unintended consequences.

i've stayed quiet on the debate, making the decision not to shoot my mouth off until it was over.

the case of terry schiavo and her family has become, to me, in the words of one woman, an example of "everything that's wrong with this country," and even more so, everything that's wrong with politicized religion.

of all the things that happened in this media circus, this was the saddest to me:

Despite the Schindlers' requests that people spend Easter at home with their families, demonstrators showed up outside the hospice Sunday. Their son, Bobby Schindler, asked protesters to stop volunteering to be arrested.

people feel that making a statement that no one wants to be made is more important than spending a holiday with their families. they're knocking down their own support. how can they stand there and talk about life and family when they've abandoned their own?

as far as any other claims to christianity go, this about covers it:

"The courts didn't ask Michael Schiavo, 'What do you want to do to Terri?' They asked him, 'What do you think Terri would want you to do?"' said University of Florida research associate Barbara Noah, who lectures on medical law and bioethics. ...

Clark and other protesters have accused Michael Schiavo of violating "God's law" by withholding nourishment from his wife and by having had two children over the years with the girlfriend with whom he lives.

But the legal tradition now separating Terri Schiavo from her parents' presumed protection also has a foundation in biblical law. In Genesis 2:24, it reads: "Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."

this was a family in a sad, sad situation. a daughter struck down, parents and son-in-law fighting with each other. there was, however, never any proof offered, as the courts determined that ms. schiavo would ever recover, or that her parents had ever really thought out the life that waited before them caring for an invalid. they appeared merely to loathe her husband. they seemingly refused to accept that a woman might have conversations with her husband that she might not have with her parents. when a man says his wife told him she would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially, and her parents have no concrete statement from her one way or the other, they really don't have a lot of ground to stand on from a rational, logical point of view. the fact that they were "supported" by people who were more intense, more emotional than they were themselves just says that there is a big problem in this country.

when you politicize frothing-at-the-mouth religion, you get the taliban. you don't get the united states of america, which guarantees "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 50 years ago, she would have died. 50 years ago, so-called christians wouldn't have been screaming, crying, and tearing their clothes over it. if history goes in cycles, i fear we are entering another phase of muscular, aggressive fundamentalism, apparently all over the world. an extremist is an extremist, and the selecitve application of religious texts to effect erosion of individual rights is, in fact, in exact opposition to what christianity is about. but ignorance is required for fundamentalism and extremism to exist.

sigh. maybe i should get that M.Div (you may all run in fear now, yes ;)