A reply to Ms. Daley
A. Renee Daley has this to say about the post immediately previous to this one:
I think that comment deserves an entry of its own in response, not just a reply in the comments section of my last one.
Let me begin by stipulating a point: if Sen. Thompson's position is not, as I suggested, an inconsistency with his basic philosophy based on emotional considerations centering on the tragedy of his daughter's death, and truly does reflect an unemotional, thoughtful, and considered opinion, then Sen. Thompson has no real claim to having a commitment to life at all.
I believe otherwise. I choose to believe otherwise. If Ms. Daley or others choose to regard Mr. Thompson's position differently, then yes, it becomes impossible logically to defend the premise that Sen. Thompson has a meaningful commitment to life. I am personally reluctant to draw that conclusion.
I frankly don't see how Ms. Daley's racial analogy applies.
Another point: the issue is not Sen. Thompson's pandering or not pandering to the Religious Right. It's the position of a conservative candidate in opposition to two thousand years of Western ethical and legal tradition. It's the support of a Federalist for a Supreme Court decision which was not only patently illogical, but in opposition to our entire legal tradition.
Cruzan v. Director is not merely bad law. It's silly law. Nowhere in the Constitution or in our legal tradition is there a right to perform euthanasia.
One final point: for social conservatives such as myself, there is no question here of not being willing to lose a battle in order to win the war. For us, life issues, and others which involve judicial abrogation of our entire ethical and legal tradition, to a very considerable extent are the war. If you are willing to sacrifice life issues in favor of the others on the conservative agenda, then your natural candidate is not Fred Thompson, but Rudy Giuliani.
If I had my conversation with Sen. Thompson to do over again, I'd ask him bluntly whether he thought families should have the right to choose euthanasia in difficult end-of-life circumstances. I'm not sure his answer would have been an unqualified "yes;" I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am truly sorry that you are not.
I am sorry, too, that you believe that what he said constituted his definitive answer to that question. Maybe I'm bending over backwards to give Fred Thompson the benefit of the doubt, but I prefer to believe that he simply didn't hear it because of personal issues he has to deal with- an effort for which I have profound respect.
But it doesn't make killing a helpless person on the basis of hearsay evidence by concerned parties OK. Nor does it change the fact that the position on Cruzan v. Director which Sen. Thompson has adopted is utterly inconsistent with a conservative view of either the Consitution or the role of the Supreme Court in its interpretation.
Mr Waters;
Thompson did answer your question. You just didn't care for his answer. It wasn't what you wanted to hear, so it is easier for you to blame Fred Thompson instead of looking at the bigger picture.
When you have to tell the Senator that you're not questioning his commitment to life, then you are questioning his commitment.
It's no different than a White person pointing out the fact they have Black friends to prove they're not racist.
Pandering to the Religious Right is not part of Thompson's platform. Nor should it be part of the GOP platform, regardless of what James Dobson, and others like him think. Hyper-focus on one issue does a great disservice to the Conservative movement in this country.
Are you willing to sacrifice the war, just to win the battle?
I think that comment deserves an entry of its own in response, not just a reply in the comments section of my last one.
Let me begin by stipulating a point: if Sen. Thompson's position is not, as I suggested, an inconsistency with his basic philosophy based on emotional considerations centering on the tragedy of his daughter's death, and truly does reflect an unemotional, thoughtful, and considered opinion, then Sen. Thompson has no real claim to having a commitment to life at all.
I believe otherwise. I choose to believe otherwise. If Ms. Daley or others choose to regard Mr. Thompson's position differently, then yes, it becomes impossible logically to defend the premise that Sen. Thompson has a meaningful commitment to life. I am personally reluctant to draw that conclusion.
I frankly don't see how Ms. Daley's racial analogy applies.
Another point: the issue is not Sen. Thompson's pandering or not pandering to the Religious Right. It's the position of a conservative candidate in opposition to two thousand years of Western ethical and legal tradition. It's the support of a Federalist for a Supreme Court decision which was not only patently illogical, but in opposition to our entire legal tradition.
Cruzan v. Director is not merely bad law. It's silly law. Nowhere in the Constitution or in our legal tradition is there a right to perform euthanasia.
One final point: for social conservatives such as myself, there is no question here of not being willing to lose a battle in order to win the war. For us, life issues, and others which involve judicial abrogation of our entire ethical and legal tradition, to a very considerable extent are the war. If you are willing to sacrifice life issues in favor of the others on the conservative agenda, then your natural candidate is not Fred Thompson, but Rudy Giuliani.
If I had my conversation with Sen. Thompson to do over again, I'd ask him bluntly whether he thought families should have the right to choose euthanasia in difficult end-of-life circumstances. I'm not sure his answer would have been an unqualified "yes;" I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am truly sorry that you are not.
I am sorry, too, that you believe that what he said constituted his definitive answer to that question. Maybe I'm bending over backwards to give Fred Thompson the benefit of the doubt, but I prefer to believe that he simply didn't hear it because of personal issues he has to deal with- an effort for which I have profound respect.
But it doesn't make killing a helpless person on the basis of hearsay evidence by concerned parties OK. Nor does it change the fact that the position on Cruzan v. Director which Sen. Thompson has adopted is utterly inconsistent with a conservative view of either the Consitution or the role of the Supreme Court in its interpretation.
Comments
I take exception to your statement as to the nature of the American Constitution. Your position is not supported by an objective study of U.S. judicial history.
The point is that in our American society we deal with man made law. It will not work to think that God makes the law because who can properly explain what God's word is in relation to American laws? How can this presumed relationship be put to cross-examination, the essential feature of our law?
A review of a book in this week's NY Times notes that America is not a place where things are resolved, but where things may work towards resolution.
I like Fred Thompson because I am the same age. I don't think that he projects well and I don't care what he thinks about abortion or euthanasia. My conservative Lutheran faith will not govern my decision when the election is held next year.
Norman Teigen
ELS layman
Mr. Teigen, the United States Constitution explicitly forbids that anyone be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. You may take exception to that fact all you wish, but those are its very words.
Furthermore, the decision which legalized the murder of Terri Schaivo is at odds with anything resembling a conservative understanding of either the Constitution or the Supreme Court's relationship to its content.
Your confirmation pastor seems to have failed you badly, and you need remedial work; you have some major doctrinal as well as moral issues to address. God is the Ruler of what Luther called the Kingdom of the Left Hand, as well as the Kingdom of the Right- where the Law rules, as well as where the Gospel rules. That includes the arena of secular law.The Law of God is written, as St. Paul points out in Romans 1, in the human heart. It is true that His writing there is blurred by sin. But basic Lutheran theology has always maintained that civil government is nevertheless obligated to operate according to the justice inherent in God's Law, and accessable by reason and by virtue of its having been inscribed on our hearts to believer and unbeliever alike. The secular ruler is not free to not defend the weak and the helpless, to punish evildoers (Rom. 13), and to serve as God's minister to vindicate His justice. And that includes those of us who participate in the public arena as voters.
We are not free to abandon the weak to those who seek their blood. Christians do not have the option of leaving their religious beliefs outside the voting booth any more than of excluding them from any other aspect of their lives. It is very true that the civil realm is one where the principles of God's law are to be argued for on the basis of logic, quietly relying on the power of what is written on every human heart; "God says so" will not be an effective argument to advance to unbelievers, and is therefore useless.
Your position on the relationship between your religious beliefs and your vote is profoundly unLutheran, as well as profoundly unbiblical. In fact, it calls the sincerity of your religious beliefs into serious question.
Talk to your pastor, Mr. T. Yours is a comment no Christian, and especially no Lutheran, ever should have made