “out of the ether.”
His apparent lack of concern for Terri Schiavo’s plight might be better understood in the context of his belief that “[i]n reality you have never been born and never can die.”
I’m not sure if Mr. Felos is claiming that we can all be little gods with the power to control space and time, or if that power is uniquely in his hands (and what’s with that godlike voice he claimed to hear? doesn’t seem like there’s much room for a God when I can manipulate all of reality according to my will).
I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but this man is clearly either crazy, or not sane. It’s very disturbing that men like this have any sort of clout.
May God have mercy on him, and enlighten the man’s heart so his talents (Mr. Felos does win cases) may serve a better end.
There is a religiosity at work in the euthanasia cult. Jack Kervorkian would stare into the eyes of patients hoping to catch some glimmer of something at the moment they died. Wesley Smith in “Forced Exit” quotes a Dutch anti-euthanasia doctor who studied it among euthanasia types in Holland. Now we have Felos (raised Greek Orthodox but clearly left it years ago).
In my review of Wesley’s book I mentioned that it shouldn’t be a surprise that some form of twisted spiritualism springs up in the culture of death. You can’t euthanize people without developing some kind of justification that calls on higher things. Death demands that of killers. Death is too powerful, too potent, to rest peaceably in the comfortable categories of rationalism.
Looks like Felos resolved the problem of judgment by God by making himself god. Maybe that’s why his descriptions of Terri’s condition are conveyed in such a flat, emotionless, tone. He works for years to kill this woman, and then he says the entire sordid affair is progressing well because Debussy was playing, flowers were in the room, and Terri had a stuffed animal under her arm.
There is more than deep, spiritual confusion here. There is a depravity at work. It’s like those stories we read about Nazi guards who would exterminate by day and then go to the restaurant and opera at night. How refined they were! How cultured! Why they even played Debussy in Terri’s room!
Are you sure Felos left the Church years ago? Church membership and promotion of the “Culture of Death” hasn’t alientated Senators Paul Sarbanes and Olympia Snowe from the Church. In fact, the Church honors them without regard for their public policy.
Father,
Did you catch the debate on Joe Scarborough’s show tonight between Pat Buchanan and a some legal expert or other? At the end of the debate, she stated, “Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago. Her mind and her spirit are already gone.”
So Pat shot back, “Well, why didn’t you bury her then?”
What I found myself watching was a religious debate between two adherents of radically different religious systems. Pat represents traditional Christianity, and this legal expert represents the new religion that is dawning.
What is death? What is man? What is the meaning of life? These are philosophical questions. They are the grist for Theologians, not courts or lawyers. That is the real problem here. This isn’t a dispute over a contract or the guilt or innocence of a particular defendent. This is a religious conflict, and will have to be dealt with as such.
Courts have now, in our nation, become the forums for deciding first principles. They are no longer simply forums for deciding cases under law, they are now the new Ecumenical Councils, writing religious dogma under the color of law. This is not going to end well, I am afraid.
“Courts have now, in our nation, become the forums for deciding first principles. They are no longer simply forums for deciding cases under law, they are now the new Ecumenical Councils, writing religious dogma under the color of law.”
Glen,
That’s an interesting notion – if I’m reading you right – that American law has a religious/dogmatic quality. But is this new? Perhaps American law has always been its own subtle form of religion, our declaration of independence beginning “We the people…”.
Note 3. John, yes I am sure. I know people in the Tampa and Tarpon Bay area who know Felos. Regarding Sarbannes and Snowe, the Church’s public witness for life is weak in this area, despite the consistent witness of our moral tradition. We see competing interests – short term political expediency vs. long term faithfulness to the tradition. We can’t serve two masters. We will end up loving one and hating the other. I saw this coming several years ago, thus my public criticism of this dangerous compromise.
Note 4. No, I missed it. Good retort by Buchanan.
Yes, you are right about judges decreeing themselves as the new moral arbiters. Did you catch that the Supreme Court of Colorado threw out a death penalty sentence because jurors consulted a bible? Good comments here.
I won’t be able to post much today. I have to go to the prison in Fort Myers, then drive to Boca on the other coast for a 3pm meeting.
Note 5. Stephen, it’s not that law has a dogmatic quality. It’s that all law draws from a moral well, all law stands on a moral foundation. This is true of every culture, society, civilization.
Sources of Law: Note 5
Stephen you might be familiar with the distinction between first and second degree murder. The difference is premeditation. One of the forms of premeditation is something called “lying in wait.” This means that when the prosecution can prove that the murderer when to a location where he knew that his victim would happen by and waited to attack his victim there, like an ambush, that the prosecutor had proved premeditation and had, therefore, proved first-degree murder.
If you go to actual criminal codes on the books prior to WWII you will find descriptions of crimes taken from the King James Translation of the Bible.
Most of American law is directly taken from English Common law. English Common law was the product of a civilization that developed with an official Christian Church.
Hence the long standing illegality of suicide that has been dicussed here before.
It is only relatively recently that a civilization of any kind has attempted to exist without a religious foundation. Many people think that it cannot be done. Most standards of civilized conduct are enforced by the internal conscience of the individual, not direct fear of a policemen arresting them. There wouldn’t be enough policeman in the world to enforce order if individuals did not have a conscience. There are very few secular moralists such as Marcus Aurelius, most people believe in God in some form.
Glen writes: “What is death? What is man? What is the meaning of life? These are philosophical questions. They are the grist for Theologians, not courts or lawyers. That is the real problem here. This isn’t a dispute over a contract or the guilt or innocence of a particular defendent. This is a religious conflict, and will have to be dealt with as such.”
Actually, I think the Schiavo case is more of a cultural issue than a religious issue. Religious traditions talk about ‘death’ but don’t define when death actually occurs. There is nothing in the Bible that identifies the moment of death. There are no ancient church authorities that talk about what level of electrical activity in the brain is necessary in order to be considered alive.
The problem is that technology has blurred the line of when death actually occurs. We can maintain respiration and circulation for a very long time even in a “brain dead” patient. And who is to say that “brain death” is even death? As I mentioned in another post not all cultures look at it that way. In fact, not all Americans look at it that way, and it’s not uncommon for families to request that their brain dead relatives be maintained on a respirator.
People from different cultures approach the whole range of end of life issues differently. Here in the U.S. we value patient autonomy, and our whole approach to end of life decisions centers around the concept of autonomy. For example, when you go to the doctor, you expect that he’s going to tell you if you have terminal cancer or not. If you had cancer and he didn’t tell you, you’d probably sue the bastard. But it doesn’t work that way in other cultures.
Here’s an excert from a very interesting article titled “Cultural Diversity at the End of Life: Guidelines for Family Physicians”:
“Although many patients in the United States value autonomy, other cultures emphasize beneficence. In the United States, legal documents such as advance directives and durable powers of attorney are strategies to prolong autonomy in situations in which patients can no longer represent themselves. Other cultures, however, de-emphasize autonomy, perceiving it as isolating rather than empowering. These non-Western cultures believe that communities and families, not individuals alone, are affected by life-threatening illnesses and the accompanying medical decisions. Cultures valuing nonmaleficence (doing no harm) protect patients from the emotional and physical harm caused by directly addressing death and end-of-life care. Many Asian and Native American cultures value beneficence (physicians’ obligation to promote patient welfare) by encouraging patient hope, even in the face of terminal illness.
“The consumer movement, legal requirements, an emphasis on patient informed consent, and reduced physician authority have contributed to health-related ‘truth telling’ in the United States. Outside the United States, health care professionals often conceal serious diagnoses from patients. Physician strategies commonly employed to minimize direct disclosure include using terminology that obscures the seriousness of a condition or communicating diagnostic and treatment information only to the patient’s family members. Many African and Japanese physicians, when discussing cancer with patients or family members, choose terms such as ‘growth,’ ‘mass,’ ‘blood disease,’ or ‘unclean tissue,’ rather than specifically describing a potentially terminal condition. In Hispanic, Chinese, and Pakistani communities, family members actively protect terminally ill patients from knowledge of their condition.”
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050201/515.html
I see all of these issues — the role of the family, the rights of the patient, the role and authority of the physician, the role of medical technology, and even the very definition of what constitutes “death” to be highly culturally conditioned. These are decisions that we make within our own cultural contexts.
This is why I reject the whole “culture of death” ad hominem argument. I happen to think that patient autonomy is a good thing. I happen to think that cortical death is equivalent to the death of the person.
Someone doesn’t like the idea of patient autonomy? Someone doesn’t want to declare anyone dead until maggots start crawling out of the flesh? Someone wants to keep the bodies of brain dead or cortically dead people functioning for years through artificial means? Good for him! But I don’t see how that somehow makes me part of the “culture of death” and him part of the “culture of life.”
Jim, Go away. Terri is dead. You got what you wanted. Your input is no longer needed.
Other Cultures and Individualism
Our culture is individualistic and I am glad. In American legal theory there are only two actors, the government and the individual citizens. That is why “human rights” are individual rights. All of the rights enshrined in the Constitution are rights enjoyed by an autonomous individual.
Multi-culturalism is essentially tribalism, it is the idea that groups of people enjoy rights. Given this is it convenient for multi-culturalists to argue for quotas or assignments based on tribal (read ethnic, religious, racial or cultural groupings). Advocates of multi-culturalism in Britain have called for a “community of communities.” This is an approach in which “groups” not individuals have rights.
The strongest force against women’s dignity and freedom has been tribalism. Whenever tribalism obtains and groups are given rights, women’s rights are suppressed, denied and submerged. This is what the Muslims are trying to do in Canada. They want Canada to grant Muslims (a group) rights to their own Court system, once in this Court system women’s individual rights will be compromised or lost entirely.
Holman on Native Americans
I respect individual Native Americans and I grant that their cultures contain SOME things that are valuable, but, let us remember the following:
Native Americans engaged in genocidal inter-tribal warfare. Warfare between Native American Indian tribes prior to the advent of Europeans was genocidal, the goal was to completely wipe out the other tribe.
Native Americans engaged in torture of their prisoner’s of war as sport and revenge.
Native Americans were NOT conservationists, Native American tribes of the Northwest were known to have overfished salmon streams until they extinguished the fish population. Native American tribes of the Great Plains were know to have harvested to many trees in wooded areas in Colorado that they destroyed forests and encouraged soil erosion.
Native Americans were intensely patriarchal and women were treated with little respect or honor.
Native Americans in Oklahoma owned Black Slaves prior to the Civil War. There was no prohibition or moral condemnation against slavery in Native American culture. Prisoners of war were frequently enslaved by the conquering tribe.
So, if we want to take Native Americans as an example, let us be careful what we adopt. They did NOT share our values.
Note 10. Jim essentially argues that because different cultures have different ideas about death, killing Terri Schaivo is a social good. He fears the relationship between religion and morality, and thus seeks to limit moral reflection to the cost-benefit calculus of the medical technocrat. He has no awareness of the social forces that have been unleashed.
Jim, in moral terms there is no difference between Peter Singer’s ideas and yours. Both you and him share the same values, and in the end will sanction the same types of killing.
Note 10. Jim, you have tipped your hand. You have become a secularist, although you may not know it, and although right now I must be brief in explaining why.
“Actually, I think the Schiavo case is more of a cultural issue than a religious issue. Religious traditions talk about �death� but don�t define when death actually occurs. There is nothing in the Bible that identifies the moment of death. There are no ancient church authorities that talk about what level of electrical activity in the brain is necessary in order to be considered alive.”
In this statement, you pack religion off into its own corner to make room for other perspectives which supposedly address moral questions better than religion does. The Bible certainly doesn’t talk about electrical activity in the brain. Why should it? It has other, more important concerns, including and especially the moral questions surrounding death. In your posts throughout the last few weeks, you have consistently avoided the moral issues surrounding the Schiavo case in favor of your so-called “scientific” approach (although a disinterested scientist would have taken into account the possibilities that the initial evaluations of Terri’s condition were flawed, which you have not). Perhaps in your fundamentalist days, you experienced a distortion of the Gospel message which made you distrustful of the Bible and its teaching. I don’t know. We all have stumbling blocks to overcome on our path to God. Either way, though, you have corralled and limited the Bible’s perspective to make room for what you want to think is a more objective perspective. This is the classic definition of a secularist. You cannot make the moral questions go away by ignoring them or saying they don’t exist. Either we live for Christ or we don’t. If you do not, then at least have the courage to say so.
Why does this make you a supporter of the culture of death (whether you think so or not)? Because when Jesus died in circumstances not completely unlike Terri’s (that is, as an innocent victim of those who believed his death was worth more than his life), God the Father vindicated him, his innocence, and the innocence of all who are done to death by those who believe that their deaths are worth more than their lives by raising him from the dead. Unless you agree to this (it’s called “faith in the Risen Christ”), you cannot call yourself in favor of life as God sees it. You can only call yourself a supporter, willy-nilly, passive or active, of those who believe that human lives have no extrinsic value beyond their usefulness — their utility — and can be ended when it is “expedient.” In avoiding the moral questions and supporting the limited perspective of Greer, Felos, et al, you have proved yourself an active supporter of this anti-Christian philosophy. Ergo, you are a willing participant in the culture of death.
Either disprove this scriptural argument or don’t, but don’t try to change the premises of the discussion again. You must now disprove these premises, or admit that you are beaten, or avoid the whole thing, which amounts to an admission of defeat anyway.
Missourian writes: “So, if we want to take Native Americans as an example, let us be careful what we adopt. They did NOT share our values.”
Oh, well sure, I’m not advocating an adoption of someone else’s values. Frankly when I go to the doctor I expect him to give me the straight truth, and if for some reason he withheld that from me I would be monumentally offended. No, I don’t have any problem with the idea of individual patient autonomy. If someone else wants the tribe to decide for him whether he’s going to get chemotherapy, great, but that’s not for me.
I’m just saying that some of these concepts that may seem to us to be written in stone — concepts such as patient autonomy, and even the concept of what constitutes “death” — can vary greatly between cultures, and the concepts can change over time. For example, the medical system in the U.S. used to be very physician-centered and paternalistic; now it’s patient-centered, and better for it in my opinion.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim essentially argues that because different cultures have different ideas about death, killing Terri Schaivo is a social good.”
That’s not the interpretation I would put on my statement. I’m saying that there are different views on these issues that are to a large extent culturally conditioned. You criticize me for allowing the plug to be pulled in cases of cortical death. But others could just as well criticize you for allowing the plug to be pulled in cases of “brain death.”
By the way, William Cheshire, MD, who wrote the recent opinion that Terri Schiavo was “minimally conscious,” also holds that disconnecting a feeding tube from a PVS patient is morally acceptable: ” . . . I came into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to discontinue artifically provided nutrition and hydration for persons in a permanent vegetative state.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/Affidavit.pdf
So I guess it turns out that Dr. Cheshire is also an advocate of the culture of death.
All I have got to say is the following,
The husband used the arguement that supposedly what she had said in a healthy state is that she wouldn’t want to live in a vegetative state if indeed she ever had that unfortunate fate.
Well, I think what we(the ones who used that argument to let her die) are all missing here is the fact that ego and pride will lead us to this type of thinking, but when we are truly humbled from an unfortunate accident, we realize how important life really is and tend to rething it. These are the gifted. I believe she ompletely changed that atitude after the unfortunate event. Pride, and ego was most likely no longer a thought on her mind. Have you seen her smiles as to how happy she was to see her family members visit her? Do we really know that she still wanted to die?
Personally I believe she had alot of intelligence behind that mind that wouldnt allow control of vocal chords. She obviously was trying to talk. The 2 words that she muttered in my opinion were “I Want” and Most of us can bet that it wasnt “I want to die”. I have a good feeling that she was aware of alot of things that were going on in her surrounding, if not most all. Not only this, but I have a good feeling that even though she may have been bored out of her mind, that she was striving to stay happy and lovingly communicate with her family.
Somebody said it right, I believe it was on 20/20, Dateline, or one of the shows, that the husband should just divorce her and get it over with. I am ashamed at not just her husband, but society as a whole. They disregard life as a gift and let it go so easily. Im am thouroughly ashamed! I didn’t do one bit of protesting myself, so I wont be hippocritical when I state that the public did go overboard with politics, and enough so to adversely affect the family. I just let it ride out. But let it be known that I am expressing my opinion here and now.
Still not sure what I am talking about? Have you ever heard of those operations where a person was in a catatonic state, frozen with eyes open, but experienced everything that was going on and was terrified because they couldn’t communicate with the doctors or the family? Its like living dead, a curse on the living. Well Mrs. Schiavo was communicating, it was a whole different story. Was anybody listening? The husband wouldn’t admit it or allow it, he wouldn’t allow outside help at this point. He was supposedly doing her a favour. What a gimp. If he wanted to do her a favour, divorce her, and let her live out her will with the care of her loved ones and professional help.
Please be aware fellow citizens that the mind is an extraordinary thing, it can repair itfself, and beyond appearance, it does have extraordinary senses, and other forms of communication. Just because we couldn’t understand her attempted english, did we even attempt to interperit her moods(apparently happy at times), expressions(smiles on her face), recognition of family members(love and reaching out)? There is alot more that I dont need to mention, I think most of us gets the point.
EGO VS. Life.
She made an egotistical decicion based on pride in my opinion, and that eventually costed her her life, only by an un-understanding husband, murder by the hand of her own mariage through god(in sickness and in health). I think her husband is the sinner, and was truly the one that was born short a few brain cells.
The law needs help too, lets get God back in the law! There was nothing the law could do about it.
Bush is the man!
Wolf.
Jim writes:
If someone else wants the tribe to decide for him whether he?s going to get chemotherapy, great, but that?s not for me.
So, OF COURSE, you’re not for socialized medicine….
Fr. Hans writes: ?Jim essentially argues that because different cultures have different ideas about death, killing Terri Schaivo is a social good.?
Jim writes: That?s not the interpretation I would put on my statement. I?m saying that there are different views on these issues that are to a large extent culturally conditioned.
—-
Of course ideas are culturally conditioned. Where do you think most of your ideas come from? Why do you think the moral struggle over the life and death of Terri Schiavo is called a culture war?
So is killing Terri Schiavo a social good?
Jim, I don’t look to Asia because I am not a Confucian
You expressly suggested that in the case of care for the dying that we, Americans, should consider the approach taken by Native American and Asian cultures. Given that the vast majority (in excess of 78%) of Americans are Christian and look to Christian moral tradition for guidance, I suggest that looking to Asian cultures and Native American cultures is ….. shall we say….. a waste of time. A particular practice or custom, particularly with dealing with fundamental issues such as life and death only makes sense in the context of a overall culture. The overall culture is founded on a philosophical (Confucianism) or religious tradition (Christian or animism for Native Americans). I am neither a Confucian nor an animist so looking to their customs…..does not make sense.
As I discussed in a note I posted a few days ago, people with pretensions to intellectual sophistication love to denigrate American culture and to discuss what other customs other cultures adopt.
Firstly, the vast and robust majority of Americans celebrate Christmas and Easter and in a recent poll, 78% of Americans consider Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.
True American culture then is not merely the junk that is spewed from the television and movie screens, true American culture is the Judeo-Christian moral and philosophical tradition. We can claim the geniuses of ancient Greece and Rome and the religious thinkers and philosophers of Rome, Constantinople and Geneva, and great Christians such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for guidance.
To put it another way, Christians have a “deep bench.”
Given this perspective, it makes little sense to look at what other cultures do unless we first identify the fundamental differences. Chinese culture is founded in Confusiansim and Buddhism with a modern twist from Communism. Native American culture is tribal and non-Christian. Cultures have integrity, they cannot be properly split into minuscule pieces.
Anyone with an ounce of reason at their disposal knows the LA Times story is nothing but a despicable case of character assassination that draws pararllels between two very, very different end of life situations while at the same time completely mischaracterizing and getting everything about the product liability legislation wrong.
For someone who wrote, “No, I wouldn’t say [the killing of Terri Schiavo is] a social good.” Jim spends a great deal of time defending it and attacking anyone who disagrees with him, including disgracefully repeating the garbage published in the Left Angeles Times. Why would someone invest so much, put so much time and energy in defending something that is not a “social good?” That reads, to me, like a recipe for making oneself crazy.
Missourian, I have to say that I think America has turned individualism into an idol. That is not a good thing. Idolization of individualism is a significant piece of the puzzle that has led us to the point where most Americans don’t miss a step when they hear about a woman being killed by dehydration and starvation. I hear and read it all around me, “Well, hey, if that’s what her husband says she wanted, who are we to say otherwise.”
Daniel says:
I think America has turned individualism into an idol.
Thank you Daniel for saying succinctly what I have been trying to say for years. I am a convert to Orthodoxy and one of the attractions was the emphasise on “The Body of Christ.” We do not go through this life alone.
Decisions of life and death cannot be made by an individual person. Terri was a member of the Church Militant and now (we pray) she is a member of the Body Triumphant. May her memory be eternal.
We do not pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and we cannot go through this life alone and neither should we depart this life alone. What affects one member of the Body affects the other members. Christ died that we might live.
While we are here we, as the Body of Christ, have an obligation to live. In our redefining life we have forgotten what it is to live. Living is sorrow, pain, suffering, overcoming, conquering, striving, dying to self. In today’s society we would consider all these things negative, yet look at the Holy Fathers and the Saints that have gone before us. Society today would not consider them having a “successful” life. They suffered gladly because it brought them closer to the heart of God. They struggled with self-denial and humility and self-sacrifice – and won.
Not only was Terri alive for herself but she was alive also for the growth and development of spiritual lives around her. What a blessing she was. We think only in terms of how we would not want to be a “burden” but what a blessing she was to those that were priviledged to humble themselves and serve her. Michael not only “killed” Terri but he also “killed” an opportunity to grow in love and compassion and to become more of a man after God’s heart. He deprived Terri her opportunity to be a blessing. Maybe this was her purpose in life and he deprived her of it. This is the sorrow.
Terri – May your memory be eternal.
Daniel writes: “Anyone with an ounce of reason at their disposal knows the LA Times story is nothing but a despicable case of character assassination that draws pararllels between two very, very different end of life situations while at the same time completely mischaracterizing and getting everything about the product liability legislation wrong.”
Character assassination or not, it demonstrates Matthew 7:2 – “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
The DeLay case shows that if we want to demonize someone over an end of life decision, it’s very easy to do. We can make anyone out to be a monster. We can show that anyone is an advocate of the culture of death. I suspect that the DeLay family made the right decision in what were no doubt overwhelming and tragic circumstances. Unfortunately Tom DeLay does not extend that consideration to others.
Missourian writes: “You expressly suggested that in the case of care for the dying that we, Americans, should consider the approach taken by Native American and Asian cultures.”
What I intended was to show that we have to acknwledge that end of life issues, including even the determination of what constitutes death, are not consistent across all cultures. I’m not suggesting that we adopt a Navajo or Pakastani view.
Califander writes: “Decisions of life and death cannot be made by an individual person.”
This is certainly a legitimate viewpoint, but it’s not the way that American medicine has developed. The entire American system is built around the concept of patient autonomy, which is an individualistic concept. I suppose a person could could do an advanced directive with instructions for more of a group decision. But of course the advanced directive itself is a very “individualistic” kind of tool.
Califander and Daniel, Individualism has been at the heart of what it means to be American since our inception. As early as Emerson, it was being twisted into a faith that denied the value of community. The recognition, not just in name but in practice, of community within the Orthodox Church is one of the reasons that I made my home in Her. The reality of the Orthodox communion is powerful and, in my experinece, unique. Our commuion encompasses and bridges time, space, and even death. Califander, your use of the terms “Church Militant and Church Triumphant” while descriptive in certain ways, is a western formulation that is not quite in accord with the reality of the unbroken communion of the Church. It is akin to splitting the Incarnate Son of God into the human and the divine–no such division actually exists. He is fully God and fully man, just as the Church, His Body, is fully human and fully divine. She is both present on earth in a more or less corporal state and in heaven in a fully spiritual existence that includes the angelic hosts, the saints, and even our loved ones gone before us.
Daniel, Note 22
I brought individualism up in a legal context. Precisely speaking the American LEGAL system acknowledged only the legal existence of individuals and of the various governments. The Bill of Rights grants individuals rights. In America, we do not grant tribes, ethnic groups, or subnationalities rights. Here I am discussing individualism as a legal concept. The noxious nonsense of multi-culturalism is in fact totally repugnant to the American legal tradition. Multi-culturalism finds its ultimate expression in SEPARATE LEGAL systems for separate groups. In Britain, there have been SERIOUS proposals that legislation grants rights to ethinic groups as an ethnic group, not as individuals. Muslims are very near to establishing Muslim Courts in Canada. Guess where women’s right will stand in those Courts.
American Constitutional legal theory DOES recognize the concept of the good of society as a whole. For instance, Court cases will acknowledge that the adoption of any law will restrict some individual freedom but the loss of that freedom may be outweighed by the benefit to society. So don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here. American legal theory does recognize that sometimes the considerations of the society as a whole take precedence over individual interests.
I would argue that society has an interest in honoring, preferring and rewarding naturally reproductive unions, and has every right to DECLINE to HONOR same sex relationships. If you want to see the effect of HONORING gay relationships look to Europe or just look to San Francisco. SF is having trouble maintaining and supporting schools because of the DEARTH OF CHILDREN. Yikes!!
Note 24 Disingenuity they name is Jim Holman
Why mention other cultures if you didn’t ask us to consider them.
Give you an example. A young female friend of mine in her 20′s wanted to discuss love and romance issue with me an older friend. I had to tell her that my frame of reference was Christian and any advice or comment I would make would come from that frame of reference. She had to right to reject the Christian frame of reference but if she did, there was no point in discussing the matter with me. American is 75% to 80% Christian, perhaps you should take notice of that.
I don’t care what Buddha, Mohammed or other thought about “end of life” issues.
You brought it up to demonstrate the supposedlyd sophistication of your worldview and how, unlike we rubes in the Christian West, you had actually sought to learn from other cultures. Bully for you. After upteemth years in academia, I had had my fill of this type of garbage.
Here’s few things I learned about the third world.
Hindusism consigns the untouchables to a despicable life based on the accident of birth.
Islam gives men the express right to beat their women and denies women equal testimonial or inheritance rights.
Muslim caliphs sent their armies to gather human booty in the form of 11 black african slaves which they they used as concubines, soldiers and slaves. Guess who sold them to those Western slave ships?
The native population of Easter Island used to sacrifice three year old children to their stone gods
The Aztec of Middle America would slaughter thousands of people by digging their hearts out of their chests with really, really big machetes. They did this to honor their Sun God.
Yup, love that third world, they are so morally superior and have such great insight into human existence.
Missourian, have you actually read the Bible? I mean I realize Christianity has evolved in the last 2000 years but they used to stone women who were raped if they didn’t yell “No” loud enough. Elisha had some a few dozen children killed when they pointed out that his hairline was receding. I look back on this so-called “moral” tradition with horror.
Note 20.
Fr. Hans asks: ?So is killing Terri Schiavo a social good??
Jim: No, I wouldn?t say it?s a social good. I would say that discontinuing the feeding tube is what she would have wanted under the circumstances.
—–
You’ve pushed hard for two years for Terri’s death justifying it on the ground of “patient autonomy.” Clearly you believe “patient autonomy” is a principle worth dying for (not yours of course, just Terri’s). Since her death preserved this principle, how could it not be considered a social good?
Note 28. Bill, could you give James a lesson in how to read scripture?
Jim,
The root of the word culture is ‘cult.’ How can one have a culture without a cult? Religion underpins culture. It doesn’t have to be a Theistic religion, as evidenced by Communism being a non-Theistic religion. So is radical environmentalism.
The dilemma we are facing today in the United States is that we are losing a sense of our shared religious values. The United States has always had a kind of ‘civic religion’ which was somewhat outside of traditional Christianity. However, it was sufficiently close enough to make a compelling case that it was compatible with most traditional Christian ideals.
The problem is that under multi-cultural pressure, we no longer share a common set of values. In fact, it appears that the American civic religion, as expressed in political discourse and the courts, is morphing into a strange stew of ideas, many of whom are completely incompatible with traditional Christianity.
This is not a good thing, from the standpoint of Christians. So, Jim, the question is not if we shall have a religion underpinning our culture. There must be one, or else we will eventually dissolve into chaos. The question is – which one? The new American Civic Religion – politically correct, atomistic, aggressively nationalistic, and collectivist. Or, will it be Christianity, preferably of the Orthodox variety?
Missourian – American Indian tribes were exceptionally varied in culture and practice. Generalizing about them is as inaccurate as generalizing about the similarities between Europe and Asia. Many Indian tribes were sedentary, relatively peaceful farmers. Others were super-aggressive, nomadic warriors. Some tribes, such as the Cherokee, were thoroughly and completely Christianized and civilized. (Not that it saved them from the Trail of Tears.)
Our culture is not Indian, and never will be Indian, and their ways are not ours. I care about what our Bishops say about end-of-life decisions, not what Shawnee medicine men had to say. On the other hand, however, I recognize that many of your statements are the same kinds of arguments tendered that American Indians deserved what they got at the hands of European settlers. As an Orthodox Christian, I reject that argument. No one deserves to have their home invaded and their land stolen, whatever their sins. Cultural and/or technological superiority do not justify invasion and theft.
At the same time, however, I refuse to feel guilty about events that took place hundreds of years before my birth, and I also recognize that the liquidation of Stone-age cultures by a technologically superior one was simply another symptom of man’s fallen nature. Leftists often view American treatment of the Indian as a unique crime in history. It really isn’t any different than the Hittites treated the people they subjected using their newly invented iron.
Why bring this up? Simply because such things constitute a moral blindspot on the part of most Americans. We reject ‘might-makes-right,’ but then excuse our own historical crimes because ‘we are special.’ We’re not in that regard. Our government has committed its share of bloody and stupid atrocities, and we do no one any good by ignoring them.
After all, it just committed another today with the death of Terri Schiavo – may her memory be eternal.
Missourian writes: “Why mention other cultures if you didn’t ask us to consider them. . . . You brought it up to demonstrate the supposedlyd sophistication of your worldview and how, unlike we rubes in the Christian West, you had actually sought to learn from other cultures. Bully for you.”
Gosh, please don’t read too much into my comments on that topic. My only point was that on certain things that we tend to take for granted — such as patient autonomy — people from other cultures do not necessarily see the same way. Actually, I saw that as kind of supporting the Schindler side of the case — that one could make an argument that individualistic patient autonomy doesn’t have to be the be-all and end-all in medical ethics — that’s it’s something that should at least be open for discussion.
As a practical matter physicians have to be sensitive to people from other cultures, and this can often be difficult to do. For example, in the case of a terminal illness the way that a physician communicates that to a Laotian family can be different from how one communicates that to an American family.
Concerning your “rubes in the Christian West” comment . . . Perhaps I come off as a know-it-all in some of these issues. My mother was a nurse all of her working life. My wife is nurse and will get her MS in gerontological nursing this June. I have worked in a hospital for over 20 years. For several years I did volunteer work for the Center for Ethics at a university hospital, and have worked with a statewide medical ethics consortium. I’ve done volunteer work with mobile clinics at migrant labor camps. So — I don’t want to be a know-it-all, but I have spent a certain amount of time dealing with issues that are relevant to the current discussion. I have a certain point of view, but am willing to discuss critiques of that point of view.
Personally I’m very Western in my view of medical ethics. Autonomy? Bring it on! Individualism? I like it.
Note 30: I believe that some of the Old Testament is historical while other areas are allegorical (such as the Garden of Eden story or Job). I also believe that life under Mosaic law would have been somewhat brutal for most women, and while I cannot say whether God in fact intended this to be so, the OT writers certainly seem to wish to lead us to that conclusion. This is part of our tradition’s history, unpleasant as it is. (Some actually savor it, as do preachers such as Jonathan Edwards and Fred Phelps whose writings are completely consistent with Scripture even though it’s being used simply to shock and grieve their listeners.)
Now, if we are saying that there is no history to the OT and that it is pure allegory, then we have a different discussion altogether.
Different cultures are irrelevant on this set of issues
Asian cultures were formed by Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism. Indian culture was formed by Hinduism. Native Americans practiced a form of nature worship called animism.
Confucianism is very different than Christianity.
Buddhism is very different than Christianity
Shintoism is very different than Christianity
Hinduism is very different than Christianity
Native American animism is very different than Christianity
Confucianism makes different assumptions about the meaning of life and death than does Christianity
Buddhism makes different assumptions about the meaning of life and death than does Christinaity
Shintoism makes different assumptoins about the meaning of life and death than does Christinaity
Hinduism makes different assumptions about the meaning of life and death than does Christianity
Native American animism makes different assumption about the meaning of life and death than does Christianity.
More 85% of Americans call themselves Christians.
We inherited 80% of our law from the British in the form of the Common Law.
The Common Law was established in a country with an established Christian Church.
The opinions of people who do not share the same ideas on the meaning of life and death are irrelevant to me when I am making a decision about profound issues of life and death.
The limits of the autonomy theory were raised
Adherence to the Western worldview does not, ipso facto, mean that you must give autonomy pre-emptive force over all other considerations. As I have explained in detail and as you have not read, or, if read, not absorbed, American law engages in a balance between individual rights and freedom and the rights of society ALL THE TIME, every day in fact.
People who are ignorant of Western culture, which includes most of the current college age population, wrongly believe that traditional Western culture elevates the individual above all. Not so, this is in fact, individualism as a supreme good, is a feature of the post 60′s leftist assault on the culture.
Jim if you post, you should read. I brought an article written by Eric Cohen to the attention of the posters here. Mr. Cohen talked about the autonomy theory. His analysis pointed out the weaknesses of relying on the autonomy theory alone.
My anlysis, which was quite lengthy and which no one even attempted to refute, was based on the procedural weaknesses of the Shiavo case. I have never argued about her medical condition or about autonomy. I argued that her Constitutional right to life and liberty was denied “due process of law.”
Alleged Barbarity in the Old Testament
James, if you could time travel to the period of history described in the Old Testament books, you would find that socities were, in general, ruled by sheer force. The ruler was a military leader who seized and held power by force. The weak had no recourse if they were preyed upon by the strong.
The fact that the ancient Hebrews revered LAW rather than SHEER FORCE was a monumental social advance. You may remember that Solomon was reverred as a wise and compassionate judge. The world is indebted to Judaism for a great, great deal but perhaps among the greatest cultural achievements is that of the idea of a society RULED BY LAW rather than force, where everyone was subject to the same rules of conduct.
Well, Jim Holman, it’s been a day now, and although you’ve spilt many keystrokes on answering other arguments, you haven’t touched mine. This is because you are incapable of squaring your views with the Gospel and the Church it constitutes.
I proclaim you defeated on the moral and theological level.
Note 26: Missourian,
I would not argue with you (expecially since you’re a lawyer and I’ve merely had some paralegel training
) on individualism in the law, and I am adamantly opposed to the absurd multi-culti ideas promoted by some in these comments and in academia in general.
My comment on individualism as idol was spurred by the comments of many who keep referring to “what Terri wanted” and that one of the lessons from this entire tragic series of events is that now maybe individuals will talk to their loved ones about what they want should they face end-of-life decisions. Many discussions seemed to focus merely on what individuals would want – how many times did I read or hear, “Would you want to live like that?” or “Well, I wouldn’t want live like that.” (An aside, did you ever hear anyone ask, “Would you want to die like that?”)
If Terri Schiavo merely results in a bunch of people running off to lawyers to set up living wills and power of attorney for medical decisions then … how should I put it … then we learned nothing from Terri’s death.
I hope that one of the lessons we take from Terri’s passing is that we start to ask ourselves what we owe to those who can no longer care or themselves. I read a lot during the last few weeks that tell me that all we owe to the severely handicapped and infirm is to warehouse and kill them with as little obvious suffering as possible. This caused me a great deal of distress.
Now those on the Left would jump up and down and say, “Absolutely, we need to talk about what we owe to the handicapped. We need more government programs: health care, nursing homes, in-home care, etc.” This is exactly the WRONG solution. I’m talking about neighborhoods, churches, clubs, families working together, in the spirit of subsidiarity, to develop a Culture of Life by extending their own hands to the handicapped. I am not talking about passing off responsibility to some faceless bureaucrat so that we can get on with our lives undisturbed by the site of someone moving spasmotically while he or she rolls down the street in a wheelchair.
Reflecting on this in this moment, I am wondering if the Culture of Death requires the idolization of the individual to survive. Abortion thrives because of the so-called right of individual women to decide for themselves what to do with the baby. Assisted suicide thrives becuase of the so-called right of individuals to kill themselves when the individual believes his or her life no longer has value. Terri Schiavo was killed because a single judge decided that her individual choice was to not live as she was.
I hope these rambling thoughts make some kind of sense, Missourian, because I don’t think we necessarily disagree.
Daniel:
No, we don’t disagree. If you remember I referred to an article by Eric Cohen. Cohen stated that the legal issue began as “what would Terri want” an autonomy approach to the problem. He then stated that the issue as actually addressed by the Florida courts in this case “morphed” into “is Teri’s life worth living.” This was Eric Cohen’s description of what actually happened.
Cohen’s critique, I thought, was excellent. He said that an autonomy approach, “what would Teri want” was inadequate. He stated that the proper issue is “what does society owe someone in Teri’s position.” This second approach can give some weight to “what would Teri want” but it does not make “what would Teri want” the SOLE DECIDING FACTOR.
I think that Eric Cohen’s analysis is excellent and deserves more thought and consideration.
Credit where credit is due
With reference to the child protection cases that I did, I need to give credit to social workers, police officers and doctors that helped me develop the case and who testified under circumstances that were sometimes quite costly to them as individuals.
Glen, Note 31:
“At the same time, however, I refuse to feel guilty about events that took place hundreds of years before my birth, and I also recognize that the liquidation of Stone-age cultures by a technologically superior one was simply another symptom of man?s fallen nature. Leftists often view American treatment of the Indian as a unique crime in history. It really isn?t any different than the Hittites treated the people they subjected using their newly invented iron.”
I agree that we don’t share actual guilt for the crimes of our forefathers. However, if the wealth and priviledge that many Americans presently enjoy come out of the spoils of past crimes committed, then it seems that an awareness of this is at least important to bring about healing. Many Native Americans are still suffering from the effects of past sins committed against their families from generations ago. The heirs of theives are born into their wealth and are not guilty of their parent’s crimes. The heirs of those stolen from are also born into their poverty. The guilt dies with the perpetrators, but the effects live on. I’m not advocating government programs here, but rather an acknowledgement that America’s wealth isn’t purely because God has blessed this country. We are a wealthy country also because of greed, thievery, and slavery. We can’t forget this.
Stephen:
You ought to read Thomas Sowell on “Cosmic Justice.”
You should also take a look at the budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Native American tribes fought other Native American tribes before the Europeans came to America. Should be go back to those disputes and determine whether the losers of those battles were victims of oppression?
The Pilgrims left England because they did not have freedom to practice their religion. They left homes and jobs and a position in society for great hardship in the new world. Should their descendents sue Britain for the economic loss occaisioned by the denial of human rights of their forebears?
**********************************************************************************
Native American tribes engaged in diplomacy with both the French and British governments. They entered into pacts and became allies with the French and British at different times in their history.
Native Americans acquired mastery over the military technology of Europeans very quickly, that military technology being the horse and the rifle. Native Amerians held their own in military battles for decades. They had the natural advantage in many areas as they knew the land better than the Europeans.
The Founder of the Democratic Party Andrew Jackson was the President that pushed for and obtained the enactment of the Indian Removal Act and he proceeded to enforce it against the ruling of the United States Supreme Court. This reveals that it was not the United States which failed to recognize Indian rights but Andrew Jackson.
If American expansion into the North American continent is to be compared to Hittites, I ask you when did the Hittites every allow their vanquished enemies to SUE THEM IN THEIR OWN COURTS AND COLLECT DAMAGES.
Missourian,
My point isn’t that justice needs to be done, at least not in human legal terms. As Sowell points out, its really not even possible. I do think its important to acknowledge, though, that injustices have happened. That is where spiritual healing can begin. Human attempts at justice are usually pretty weak, and often they’re just plain insulting. Real justice can only come from God in His mercy.
Missiourian,
I was only making a comparison to a more advanced people moving in and displacing a lesser advanced one. There are major differences between the United States and the Hittites, of course.
The Indians gained possession of the horse and the rifle, but never managed an industrial economy. They never moved past a primitive status of societal organization. When modern meets Stone Age, the modern wins. That is the way of humanity.
The Indians never stood a chance. Again, I am not wracked by a liberal guilt complex. The British, French, British colonists, and eventually the Americans took Indian land because they could. Much the same way that the United States took Mexican land after the Mexican-American War. I don’t feel any real need to justify it, since I am not responsible for it and now it is simply an accomplished fact.
In many ways the United States tried to deal fairly with the Indians. That is because our Christian conscience troubled us, particularly over the Cherokees who were themselves Christians. This desire, however, conflicted with human weaknesses such as simple greed. That led to this dichotomy of taking land by force, yet trying to somehow preserve the Indian culture on reservations and at tax payer expense. We couldn’t leave them in peace, but yet we couldn’t destroy them either. The Hittites, obviously, didn’t suffer such compunctions.
We see this American dynamic at work quite often, such as in the Phillipines. We took the islands and annexed them. We then set about crushing a rebellion and killing 250,000 or so people in the most brutal fashion. Yet, simultaneously, we poured money hand over fist into the place to make a ‘showcase for Democracy.’ We didn’t make a dime off owning the Phillippines. Aside from military bases, the whole endeavor was a useless burden on tax payers. All-in-all, the U.S., in fact, was known as one of the most benevolent of colonial masters. That was, of course, small comfort to those we butchered.
Missiourian, we really are conflicted as a people. We have a brutal side, like most great powers, but we have a Christian conscience as well. We bomb Iraq for its own good, and then step in to rebuild it. Are we to be feared, or loved?
As for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, it is time to put that program to sleep. We destroyed the Indian culture and their way of life. One train of thought holds that we are guilty for the sins of our forefathers and that we should pay. Another train of thought holds that we had every right to take the land. Truth is, its time to move on and stop funding the reservation system that does nothing but keep Americans of Indian descent in perpetual government-imposed poverty. Their way of life is dead, just like the way of life of the Kaszub people in Poland who were beaten and absorbed into the Polish nation in 1600. It’s time to move on, assimilate them and get on with it.
Americans have no problem critically appraising the history of other nations. For example, if we examined the colonial history of Britain in Africa, most Americans would easily slip into criticism of the British using force to subdue African tribes and take their land. We wouldn’t consider the primitive tribesmen to be superior either morally or socially to the British, but we would readily identify with their desire to be left alone. Plus, Americans tend to root for the underdog. But something happens when we examine our own history. We become incapable of seeing complexity, and instead see only black-and-white – with Americans always wearing the white hats. I’m just interested in being objective, without falling into either a liberal characture of the ‘evil American’ or the traditionalist American ideal of ‘manifest destiny.’
At the same time, I just would like Americans to pause and reflect, from time to time, when embarking on a grand adventure driven by our inflated sense of own righteousness. If we would, maybe we wouldn’t bomb Serbia or occupy Haiti, or invade Iraq, or do lots of other things that are driven by our own self-image as the holy and chosen nation. A little humility wouldn’t hurt, as George W. Bush said in 2000 when I voted for him.
Glen, Note 44
I just completed a three year stint in academia and I am reacting to the insane and unbalanced view of the United States. All human are flawed, all human societies are flawed, American society is flawed, Native American society is flawed. Modern academia ridiculously elevates Native American culture and condemsn all aspects of European American culture. Regardless of our multiple failings, America was the first country to guarantee intellectual and religious freedom in a foundational document. We did this when the rest of the world was ruled by kings. We are the flexible, self-critical and self-correcting society in the history of the world.
Native American culture hasn’t been destroyed, unless you mean that no one is attempting to live in tents on the Great Plains. There are plenty of institutions that preserve Native American culture. Have you been to Oklahoma per chance?
All in all I don’t really have any substantive disagreement with your post