Don't miss this fascinating piece by Juan Cole: "The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on them."
The similarities are remarkable.
Wow. You weren't kidding when you put 'Liberal. Atheist' in your header ;-)
It would be interesting to get opinions from atheist Republicans, and devout Christian (or even better, Catholic) Democrats to see their opinions on this issue.
Posted by: steve at March 22, 2005 04:56 PMFor a Catholic point of view of the Schiavo case, see the interview in Salon with the Rev. John Paris, the Walsh Professor of Bioethics at Boston College.
Posted by: Geoff Arnold at March 22, 2005 07:16 PMAs an atheist who often votes Republican I can offer that the actions of the national party and most of its leaders in the Schiavo case was inappropriate and immoral. The court system ajudicated this case just fine without politicians interfering on one side or the other. The extent to which all politicians and both parties are willing to breach the constitution for their own causes and constituents is abhorrent. The courts are typically just as bad in that realm, but it seems to me that the judiciary is the only branch that ever tries to check itself and the other branches with any frequency whatsoever.
Posted by: Alexander Marriott at July 11, 2005 01:16 AMI came across this blog looking for a different website and feel compelled to comment since I consider myself an Atheist Republican. The reason that Terri's case went all the way to the White House was because her parents were desperate to save her life and were asking for help from anyone and were not willing to take 'no' for an answer. Nothing was done that was illegal or unconstitutional. As for the moral perspective I feel that Terri's husband should have let go of his hold over her and let her parents take care of her, regardless of whether or not she would have ever come around. If it were my daughter come hell or high water I would have done everything I could to save her and it should be my choice and not some guy my daughter married. I look at it as my responsibility to take care of my kids, no matter what, no matter how old they get or what circumstances they get into, I should be there to help and if I ever want to do that whether my child is a vegitable or not, nobody else is going to stop me. That's what was wrong with Terri's whole situation. It should never have gone so far. Her husband should've left well enough alone in the beginning and let her parents take care of her however they saw fit.
Posted by: Gayl at August 16, 2005 01:03 PMMy response to Gayl: You presume that parents understand their children better than spouses do. I doubt it. We choose our partners; we don't choose our parents. And yes, I have two children, both married, and I would apply this principle in my own life if push came to shove.
Posted by: Geoff Arnold at August 16, 2005 05:40 PMI am not so naive to think that such a combination does not exist, but how can you be an Atheist Republican? It just seems to spit in the face of reason. Take the recent endorsement of Intelligent Design from the president... or for that matter just about any (and there are many) issue regarding religion that neoconservatives like to use to their cheap political gain. Please explain. I'm all ears.
Godless America Blog
http://blog.myspace.com/s8ist