A long, hard slog to where?
The Bush adminstration's war on terror has no end in sight.
Tortured Torsion
October 24, 2003
Jason G. Damron
Americans who have been holding their breath for the "end of war" are still waiting to exhale. The cooling breath of peace seems less likely now than at any other point since the overthrow of Hussein and his henchmen. Peace is now only a projection of a nostalgic longing for war as it used to be known.
Americans are coming to realize that the "war on terror" is an ongoing military affair. There will be no final cataclysmic event, no final toppling of a statue, no casket filled with "evildoers" that will serve as a distinct endpoint. In an era of unprecedented media coverage, the final bow before the camera will never happen. How could this be?
George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier in May and declared an end to "major military combat in Iraq." It could be argued that everyone was more than a little relieved. The major corporations could move in and benefit the shareholders and, presumably, the people of Iraq; the administration could ring the bell of success; the aspirants of peace and non-violence could begin anew with the assurance that more communities could be spared the acrid taste of violence and chaos.
That day in May, the president's flight suit could barely contain his enthusiasm. And while I am not a fan of his policies, I was also relieved. I was relieved for the military families, the people of Iraq and the members of government who promised a strategy of "shock and awe." I wanted to believe that, despite my almost sickening reservations about its beginning, this war could be quickly brought to a "successful" end. I wanted to rest assured, despite my revulsion to any government shocking another with its refined brutality, that the world could be a better place and that war may be justified in some instances.
Today, I stand amazed that I was ever so na�ve. I am in shock at how disastrous this "operation" has been. I am in awe that a presidential administration so intent on war, no matter what the figurative and literal cost, is doomed at waging peace. I am in shock that, despite warnings by so many, Iraq was not a front edge of terrorist activity, but that the Pentagon and the administration decided to make it that anyway. I am in awe at both conservative and liberal politicians and pundits for obscuring the historical reasons and economic relations of terrorism with egoistic taunts of "liar" and "traitor."
The spectacle of Bush and the aircraft carrier was a masterful caress of the camera by a media-enhanced presidency. But like any embrace that lasts too long, the exasperation of being held so close has now become overwhelming. The sincerity of the original intent is transformed into a smothering desperation. How else can one explain the instructions from the Pentagon and the administration for a media blackout of dead soldiers' "homecomings"? When will Bush free us from a propagandist embrace that cloaks the shards of truth about this very murky war?
This week, Donald Rumsfeld bluntly declared the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as a "long, hard slog." A leaked internal memo from Rumsfeld to top Pentagon officials pointed to decidedly "mixed results" (as reported by MSNBC on Tuesday, Oct. 21) in the war on terror. The phantom of a longer, more costly fight - much more than the warnings the president sounded this summer - is here.
The only question that remains is what costs are we, as Americans, unwilling to pay? Recent polls find that we feel no safer and no more content, and the majority does not believe we have made significant progress in the war on terror. This from a people who urgently wanted to believe that Bush's administration would make us safer.
There is a dangerous detail that Americans are beginning to comprehend, despite the sophisticated assurances otherwise: In this war, punctuated by staccatos of unexpected violence, swooning under Christian and Islamic extremism and drowning in the blood of youth, there is no winning.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Jesus actor struck by lightning
Jim Caviezel (left) was struck by lightning while filming
Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ.
The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome.
It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot.
Neither of them was badly hurt, according to the film's producer Steve McEveety.
Michelini had previously been struck during filming in Matera, Italy, when he suffered light burns to his fingers after lightning hit his umbrella.
Describing the second lightning strike, McEveety told VLife, a supplement of the trade paper Variety: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears."
The Passion Of Christ, which was filmed in the ancient languages of Latin and Aramaic, is directed and co-written by actor Mel Gibson and focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus.
Although it is not due for release until early next year, it has already hit headlines after Jewish figures in the United States slated it for being "dangerous" and portraying Jews in a negative way.
Originally titled The Passion, the film changed its title last week after Miramax claimed the rights to the title for one of its own projects, a historical epic based on a Jeanette Winterson novel.
The film now looks set to be released in the States by independent distributors Newmarket Films, who released Memento and Whale Rider in the US.
Jim Caviezel (left) was struck by lightning while filming
Actor Jim Caviezel has been struck by lightning while playing Jesus in Mel Gibson's controversial film The Passion Of Christ.
The lightning bolt hit Caviezel and the film's assistant director Jan Michelini while they were filming in a remote location a few hours from Rome.
It was the second time Michelini had been hit by lightning during the shoot.
Neither of them was badly hurt, according to the film's producer Steve McEveety.
Michelini had previously been struck during filming in Matera, Italy, when he suffered light burns to his fingers after lightning hit his umbrella.
Describing the second lightning strike, McEveety told VLife, a supplement of the trade paper Variety: "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears."
The Passion Of Christ, which was filmed in the ancient languages of Latin and Aramaic, is directed and co-written by actor Mel Gibson and focuses on the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus.
Although it is not due for release until early next year, it has already hit headlines after Jewish figures in the United States slated it for being "dangerous" and portraying Jews in a negative way.
Originally titled The Passion, the film changed its title last week after Miramax claimed the rights to the title for one of its own projects, a historical epic based on a Jeanette Winterson novel.
The film now looks set to be released in the States by independent distributors Newmarket Films, who released Memento and Whale Rider in the US.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
One signature at a time
Two Bush signatures, two steps backward
BOSTON -- This is a tale of two signatures, each bearing the Bush penmanship. It's a tale of two bills that allow legislatures to trump a family, a doctor, a patient, a court. And it's a tale of what it means, when push comes to shove, to lose the right to make complicated decisions about life and death.
The first of these signatures, Jeb Bush, is on a law rushed through the Florida House and Senate with all the speed and none of the expertise of a trauma team in an emergency room.
The object of their attention was Terri Schiavo, a young woman who suffered a heart attack 13 years ago that left her in a condition doctors describe, in a terrible dehumanized phrase, as a persistent vegetative state. At 26, Terri had no living will. Without any written words, her husband and parents gradually became enemies, bitter opponents in a struggle over her fate.
On one side, the devastated parents believed that she could, would, should live -- even with a feeding tube. They took videos of their daughter apparently smiling, grunting, moaning, and showed them to the country, pleading her case.
On the other side, Terri's husband, Michael, believed that his wife didn't want to live in this state. Indeed, the doctors said her smiles were reflexes, not conscious emotions. Michael believed he was following his wife's desire -- not his own -- to end life. The courts, one after another, affirmed his view of her wishes.
But when the feeding tube was removed, when the death scene became a national spectacle, the Florida Legislature did something unprecedented. It gave a politician the power to override Terri Schiavo's own wishes, as the courts saw them, and have the tube reinserted.
Now imagine, if you will, having a state official control the fate of your wife or yourself? Even the state Senate president who voted to give this right to Jeb Bush had second thoughts. "I keep on thinking," he said, "what if Terri didn't want this to happen at all?" What indeed?
Meanwhile in Washington, in some odd synchrony, a bill banning the so-called "partial-birth" abortion finally passed Congress. It will be signed with great fanfare and political hoopla by Brother George when he gets back to the White House.
A ban that took eight years to crawl its way through the Capitol is the great PR victory for the right-to-life movement. From the beginning, it was a deliberate effort to change the terms of the abortion debate.
By the early 1990s, the abortion rights movement had successfully shaped the political argument on abortion around the question: Who Decides? To this day, when pollsters ask whether a woman and her doctor should make this hard choice, or the government should, 80 percent of all Americans -- including half of those who call themselves pro-life -- side with the woman.
So the right-to-lifers regeared the debate to an ambivalent middle uneasy with later abortions. With gruesome details and inflammatory language, they began a bald effort to ban abortion one procedure at a time.
The ban of one small procedure might not sound alarming. But the telling moment in this long debate was when the anti-abortion lobby refused to permit an exemption to protect the health of the woman. So now we have a law telling doctors for the first time that they cannot pick the procedure they regard as safest for the patient. Congress, not the doctor, will say which treatment is legal and which is a prescription for jail.
Stories like these, stories about the end of life and the beginning of life, raise grave moral questions. Both of these debates, over pregnant women and comatose patients, take place in the touchy gray areas: What is consciousness? What is a woman required to sacrifice for a fetus?
These two tales also remind us of life experiences we hope never to face. The gasp of a woman who finds that her pregnancy has gone terribly awry. The pain of a family with a parent, child, stuck in that horrific space between life and death.
Will these signature bills pass constitutional muster? Maybe not. Not yet. Indeed, Congress knowingly passed a law similar to a Nebraska law that the Supreme Court had already declared too broad, too vague.
But they remind us that the "right to decide" is not some political slogan, not some second-tier ethical concern. It's at the center of personal freedom.
It is deeply troubling moment when a stranger, a governor, a legislator, a president is given the power to write the end of our ethical, medical, family tales. Yes, this is how we lose our freedoms: One signature at a time.
Two Bush signatures, two steps backward
BOSTON -- This is a tale of two signatures, each bearing the Bush penmanship. It's a tale of two bills that allow legislatures to trump a family, a doctor, a patient, a court. And it's a tale of what it means, when push comes to shove, to lose the right to make complicated decisions about life and death.
The first of these signatures, Jeb Bush, is on a law rushed through the Florida House and Senate with all the speed and none of the expertise of a trauma team in an emergency room.
The object of their attention was Terri Schiavo, a young woman who suffered a heart attack 13 years ago that left her in a condition doctors describe, in a terrible dehumanized phrase, as a persistent vegetative state. At 26, Terri had no living will. Without any written words, her husband and parents gradually became enemies, bitter opponents in a struggle over her fate.
On one side, the devastated parents believed that she could, would, should live -- even with a feeding tube. They took videos of their daughter apparently smiling, grunting, moaning, and showed them to the country, pleading her case.
On the other side, Terri's husband, Michael, believed that his wife didn't want to live in this state. Indeed, the doctors said her smiles were reflexes, not conscious emotions. Michael believed he was following his wife's desire -- not his own -- to end life. The courts, one after another, affirmed his view of her wishes.
But when the feeding tube was removed, when the death scene became a national spectacle, the Florida Legislature did something unprecedented. It gave a politician the power to override Terri Schiavo's own wishes, as the courts saw them, and have the tube reinserted.
Now imagine, if you will, having a state official control the fate of your wife or yourself? Even the state Senate president who voted to give this right to Jeb Bush had second thoughts. "I keep on thinking," he said, "what if Terri didn't want this to happen at all?" What indeed?
Meanwhile in Washington, in some odd synchrony, a bill banning the so-called "partial-birth" abortion finally passed Congress. It will be signed with great fanfare and political hoopla by Brother George when he gets back to the White House.
A ban that took eight years to crawl its way through the Capitol is the great PR victory for the right-to-life movement. From the beginning, it was a deliberate effort to change the terms of the abortion debate.
By the early 1990s, the abortion rights movement had successfully shaped the political argument on abortion around the question: Who Decides? To this day, when pollsters ask whether a woman and her doctor should make this hard choice, or the government should, 80 percent of all Americans -- including half of those who call themselves pro-life -- side with the woman.
So the right-to-lifers regeared the debate to an ambivalent middle uneasy with later abortions. With gruesome details and inflammatory language, they began a bald effort to ban abortion one procedure at a time.
The ban of one small procedure might not sound alarming. But the telling moment in this long debate was when the anti-abortion lobby refused to permit an exemption to protect the health of the woman. So now we have a law telling doctors for the first time that they cannot pick the procedure they regard as safest for the patient. Congress, not the doctor, will say which treatment is legal and which is a prescription for jail.
Stories like these, stories about the end of life and the beginning of life, raise grave moral questions. Both of these debates, over pregnant women and comatose patients, take place in the touchy gray areas: What is consciousness? What is a woman required to sacrifice for a fetus?
These two tales also remind us of life experiences we hope never to face. The gasp of a woman who finds that her pregnancy has gone terribly awry. The pain of a family with a parent, child, stuck in that horrific space between life and death.
Will these signature bills pass constitutional muster? Maybe not. Not yet. Indeed, Congress knowingly passed a law similar to a Nebraska law that the Supreme Court had already declared too broad, too vague.
But they remind us that the "right to decide" is not some political slogan, not some second-tier ethical concern. It's at the center of personal freedom.
It is deeply troubling moment when a stranger, a governor, a legislator, a president is given the power to write the end of our ethical, medical, family tales. Yes, this is how we lose our freedoms: One signature at a time.
Bush Brothers Become Big Brothers
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2003
Fla. Right-To-Die Dispute
(Photo: AP)
The idea of legislatures, governors and presidents dictating what families can do in these most private situations is mind-boggling. It is as intrusive as government can be.
(Photo: CBS)
(CBS) This has been terrifying week for people who are concerned about big government meddling in families� most personal and painful decisions.
I would say it�s been a terrible week for conservatives, but most of the people who call themselves conservatives are celebrating and crowing. I think they�re radicals.
I�m referring, of course, to the unprecedented intervention of Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, and to the Senate vote, supported by President Bush, banning a certain type of procedure to terminate pregnancies in cases where the mother�s life or health are at risk. The idea of legislatures, governors and presidents dictating what families can do in these most private situations is mind-boggling. It is as intrusive as government can be. It is, in both cases, almost certainly unconstitutional.
The courts have spoken at length and clearly on both of these issues. The Senate, the Florida legislature and the Bush brothers are doing end-runs to circumvent the rulings.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, 19 judges in six different courts have weighed the evidence and heard the arguments. They have all found that Michael Schiavo, Terri�s husband, has the legal authority to discontinue the artificial feeding and hydration that has kept his brain-damaged wife biologically alive for 13 years. No court has found that Terri Schiavo has even the remotest chance of leaving her present, sad condition. And the Supreme Court, in the 1990 decision involving a Missouri woman named Nancy Cruzan, affirmed the right and legality of terminating artificial feeding and hydrating in these situations.
As for the Senate bill, the Supreme Court three years ago overturned a very similar bill passed in Nebraska. Legislatures in 31 states have passed similar bills dealing with the controversial procedure and courts have nixed most of them already. The bill will be in court soon after the president signs it.
The political energy behind both of these government interventions comes from the right-to-life movement. I do not in any way dismiss or disrespect their views and their devotion to protecting the sanctity of all human life. Every family should be free to refuse the termination of life support or artificial feeding if that is their considered judgment. Every woman and every couple should have the right to refuse a late-term abortion procedure if they are in that painful situation.
And every family should be free to decide otherwise, unconstrained by a Big Brother government.
Opponents of late-term abortion and the �right to die� do not have a state morality imposed on their most personal choices. They may not care to live in a society where such things are allowed, but nothing is imposed on their lives. Our rights are about the prohibition of government intrusion in the most personal and valued parts of our lives.
What I cannot stomach is hearing the Brothers Bush, who have presided over a sibling world-record number of executions, talk about the sanctity of all human life. The sanctity of the right-to-life interests in the Republican Party -- maybe.
By Dick Meyer
�MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2003
Fla. Right-To-Die Dispute
(Photo: AP)
The idea of legislatures, governors and presidents dictating what families can do in these most private situations is mind-boggling. It is as intrusive as government can be.
(Photo: CBS)
(CBS) This has been terrifying week for people who are concerned about big government meddling in families� most personal and painful decisions.
I would say it�s been a terrible week for conservatives, but most of the people who call themselves conservatives are celebrating and crowing. I think they�re radicals.
I�m referring, of course, to the unprecedented intervention of Governor Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, and to the Senate vote, supported by President Bush, banning a certain type of procedure to terminate pregnancies in cases where the mother�s life or health are at risk. The idea of legislatures, governors and presidents dictating what families can do in these most private situations is mind-boggling. It is as intrusive as government can be. It is, in both cases, almost certainly unconstitutional.
The courts have spoken at length and clearly on both of these issues. The Senate, the Florida legislature and the Bush brothers are doing end-runs to circumvent the rulings.
In the case of Terri Schiavo, 19 judges in six different courts have weighed the evidence and heard the arguments. They have all found that Michael Schiavo, Terri�s husband, has the legal authority to discontinue the artificial feeding and hydration that has kept his brain-damaged wife biologically alive for 13 years. No court has found that Terri Schiavo has even the remotest chance of leaving her present, sad condition. And the Supreme Court, in the 1990 decision involving a Missouri woman named Nancy Cruzan, affirmed the right and legality of terminating artificial feeding and hydrating in these situations.
As for the Senate bill, the Supreme Court three years ago overturned a very similar bill passed in Nebraska. Legislatures in 31 states have passed similar bills dealing with the controversial procedure and courts have nixed most of them already. The bill will be in court soon after the president signs it.
The political energy behind both of these government interventions comes from the right-to-life movement. I do not in any way dismiss or disrespect their views and their devotion to protecting the sanctity of all human life. Every family should be free to refuse the termination of life support or artificial feeding if that is their considered judgment. Every woman and every couple should have the right to refuse a late-term abortion procedure if they are in that painful situation.
And every family should be free to decide otherwise, unconstrained by a Big Brother government.
Opponents of late-term abortion and the �right to die� do not have a state morality imposed on their most personal choices. They may not care to live in a society where such things are allowed, but nothing is imposed on their lives. Our rights are about the prohibition of government intrusion in the most personal and valued parts of our lives.
What I cannot stomach is hearing the Brothers Bush, who have presided over a sibling world-record number of executions, talk about the sanctity of all human life. The sanctity of the right-to-life interests in the Republican Party -- maybe.
By Dick Meyer
�MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
23 Oct 2003 10:02:00 GMT
Iraq: the missing billions
Christian Aid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Aid - UK
Website: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/news
A staggering US$4 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country has disappeared into opaque bank accounts administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-controlled body that rules Iraq. By the end of the year, if nothing changes in the way this cash is accounted for, that figure will double.
� Christian Aid briefing paper is available at: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/310iraqoil/index.htm
The financial black hole, uncovered by a Christian Aid investigation, is revealed as delegates gather for the donors' conference in Madrid. Before pledging money from their own countries' coffers to boost the reconstruction efforts, as requested by the US and UK governments, these delegates should first demand: 'What has happened to the missing billions?'
It is expected that a separate fund, managed by the UN and the World Bank, will be announced at the conference for donors' money, to allay fears of how this cash will be spent. But this should not stop donors from pushing for accountability of the original, massive reconstruction fund - most of it Iraqi oil money.
In particular the British government, which has promised financial transparency in dealings with Iraqi oil funds, should use its influence to ensure that the missing money is accounted for. Christian Aid is calling on Prime Minister Tony Blair to deliver on his promises.
The fact that no independent body knows where this cash has gone is in direct violation of the UN resolution that released much of it for the rebuilding of Iraq's shattered infrastructure. The agency that is supposed to oversee these funds has not even been set up yet.
Christian Aid is calling for the full and immediate disclosure of how this money has been spent, and for urgent moves to establish a proper means of regulation. For the future, the British government should seek to ensure that a proportion of all Iraqi oil revenues are earmarked for the country's development - as a binding condition on future oil exploitation.
'This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the country's people - particularly the poorest,' said Roger Riddell, Christian Aid's international director.
The current situation goes to the heart of claims and counter-claims about how Iraqi oil revenue should be used. It can only fuel the serious suspicion in Iraq that a disproportionate amount of cash is being creamed off for the benefit of US companies - money that should be spent on alleviating the chronic unemployment and other serious problems faced by Iraqis, including the poorest and most vulnerable.
Independent observers agree that, despite the huge amounts of money allocated to repair a country shattered by decades of war and sanctions, not nearly enough has been done and not nearly fast enough in the six months since the US announced an end to hostilities. There are still power cuts, fuel shortages, and a lack of medicine and equipment in hospitals. Clean drinking water is not available in many areas and raw sewage can be seen on the streets of many towns, including Basra - which is controlled by British forces.
The fact that billions of dollars of Iraq's own money cannot now be accounted for can only add to a burning sense of injustice.
'We have absolutely no idea how the money [from Iraqi oil revenues] has been spent,' one senior European diplomat to the UN told Christian Aid. 'I wish I knew, but we just don't know. We have absolutely no idea.'
The missing billions are a combination of pre- and post-war oil revenues now controlled by the CPA, plus seized Iraqi government assets and funds vested overseas. Conservative estimates put the total at US$5 billion, of which less than US$1 billion can be accounted for. Estimated oil revenues between now and the end of the year are expected to total a further US$4 billion.
This money is distinct from the reconstruction funds promised by the US and UK governments, and from any cash that is raised from other governments at the Madrid conference. This is Iraqi money that should be spent for the benefit of all Iraq's people, not sat on in secret by an unelected foreign administration.
'The situation is little short of scandalous,' said Roger Riddell. 'The British government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future.'
The dangers of such a situation persisting in the future were highlighted in the Christian Aid report Fuelling Poverty - Oil, War and Corruption, published in May. Compared with countries of similar size, the report found that oil-producing developing countries are characterised by greater degrees of:
� Poverty (for the great majority of the population)
� Dictatorial, authoritarian or unrepresentative government
� War and/or civil strife
� Corruption.
'A properly constituted, democratic government must be established for all the people of Iraq as soon as possible,' said Roger Riddell. 'Otherwise, once again, oil could prove a curse rather than a blessing.'
� Christian Aid briefing paper
To speak to a Christian Aid representative at the Madrid Conference contact Dominic Nutt on mobile +44 (0) 7720 467680 or + 44 (0) 7967 310024 or John Davison in London on 0207 523 2175 or mobile 07802 502155.
Notes to editors: For a copy of the full report: 'Iraq: The Missing Billions, Transition and transparency in post-war Iraq' contact the Christian Aid press office on 020 7523 2421
Iraq: the missing billions
Christian Aid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Aid - UK
Website: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/news
A staggering US$4 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country has disappeared into opaque bank accounts administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-controlled body that rules Iraq. By the end of the year, if nothing changes in the way this cash is accounted for, that figure will double.
� Christian Aid briefing paper is available at: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/310iraqoil/index.htm
The financial black hole, uncovered by a Christian Aid investigation, is revealed as delegates gather for the donors' conference in Madrid. Before pledging money from their own countries' coffers to boost the reconstruction efforts, as requested by the US and UK governments, these delegates should first demand: 'What has happened to the missing billions?'
It is expected that a separate fund, managed by the UN and the World Bank, will be announced at the conference for donors' money, to allay fears of how this cash will be spent. But this should not stop donors from pushing for accountability of the original, massive reconstruction fund - most of it Iraqi oil money.
In particular the British government, which has promised financial transparency in dealings with Iraqi oil funds, should use its influence to ensure that the missing money is accounted for. Christian Aid is calling on Prime Minister Tony Blair to deliver on his promises.
The fact that no independent body knows where this cash has gone is in direct violation of the UN resolution that released much of it for the rebuilding of Iraq's shattered infrastructure. The agency that is supposed to oversee these funds has not even been set up yet.
Christian Aid is calling for the full and immediate disclosure of how this money has been spent, and for urgent moves to establish a proper means of regulation. For the future, the British government should seek to ensure that a proportion of all Iraqi oil revenues are earmarked for the country's development - as a binding condition on future oil exploitation.
'This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the country's people - particularly the poorest,' said Roger Riddell, Christian Aid's international director.
The current situation goes to the heart of claims and counter-claims about how Iraqi oil revenue should be used. It can only fuel the serious suspicion in Iraq that a disproportionate amount of cash is being creamed off for the benefit of US companies - money that should be spent on alleviating the chronic unemployment and other serious problems faced by Iraqis, including the poorest and most vulnerable.
Independent observers agree that, despite the huge amounts of money allocated to repair a country shattered by decades of war and sanctions, not nearly enough has been done and not nearly fast enough in the six months since the US announced an end to hostilities. There are still power cuts, fuel shortages, and a lack of medicine and equipment in hospitals. Clean drinking water is not available in many areas and raw sewage can be seen on the streets of many towns, including Basra - which is controlled by British forces.
The fact that billions of dollars of Iraq's own money cannot now be accounted for can only add to a burning sense of injustice.
'We have absolutely no idea how the money [from Iraqi oil revenues] has been spent,' one senior European diplomat to the UN told Christian Aid. 'I wish I knew, but we just don't know. We have absolutely no idea.'
The missing billions are a combination of pre- and post-war oil revenues now controlled by the CPA, plus seized Iraqi government assets and funds vested overseas. Conservative estimates put the total at US$5 billion, of which less than US$1 billion can be accounted for. Estimated oil revenues between now and the end of the year are expected to total a further US$4 billion.
This money is distinct from the reconstruction funds promised by the US and UK governments, and from any cash that is raised from other governments at the Madrid conference. This is Iraqi money that should be spent for the benefit of all Iraq's people, not sat on in secret by an unelected foreign administration.
'The situation is little short of scandalous,' said Roger Riddell. 'The British government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future.'
The dangers of such a situation persisting in the future were highlighted in the Christian Aid report Fuelling Poverty - Oil, War and Corruption, published in May. Compared with countries of similar size, the report found that oil-producing developing countries are characterised by greater degrees of:
� Poverty (for the great majority of the population)
� Dictatorial, authoritarian or unrepresentative government
� War and/or civil strife
� Corruption.
'A properly constituted, democratic government must be established for all the people of Iraq as soon as possible,' said Roger Riddell. 'Otherwise, once again, oil could prove a curse rather than a blessing.'
� Christian Aid briefing paper
To speak to a Christian Aid representative at the Madrid Conference contact Dominic Nutt on mobile +44 (0) 7720 467680 or + 44 (0) 7967 310024 or John Davison in London on 0207 523 2175 or mobile 07802 502155.
Notes to editors: For a copy of the full report: 'Iraq: The Missing Billions, Transition and transparency in post-war Iraq' contact the Christian Aid press office on 020 7523 2421
The Terri Schiavo Case
Legislator sidesteps GOP on Schiavo
A Dunedin lawmaker takes the road less traveled as the only state House Republican from the area to vote as he did on Terri Schiavo.
By MICHAEL SANDLER, Times Staff Writer
Published October 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He thought about Terri Schiavo.
He thought about Florida's Constitution.
He thought about his wife.
Then state Rep. Tom Anderson, a freshman Republican from Dunedin, broke ranks with Gov. Jeb Bush, House Speaker Johnnie Byrd and most of his party, voting against an emergency bill that called for reinserting a feeding tube into Schiavo.
"If I was in that condition for 13 years, I would say, "Enough is enough,' " Anderson said Wednesday in a telephone interview from Tallahassee.
He was in a very small group. The bill passed with overwhelming Republican support in the House and Senate on Tuesday. Anderson was one of three Republican House members to vote against it and the only Republican in the House from the Tampa Bay area to do so. Bush signed the bill within half an hour of its passage.
"I believe there is a serious constitutional question raised by having the legislative branch overrule the judicial branch on this issue," Anderson said.
Anderson said a judge had ruled on the intent of the patient. There had been medical and legal research presented, and the decisions were upheld by other courts.
Anderson also drew on his own life experience. At 71, he is the second-oldest member of the House. He remembered a few years back, when his wife had open-heart surgery. There had been complications. Fortunately, she survived. But the experience prompted him and his wife to have living wills prepared.
A living will informs doctors and family members about the kind and extent of care patients want to receive should they become terminally ill and unable to speak for themselves.
Before the vote, Anderson listened to people on both sides of the debate. He also called his wife and reviewed their living wills.
"Speaker Byrd made the announcement that people should vote their conscience," Anderson said. "I took him at his word. Some of the others may have gotten pressure. I don't know. I did not."
On Wednesday, he received calls and e-mails. Most, he said, supported his decision.
Former state Sen. Jack Latvala called Anderson's decision "courageous" and said it could have political repercussions.
Latvala, a Republican, represented much of Anderson's district when he was in the Florida Senate and said those voters probably supported keeping Schiavo alive.
"That's my gut feeling," Latvala said. "I'm not sure why he voted that way. But it was a courageous thing, if that's what he intended to do, and more power to him."
- Michael Sandler can be reached at 445-4162 or sandler@sptimes.com
Legislator sidesteps GOP on Schiavo
A Dunedin lawmaker takes the road less traveled as the only state House Republican from the area to vote as he did on Terri Schiavo.
By MICHAEL SANDLER, Times Staff Writer
Published October 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He thought about Terri Schiavo.
He thought about Florida's Constitution.
He thought about his wife.
Then state Rep. Tom Anderson, a freshman Republican from Dunedin, broke ranks with Gov. Jeb Bush, House Speaker Johnnie Byrd and most of his party, voting against an emergency bill that called for reinserting a feeding tube into Schiavo.
"If I was in that condition for 13 years, I would say, "Enough is enough,' " Anderson said Wednesday in a telephone interview from Tallahassee.
He was in a very small group. The bill passed with overwhelming Republican support in the House and Senate on Tuesday. Anderson was one of three Republican House members to vote against it and the only Republican in the House from the Tampa Bay area to do so. Bush signed the bill within half an hour of its passage.
"I believe there is a serious constitutional question raised by having the legislative branch overrule the judicial branch on this issue," Anderson said.
Anderson said a judge had ruled on the intent of the patient. There had been medical and legal research presented, and the decisions were upheld by other courts.
Anderson also drew on his own life experience. At 71, he is the second-oldest member of the House. He remembered a few years back, when his wife had open-heart surgery. There had been complications. Fortunately, she survived. But the experience prompted him and his wife to have living wills prepared.
A living will informs doctors and family members about the kind and extent of care patients want to receive should they become terminally ill and unable to speak for themselves.
Before the vote, Anderson listened to people on both sides of the debate. He also called his wife and reviewed their living wills.
"Speaker Byrd made the announcement that people should vote their conscience," Anderson said. "I took him at his word. Some of the others may have gotten pressure. I don't know. I did not."
On Wednesday, he received calls and e-mails. Most, he said, supported his decision.
Former state Sen. Jack Latvala called Anderson's decision "courageous" and said it could have political repercussions.
Latvala, a Republican, represented much of Anderson's district when he was in the Florida Senate and said those voters probably supported keeping Schiavo alive.
"That's my gut feeling," Latvala said. "I'm not sure why he voted that way. But it was a courageous thing, if that's what he intended to do, and more power to him."
- Michael Sandler can be reached at 445-4162 or sandler@sptimes.com
Schiavo's life confiscated by agendas of strangers
MELONE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail:
Click here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive
By MARY JO MELONE, Times Staff Writer
Published October 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened this week in Tallahassee was a breathtaking display of mob rule.
The side that could generate enough e-mails to the governor and the Legislature won.
The outcome, the restoration of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, had nothing to do with the facts, nothing to do with the law, which had consistently sided with Michael Schiavo.
What are facts or laws to the Republicans?
In winning, they laid bare their own contradictions.
You know the mantra: They believe in government that stays out of people's lives.
So what did they do? With the help of a handful of Democrats, the Republicans stuck themselves smack in the middle of the most private of family matters - when to end the life of a loved one who will never get better.
Don't tell me the vote to feed Schiavo was all about the governor's deeply held Catholicism or lawmakers' compassion, as some have tried to portray it.
Politics were all over this act, a craven catering to the far, so-called Christian, right that fuels the Florida GOP's power, so removed from the ordinary middle ground where many of us live.
And don't tell me the issue will rest with this one case, despite the decree that this week's bill was meant to deal only with Schiavo.
Rep. Sandy Murman, R-Tampa, said Tuesday that passing the bill will give the Legislature time to "assess our current law. We must address these questions before anyone else in Florida dies from starvation or dehydration because of vagueness in the law."
In other words, the Legislature may eventually inject itself in another part of the end-of-life question - not just when to end it but how.
Turning off a respirator is apparently okay. But if Murman's remarks are any indication, the Republicans apparently find the denial of nutrition, a common end-of-life-practice, offensive.
Are they prepared to stick their noses into how doctors work, too?
You have to wonder - at least I do - about the case's potential echoes.
Do the lives of terminally ill cancer patients get even further prolonged because doctors become leery of following family wishes? What about patients at the end of Alzheimer's disease?
Those questions have particular impact in Pinellas County. The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which has cared for Schiavo, is the largest in the country, with about 1,700 patients in Pinellas. Their doctors and families wrestle with life's sorrows every day, as they try to make peace with the inevitable.
Further, the questions are not new. For the last 30 years, courts have ruled that families have the right to remove the feeding tubes of irreversibly ill relatives. The matter has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I know we're different here in Florida. We conduct our elections in peculiar ways. Life's a beach, and all that. But are we not answerable to the Supreme Court?
If I were a newspaper cartoonist, my drawing this week would be of Terri Schiavo in a hospital bed. Her husband, Michael, would be holding her hands, while others - the governor, House Speaker Johnnie Byrd or her parents - pull at her feet.
It wouldn't be a pretty image, but the situation isn't pretty. This is what it looks like when politics hijack the private affairs of family.
The other side has contended that Terri Schiavo was abused by her husband. I would say the latest turn of events is what constitutes abuse. She is being kept alive for use as a powerful icon in the pro-life political game.
Michael Schiavo is one man. The other side is a movement. Schiavo will have to return to court for the game to end. He shouldn't need to do that. He should still have a right that he won, legally and fairly, to let his wife die.
- You can reach Mary Jo Melone at mjmelone@sptimes.com or 226-3402.
MELONE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail:
Click here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive
By MARY JO MELONE, Times Staff Writer
Published October 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened this week in Tallahassee was a breathtaking display of mob rule.
The side that could generate enough e-mails to the governor and the Legislature won.
The outcome, the restoration of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, had nothing to do with the facts, nothing to do with the law, which had consistently sided with Michael Schiavo.
What are facts or laws to the Republicans?
In winning, they laid bare their own contradictions.
You know the mantra: They believe in government that stays out of people's lives.
So what did they do? With the help of a handful of Democrats, the Republicans stuck themselves smack in the middle of the most private of family matters - when to end the life of a loved one who will never get better.
Don't tell me the vote to feed Schiavo was all about the governor's deeply held Catholicism or lawmakers' compassion, as some have tried to portray it.
Politics were all over this act, a craven catering to the far, so-called Christian, right that fuels the Florida GOP's power, so removed from the ordinary middle ground where many of us live.
And don't tell me the issue will rest with this one case, despite the decree that this week's bill was meant to deal only with Schiavo.
Rep. Sandy Murman, R-Tampa, said Tuesday that passing the bill will give the Legislature time to "assess our current law. We must address these questions before anyone else in Florida dies from starvation or dehydration because of vagueness in the law."
In other words, the Legislature may eventually inject itself in another part of the end-of-life question - not just when to end it but how.
Turning off a respirator is apparently okay. But if Murman's remarks are any indication, the Republicans apparently find the denial of nutrition, a common end-of-life-practice, offensive.
Are they prepared to stick their noses into how doctors work, too?
You have to wonder - at least I do - about the case's potential echoes.
Do the lives of terminally ill cancer patients get even further prolonged because doctors become leery of following family wishes? What about patients at the end of Alzheimer's disease?
Those questions have particular impact in Pinellas County. The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, which has cared for Schiavo, is the largest in the country, with about 1,700 patients in Pinellas. Their doctors and families wrestle with life's sorrows every day, as they try to make peace with the inevitable.
Further, the questions are not new. For the last 30 years, courts have ruled that families have the right to remove the feeding tubes of irreversibly ill relatives. The matter has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I know we're different here in Florida. We conduct our elections in peculiar ways. Life's a beach, and all that. But are we not answerable to the Supreme Court?
If I were a newspaper cartoonist, my drawing this week would be of Terri Schiavo in a hospital bed. Her husband, Michael, would be holding her hands, while others - the governor, House Speaker Johnnie Byrd or her parents - pull at her feet.
It wouldn't be a pretty image, but the situation isn't pretty. This is what it looks like when politics hijack the private affairs of family.
The other side has contended that Terri Schiavo was abused by her husband. I would say the latest turn of events is what constitutes abuse. She is being kept alive for use as a powerful icon in the pro-life political game.
Michael Schiavo is one man. The other side is a movement. Schiavo will have to return to court for the game to end. He shouldn't need to do that. He should still have a right that he won, legally and fairly, to let his wife die.
- You can reach Mary Jo Melone at mjmelone@sptimes.com or 226-3402.
TAMPA - Scholars denounced the Legislature's hastily enacted Terri Schiavo bill Wednesday as a violation of the separation of government powers and called it ``profoundly unconstitutional,'' in the words of one.
But legal experts representing right-to-life and religious conservative groups defended the bill as an emergency measure to save the life of an incapacitated woman whose wishes and interests are in doubt.
The legislation passed Tuesday let Gov. Jeb Bush order the replacement of Schiavo's feeding tube in a Clearwater nursing home despite years of court rulings supporting her husband's claim that she didn't want to be kept alive in such fashion.
Beyond rousing division among lawyers, academics and the general public, the move roused charges of political pandering in the Legislature, even from Republicans who voted for the bill.
Those charges focused on House Speaker Johnnie Byrd of Plant City, the driving force behind the legislation and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Bob Graham.
Byrd, who denies acting for political reasons, is running in a primary field dominated by social conservatives seeking the support of social conservatives.
``It's a sad, sad day when someone politicizes someone else's tragedy and pain for political gain,'' said state Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla of Miami, referring to his fellow Republican Byrd.
The action by lawmakers and the governor stirred more emotion among the public, with some echoing the charge of political expedience and others praising the bill.
``Nothing more than political grandstanding ... a cheap and easy way to look good to the public,'' declared businessman J. Jay Schwartz of Oldsmar, one of more than 500 people who sent e-mail to TBO.com late Tuesday and Wednesday responding to the case.
The rush of reaction was too much to tabulate, said Peter Howard of TBO.com. But some said Bush and the Legislature pandered to the religious right - ``zealots and fanatics,'' in the words of Hudson's Todd King - and others backed the politicians.
``I praise God that her life has been spared ... since she could not speak for herself at this time in her life,'' said Cherron Douglas, 53, of Zephyrhills. With no living will, she said, ``There was nothing to substantiate what her husband said were her wishes.''
Emily Foster, 17, a home- schooled high school senior from Temple Terrace, said Schiavo's parents, who oppose ending her life support, should have more say.
``It wasn't right that the husband had complete guardianship and the parents had no rights,'' Foster said.
Legal Arguments
Among the experts, constitutional scholar Joseph Little of the University of Florida called the bill ``very profoundly unconstitutional, the most egregious bill that's been passed and enacted by the governor that I remember.''
Little said it authorizes Bush to override Schiavo's civil liberties, forcing her to accept medical treatment against what judges have ruled are her wishes.
``In our system of government, if the government wants to do something to you, they've got to have a warrant, probable cause or some evidence - none of which they have in this case,'' he said.
Michael Allen, who teaches constitutional law at Stetson University, said legislators overrode the courts.
``The Legislature and the governor have looked at a judgment in a civil case, determined they think it's not correct and acted to reverse that judgment,'' he said. ``What would stop them from doing the same in any civil case?''
But Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, an advocacy group that argues for conservative causes, said the bill shouldn't raise such concerns.
``In this case under this limited set of facts, I support it,'' he said. The Schiavo case ``sort of fell between the cracks of existing Florida law. I don't think this will open up a parade of horribles'' - meaning a string of undesirable consequences - ``enabling the governor to interfere with other private end-of-life decisions.''
Ken Connor, former state and national president of Right To Life, said the bill doesn't violate the separation of powers. He said it's common for legislators to pass ``remedial or corrective'' laws in response to court rulings.
In Florida, he added, the Supreme Court is required to review any case that imposes the death penalty.
``In this case, the judge's order is the functional equivalent of a death penalty, but the Supreme Court declined to review it,'' Connor said. ``Why would Terri Schiavo be entitled to fewer protections?''
Former Florida Chief Justice Gerald Kogan said ``remedial or corrective'' legislation involves changing existing law, but in this case the Legislature overrode a provision of the Florida Constitution. Florida's right-to-privacy amendment was held by the Supreme Court in 1990 to grant individuals the right to have a feeding tube removed.
Political Maneuvers
The Schiavo case has led to national publicity for Florida reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election recount.
On Tuesday night, Byrd and state Sen. Dan Webster of Winter Garden, one of Byrd's two leading opponents in the Republican Senate primary, spoke about the case on separate national television shows.
By then the bill's passage had reopened bitter divisions that arose this year between the Byrd-led House and the more moderate Senate led by Republican Jim King of Jacksonville.
King said he first heard of Byrd's plans to seek the Schiavo legislation in a call from a reporter Sunday. By Monday there was talk of a sweeping bill, a moratorium on removal of feeding tubes in any case of a patient with no living will.
King, who worked on Florida laws allowing removal of terminal patients from life support, wouldn't accept it. After a day of intense pressure from Byrd allies and right-to- life groups, King said he would accept legislation written so narrowly that it could apply only to Schiavo.
Byrd's campaign staff issued a news release late Monday saying he would appear that night on Fox News' ``Hannity & Colmes'' show. But he kept the House in session late Monday night to pass a bill with the same limitations outlined by King. That delayed his TV appearance until Tuesday - and led some senators to grumble that Byrd had appropriated the Senate bill to get credit for it.
``Make no mistake about it: The concept and the moxie for this legislation started here in the Senate,'' King said Tuesday. Webster became the sponsor of the Senate version, putting him into the spotlight along with his rival Byrd.
Reporter Allison North Jones contributed to this report. Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761.
But legal experts representing right-to-life and religious conservative groups defended the bill as an emergency measure to save the life of an incapacitated woman whose wishes and interests are in doubt.
The legislation passed Tuesday let Gov. Jeb Bush order the replacement of Schiavo's feeding tube in a Clearwater nursing home despite years of court rulings supporting her husband's claim that she didn't want to be kept alive in such fashion.
Beyond rousing division among lawyers, academics and the general public, the move roused charges of political pandering in the Legislature, even from Republicans who voted for the bill.
Those charges focused on House Speaker Johnnie Byrd of Plant City, the driving force behind the legislation and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Bob Graham.
Byrd, who denies acting for political reasons, is running in a primary field dominated by social conservatives seeking the support of social conservatives.
``It's a sad, sad day when someone politicizes someone else's tragedy and pain for political gain,'' said state Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla of Miami, referring to his fellow Republican Byrd.
The action by lawmakers and the governor stirred more emotion among the public, with some echoing the charge of political expedience and others praising the bill.
``Nothing more than political grandstanding ... a cheap and easy way to look good to the public,'' declared businessman J. Jay Schwartz of Oldsmar, one of more than 500 people who sent e-mail to TBO.com late Tuesday and Wednesday responding to the case.
The rush of reaction was too much to tabulate, said Peter Howard of TBO.com. But some said Bush and the Legislature pandered to the religious right - ``zealots and fanatics,'' in the words of Hudson's Todd King - and others backed the politicians.
``I praise God that her life has been spared ... since she could not speak for herself at this time in her life,'' said Cherron Douglas, 53, of Zephyrhills. With no living will, she said, ``There was nothing to substantiate what her husband said were her wishes.''
Emily Foster, 17, a home- schooled high school senior from Temple Terrace, said Schiavo's parents, who oppose ending her life support, should have more say.
``It wasn't right that the husband had complete guardianship and the parents had no rights,'' Foster said.
Legal Arguments
Among the experts, constitutional scholar Joseph Little of the University of Florida called the bill ``very profoundly unconstitutional, the most egregious bill that's been passed and enacted by the governor that I remember.''
Little said it authorizes Bush to override Schiavo's civil liberties, forcing her to accept medical treatment against what judges have ruled are her wishes.
``In our system of government, if the government wants to do something to you, they've got to have a warrant, probable cause or some evidence - none of which they have in this case,'' he said.
Michael Allen, who teaches constitutional law at Stetson University, said legislators overrode the courts.
``The Legislature and the governor have looked at a judgment in a civil case, determined they think it's not correct and acted to reverse that judgment,'' he said. ``What would stop them from doing the same in any civil case?''
But Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, an advocacy group that argues for conservative causes, said the bill shouldn't raise such concerns.
``In this case under this limited set of facts, I support it,'' he said. The Schiavo case ``sort of fell between the cracks of existing Florida law. I don't think this will open up a parade of horribles'' - meaning a string of undesirable consequences - ``enabling the governor to interfere with other private end-of-life decisions.''
Ken Connor, former state and national president of Right To Life, said the bill doesn't violate the separation of powers. He said it's common for legislators to pass ``remedial or corrective'' laws in response to court rulings.
In Florida, he added, the Supreme Court is required to review any case that imposes the death penalty.
``In this case, the judge's order is the functional equivalent of a death penalty, but the Supreme Court declined to review it,'' Connor said. ``Why would Terri Schiavo be entitled to fewer protections?''
Former Florida Chief Justice Gerald Kogan said ``remedial or corrective'' legislation involves changing existing law, but in this case the Legislature overrode a provision of the Florida Constitution. Florida's right-to-privacy amendment was held by the Supreme Court in 1990 to grant individuals the right to have a feeding tube removed.
Political Maneuvers
The Schiavo case has led to national publicity for Florida reminiscent of the 2000 presidential election recount.
On Tuesday night, Byrd and state Sen. Dan Webster of Winter Garden, one of Byrd's two leading opponents in the Republican Senate primary, spoke about the case on separate national television shows.
By then the bill's passage had reopened bitter divisions that arose this year between the Byrd-led House and the more moderate Senate led by Republican Jim King of Jacksonville.
King said he first heard of Byrd's plans to seek the Schiavo legislation in a call from a reporter Sunday. By Monday there was talk of a sweeping bill, a moratorium on removal of feeding tubes in any case of a patient with no living will.
King, who worked on Florida laws allowing removal of terminal patients from life support, wouldn't accept it. After a day of intense pressure from Byrd allies and right-to- life groups, King said he would accept legislation written so narrowly that it could apply only to Schiavo.
Byrd's campaign staff issued a news release late Monday saying he would appear that night on Fox News' ``Hannity & Colmes'' show. But he kept the House in session late Monday night to pass a bill with the same limitations outlined by King. That delayed his TV appearance until Tuesday - and led some senators to grumble that Byrd had appropriated the Senate bill to get credit for it.
``Make no mistake about it: The concept and the moxie for this legislation started here in the Senate,'' King said Tuesday. Webster became the sponsor of the Senate version, putting him into the spotlight along with his rival Byrd.
Reporter Allison North Jones contributed to this report. Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761.
Oct. 22 � There have been plenty of bone-headed decisions over the years by government officials and legislators playing doctor in controversial medical cases. But few lawmakers have acted as rashly, ineptly and dangerously with respect to the public as did the Florida state Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush when they passed a last-minute law intended to stop the death of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who�s been in a coma for more than 13 years.
SCHIAVO HAS BEEN the subject of a bitter dispute between her husband Michael Schiavo and her mother, father and siblings. Terri�s husband has consistently maintained that Terri would not want to remain kept alive by medical technology in the vegetative state she has been in for more than a decade.
However, Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri�s mother and father, say they don�t trust Michael and believe that Terri would want to continue living even though she is almost completely incapable of any thought, feeling or mental activity. They also don�t trust the doctors who say Terri has suffered permanent brain damage and will never think again. In short, her parents are hoping for a miracle that Michael believes will never come.
The battle over whether Terri�s husband can discontinue her artificial nutrition and hydration in an effort to let her die has been in the Florida courts for six years. Nineteen judges sitting on six different courts have heard evidence from both her husband, the Schindler family, and a parade of medical experts.
Advertisement
No court has ever been persuaded that Michael Schiavo should be disqualified from making medical decisions on behalf of his wife. And no court has ever been persuaded that Terri has any hope of recovering from her severely brain-damaged state.
So the courts have sided with Michael Schiavo using a well-established rule of law, which states that when a patient cannot communicate and has left no written instructions about their wishes, spouses have discretion about continuing or stopping medical care.
Battle over comatose woman to drag on
GOVERNOR STEPS IN
The Florida courts finally had heard enough. Six days ago, as Michael had asked, Terri�s feeding tube was removed at the Pinnelas Park hospice where she has been residing. That is when the Florida Legislature � urged on by Gov. Bush � got into the act.
The Legislature passed a new law that orders the continuation of nutrition and hydration even when a person is in a persistent vegetative state, has not left a living will or advance directive, and has had feeding tubes removed. The law requires the use of a feeding tube even if a spouse has requested its removal.
As a result, Terri Schiavo has stopped dying. She is back in a Florida hospital in a coma with her feeding tube reinserted per an order from the Governor.
Why is the state�s decision so awful? The Legislature tried to craft a law that would apply only to Terri�s situation, but has instead created a policy that will have far-reaching consequences for all the state�s citizens.
Sadly, most people do not have living wills or other documents that state in writing who should make decisions for them or what they would want if they should fall into a permanent coma or be unable to communicate. Under the new law, every person in Florida who does not have a living will is now in a situation where a spouse�s decision to remove artificial feeding can be challenged.
But there is nothing medically special about feeding tubes � and the legal challenges will not stop there. Parents or siblings will now have more legal authority to override the decision of a spouse to stop kidney dialysis, ventilators or any form of medical technology that can maintain physiological function in someone who is dying or unable to think.
SHARPEN YOUR PENCILS
By ignoring its own court system, by ignoring the independent medical experts who examined Terri and by ignoring the principle that says spouses � not parents or brothers or sisters or cousins or any other relatives � have decision-making authority, the Florida Legislature and the Governor have called into question the right to die of every single person in the state who does not have a living will or advanced directive.
The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court looked at these issues a decade ago in the case of Missouri�s Nancy Cruzan and affirmed the right to stop medically supplied food and nutrition to patients in permanent comas. There is every reason to think that the newly enacted Florida law is unconstitutional and will be overturned.
Florida legislators knew they were on thin ice in trying to intervene in the death of Terri Schiavo. Florida Sen. Jim King, the president of the Florida Senate, said after the vote: �I keep on thinking �What if Terri didn�t really want this done at all?��
Senator, it is hard to imagine that Terri, you or anyone else would want to spend 13 years in a comatose state in a nursing home bed. But, because the Governor and the Legislature were not willing to honor their own legal system, there is a grave risk that she may well spend another 13 years � or longer � in this condition.
And what is worse, because of this law every single resident of the state now faces the same risk unless they fill out a living will. So Floridians, sharpen your pencils lest the Legislature decides that you, too, cannot have the plug pulled.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
SCHIAVO HAS BEEN the subject of a bitter dispute between her husband Michael Schiavo and her mother, father and siblings. Terri�s husband has consistently maintained that Terri would not want to remain kept alive by medical technology in the vegetative state she has been in for more than a decade.
However, Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri�s mother and father, say they don�t trust Michael and believe that Terri would want to continue living even though she is almost completely incapable of any thought, feeling or mental activity. They also don�t trust the doctors who say Terri has suffered permanent brain damage and will never think again. In short, her parents are hoping for a miracle that Michael believes will never come.
The battle over whether Terri�s husband can discontinue her artificial nutrition and hydration in an effort to let her die has been in the Florida courts for six years. Nineteen judges sitting on six different courts have heard evidence from both her husband, the Schindler family, and a parade of medical experts.
Advertisement
No court has ever been persuaded that Michael Schiavo should be disqualified from making medical decisions on behalf of his wife. And no court has ever been persuaded that Terri has any hope of recovering from her severely brain-damaged state.
So the courts have sided with Michael Schiavo using a well-established rule of law, which states that when a patient cannot communicate and has left no written instructions about their wishes, spouses have discretion about continuing or stopping medical care.
Battle over comatose woman to drag on
GOVERNOR STEPS IN
The Florida courts finally had heard enough. Six days ago, as Michael had asked, Terri�s feeding tube was removed at the Pinnelas Park hospice where she has been residing. That is when the Florida Legislature � urged on by Gov. Bush � got into the act.
The Legislature passed a new law that orders the continuation of nutrition and hydration even when a person is in a persistent vegetative state, has not left a living will or advance directive, and has had feeding tubes removed. The law requires the use of a feeding tube even if a spouse has requested its removal.
As a result, Terri Schiavo has stopped dying. She is back in a Florida hospital in a coma with her feeding tube reinserted per an order from the Governor.
Why is the state�s decision so awful? The Legislature tried to craft a law that would apply only to Terri�s situation, but has instead created a policy that will have far-reaching consequences for all the state�s citizens.
Sadly, most people do not have living wills or other documents that state in writing who should make decisions for them or what they would want if they should fall into a permanent coma or be unable to communicate. Under the new law, every person in Florida who does not have a living will is now in a situation where a spouse�s decision to remove artificial feeding can be challenged.
But there is nothing medically special about feeding tubes � and the legal challenges will not stop there. Parents or siblings will now have more legal authority to override the decision of a spouse to stop kidney dialysis, ventilators or any form of medical technology that can maintain physiological function in someone who is dying or unable to think.
SHARPEN YOUR PENCILS
By ignoring its own court system, by ignoring the independent medical experts who examined Terri and by ignoring the principle that says spouses � not parents or brothers or sisters or cousins or any other relatives � have decision-making authority, the Florida Legislature and the Governor have called into question the right to die of every single person in the state who does not have a living will or advanced directive.
The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court looked at these issues a decade ago in the case of Missouri�s Nancy Cruzan and affirmed the right to stop medically supplied food and nutrition to patients in permanent comas. There is every reason to think that the newly enacted Florida law is unconstitutional and will be overturned.
Florida legislators knew they were on thin ice in trying to intervene in the death of Terri Schiavo. Florida Sen. Jim King, the president of the Florida Senate, said after the vote: �I keep on thinking �What if Terri didn�t really want this done at all?��
Senator, it is hard to imagine that Terri, you or anyone else would want to spend 13 years in a comatose state in a nursing home bed. But, because the Governor and the Legislature were not willing to honor their own legal system, there is a grave risk that she may well spend another 13 years � or longer � in this condition.
And what is worse, because of this law every single resident of the state now faces the same risk unless they fill out a living will. So Floridians, sharpen your pencils lest the Legislature decides that you, too, cannot have the plug pulled.
Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Oct. 23 � Terri Schiavo resumed receiving life-sustaining care yesterday in a Florida hospital room, but many experts said there is virtually no hope that she will ever recover, despite her parents� desperate hopes.
�IF IT�S over a year, she�s not ever going to get up,� said Fred Plum, a professor emeritus at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. �You�d just don�t see it. It just doesn�t happen.�
Schiavo, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative state since her heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding tube in her stomach was removed this past Wednesday after her husband, Michael, who said his wife had told him she would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she could die.
BITTER BATTLE
But Schiavo�s parents, convinced that she retains awareness of her surroundings and could recover, waged a bitter legal and political battle to keep her alive. Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday took the unprecedented step of ordering resumption of nourishment and fluids after the Florida legislature passed special legislation granting him emergency authority.
The move was applauded by Schiavo�s parents and right-to-life advocates. But the decision triggered angry condemnations from doctors, ethicists and hospice experts across the country. Michael Schiavo has vowed to get the decision reversed.
A persistent vegetative state is a condition in which a person who has experienced brain damage has no awareness of their environment. Because the more primitive parts of the brain continue to function, patients still cycle between sleep and wakefulness; their eyes open; and they can have reactions, such as facial expressions and responses to noise and movement, that appear as if they have some consciousness.
But unlike a coma, from which a person can in rare cases emerge, if a persistent vegetative state does not give way to recovery after three months, the chances it ever will are extremely small. If the condition continues for more than a year, the chances are virtually zero, several experts said yesterday.
�There has never been a documented case of someone recovering after having been in a persistent vegetative state for more than three months,� said Ronald Cranford, a neurologist at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minnesota who testified on behalf of Schiavo�s husband. �Every three to five years, there�s a case reported of a person who supposedly recovered, but it never turns out to be true.�
Although science can never give absolute guarantees about anything, the longer a person remains in a persistent vegetative state, the less likely it becomes that they will ever recover, agreed Ronald Hayes, director of the Center for Traumatic Brain Injury Studies at the McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
�By the time you�re in one for 13 years, our experience teaches us that recovery becomes extremely remote,� Hayes said.
Schiavo�s parents have cited the fact that their daughter appears to look at them and respond to their presence. But Cranford said it was clear from tests that Schiavo has suffered too much brain damage for that to be the case.
�MASSIVE ATROPHY OF THE BRAIN�
�The CAT scan shows massive atrophy of the brain. It shows there�s been significant shrinkage of the entire brain. What Terri Schiavo manifests is a classic vegetative state. It looks like she�s looking at you, but really she�s not. It looks like she�s grinning at you, but she�s really not. You can believe what you want and see what you want, but it�s just not there,� said Cranford, also a professor at the University of Minnesota.
The key test is whether someone can track movement with their eyes, which Schiavo does not, Cranford said. �Terri does not have visual tracking. If you look at the videotapes, she�s really not looking at her mother. She�s really not tracking,� Cranford said.
Cranford said that Schiavo could survive another five to 10 years if she continues to receive fluids and nourishment, �but the point is she�ll never regain consciousness or improve from her condition.�
In contrast, removing the feeding tube would cause her to die without pain or suffering within 10 to 14 days, according to several experts.
Once feeding is withdrawn, the body becomes dehydrated and levels of a chemical known as blood urea nitrogen begin to rise. That causes people to get sleepy and eventually become unconscious.
�It�s the natural process of dying that happens to us all,� said Vincent Perron, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Florida who serves as associate medical director for LifePath Hospice in Tampa.
In addition, the brain produces the same natural chemicals that mask pain during an injury and produce the �runner�s high,� which prevents most near-death patients from suffering.
�It�s not painful, because your body essentially creates neurotransmitters that make you feel good,� said Carla Alexander, medical director for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. �Many people are conscious until they die, and they can tell us if they are in pain. I�ve never seen or even heard of anyone experiencing pain.� Eventually, death occurs when organs begin to fail, including the heart.
But in the Schiavo case, the bitter family feud continued.
�A HAPPY DAY�
Schiavo�s husband, who remains her guardian despite Gov. Bush�s executive order dictating that her feeding resume, refused for much of the day to allow her parents, brother or sister to visit her, according to family friends. Late Wednesday, relatives were given permission to see her.
�There�s no reason for this; it should be a happy day,� said Pamela Hennessy, a spokeswoman for Terri Schiavo�s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.
The Schindlers� attorneys are attempting to have a court-appointed guardian named to oversee Schiavo�s medical care, an effort that has already been rejected once this week by a Florida state court judge. Later, the two sides were given five days to see whether they could agree on a guardian to advise the court, or one would be appointed.
Hennessy accused the court system of ignoring the concerns of Schiavo�s parents.
�They�re not in a big hurry to help anyone out,� she said.
Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla., where Schiavo was taken after the legislature�s vote, has declined to release information about her condition or the care she is receiving. Her parents have also been unable to get information about her care, Hennessy said.
Staff writer Manuel Roig-Franzia contributed to this report from Miami.
�IF IT�S over a year, she�s not ever going to get up,� said Fred Plum, a professor emeritus at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. �You�d just don�t see it. It just doesn�t happen.�
Schiavo, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative state since her heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding tube in her stomach was removed this past Wednesday after her husband, Michael, who said his wife had told him she would not want to be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she could die.
BITTER BATTLE
But Schiavo�s parents, convinced that she retains awareness of her surroundings and could recover, waged a bitter legal and political battle to keep her alive. Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday took the unprecedented step of ordering resumption of nourishment and fluids after the Florida legislature passed special legislation granting him emergency authority.
The move was applauded by Schiavo�s parents and right-to-life advocates. But the decision triggered angry condemnations from doctors, ethicists and hospice experts across the country. Michael Schiavo has vowed to get the decision reversed.
A persistent vegetative state is a condition in which a person who has experienced brain damage has no awareness of their environment. Because the more primitive parts of the brain continue to function, patients still cycle between sleep and wakefulness; their eyes open; and they can have reactions, such as facial expressions and responses to noise and movement, that appear as if they have some consciousness.
But unlike a coma, from which a person can in rare cases emerge, if a persistent vegetative state does not give way to recovery after three months, the chances it ever will are extremely small. If the condition continues for more than a year, the chances are virtually zero, several experts said yesterday.
�There has never been a documented case of someone recovering after having been in a persistent vegetative state for more than three months,� said Ronald Cranford, a neurologist at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minnesota who testified on behalf of Schiavo�s husband. �Every three to five years, there�s a case reported of a person who supposedly recovered, but it never turns out to be true.�
Although science can never give absolute guarantees about anything, the longer a person remains in a persistent vegetative state, the less likely it becomes that they will ever recover, agreed Ronald Hayes, director of the Center for Traumatic Brain Injury Studies at the McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
�By the time you�re in one for 13 years, our experience teaches us that recovery becomes extremely remote,� Hayes said.
Schiavo�s parents have cited the fact that their daughter appears to look at them and respond to their presence. But Cranford said it was clear from tests that Schiavo has suffered too much brain damage for that to be the case.
�MASSIVE ATROPHY OF THE BRAIN�
�The CAT scan shows massive atrophy of the brain. It shows there�s been significant shrinkage of the entire brain. What Terri Schiavo manifests is a classic vegetative state. It looks like she�s looking at you, but really she�s not. It looks like she�s grinning at you, but she�s really not. You can believe what you want and see what you want, but it�s just not there,� said Cranford, also a professor at the University of Minnesota.
The key test is whether someone can track movement with their eyes, which Schiavo does not, Cranford said. �Terri does not have visual tracking. If you look at the videotapes, she�s really not looking at her mother. She�s really not tracking,� Cranford said.
Cranford said that Schiavo could survive another five to 10 years if she continues to receive fluids and nourishment, �but the point is she�ll never regain consciousness or improve from her condition.�
In contrast, removing the feeding tube would cause her to die without pain or suffering within 10 to 14 days, according to several experts.
Once feeding is withdrawn, the body becomes dehydrated and levels of a chemical known as blood urea nitrogen begin to rise. That causes people to get sleepy and eventually become unconscious.
�It�s the natural process of dying that happens to us all,� said Vincent Perron, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Florida who serves as associate medical director for LifePath Hospice in Tampa.
In addition, the brain produces the same natural chemicals that mask pain during an injury and produce the �runner�s high,� which prevents most near-death patients from suffering.
�It�s not painful, because your body essentially creates neurotransmitters that make you feel good,� said Carla Alexander, medical director for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. �Many people are conscious until they die, and they can tell us if they are in pain. I�ve never seen or even heard of anyone experiencing pain.� Eventually, death occurs when organs begin to fail, including the heart.
But in the Schiavo case, the bitter family feud continued.
�A HAPPY DAY�
Schiavo�s husband, who remains her guardian despite Gov. Bush�s executive order dictating that her feeding resume, refused for much of the day to allow her parents, brother or sister to visit her, according to family friends. Late Wednesday, relatives were given permission to see her.
�There�s no reason for this; it should be a happy day,� said Pamela Hennessy, a spokeswoman for Terri Schiavo�s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler.
The Schindlers� attorneys are attempting to have a court-appointed guardian named to oversee Schiavo�s medical care, an effort that has already been rejected once this week by a Florida state court judge. Later, the two sides were given five days to see whether they could agree on a guardian to advise the court, or one would be appointed.
Hennessy accused the court system of ignoring the concerns of Schiavo�s parents.
�They�re not in a big hurry to help anyone out,� she said.
Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla., where Schiavo was taken after the legislature�s vote, has declined to release information about her condition or the care she is receiving. Her parents have also been unable to get information about her care, Hennessy said.
Staff writer Manuel Roig-Franzia contributed to this report from Miami.
Attorney: Florida Woman Being Fed Again
Attorney: Brain-Damaged Florida Woman Terri Schiavo Being Fed Through New Feeding Tube Again
The Associated Press
CLEARWATER, Fla. Oct. 22 � A brain-damaged woman was receiving nourishment through a new feeding tube Wednesday, a week after her husband had tried to have such treatment ended but was blocked by the Florida Legislature.
Terri Schiavo, 39, was being fed through a tube inserted into her abdomen when family members, fighting an epic battle to keep her alive, visited late Wednesday, said their attorney, Pat Anderson.
Terri Schiavo looked gaunt, with red-ringed eyes, Anderson said, adding: "I think what we're looking at is the price of moving her."
The feeding tube was reinserted during a short stay at Morton Plant Hospital, where the woman was taken after Gov. Jeb Bush, heeding the Legislature's wishes, intervened in the bitter right-to-die case and ordered her kept alive.
Earlier Wednesday evening, she was taken back to the hospice that cared for her several years. The family visited her there, in a Clearwater suburb.
The woman's father, Bob Schindler, said he hoped his daughter would recover from being without food or water for six days.
"Terri is so resilient," he said. "Tomorrow she could be back the same way she was before she left here. Maybe she needs sleep."
Husband Michael Schiavo's attorney angrily complained the woman was being mistreated by attempts to keep her alive, and legal scholars predicted that Bush's intervention would be ruled unconstitutional.
"It is so repugnant to so many provisions of Florida's constitution, we are all certain that it will be overturned," lawyer George Felos said.
The case is one of the nation's longest and most contentious right-to-die cases, pitting members of the same family against one another.
Terri Schiavo has been in a what doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" and on a feeding tube since 1990, when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her eyes are open, but doctors say she has no consciousness.
The feeding tube was removed by court order last Wednesday at the insistence of her husband, who has custody.
Bob Schindler and his wife, Mary, say she still could recover. Michael Schiavo contends that she told him she would rather die than be kept alive artificially, but family members said they never heard her say anything like that.
On Tuesday, the Legislature rushed through a bill designed to save Schiavo's life, and Bush quickly invoked the law and ordered the feeding tube reinserted.
A judge later rejected a request by Michael Schiavo to block Bush's order but said he would consider it again after both sides file briefs.
Felos said earlier that the woman was quietly dying after the tube was removed, that her heartbeat had become irregular and her kidneys were shutting down, and that it was "simply inhumane and barbaric to interrupt her death process."
"The hysterical opposition to his case says so much more about us as a society," he said. "I think it says so much more about our fear of death than the sanctity of life."
The bill sent to Bush was designed to be as narrow as possible. It is limited to cases in which the patient left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed, and where a family member has challenged the removal.
Legal experts widely agreed that the governor and Legislature went too far.
"This particular administration has not yet understood why we have separation of powers," said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Gerald Kogan. "They seem to believe that the governor and the Legislature can do whatever they want and the courts should not interfere and that's not right."
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said: "I've never seen a case in which the state legislature treats someone's life as a political football in quite the way this is being done."
Bush and the Republican-led Legislature have a reputation for being at odds with the courts. They have clashed over abortion and the death penalty.
Bush and lawmakers who supported the legislation said they had a legitimate reason to intervene in the case to save Schiavo's life.
"Let us err on the part of not condemning this woman to a painful death that she can feel," said GOP Sen. Anna Cowin.
During the years she has been in a vegetative state, her parents reported their daughter laughed, cried, smiled and responded to their voices. But the court-appointed doctor said the noises and facial expressions she made were reflexes.
Attorney: Brain-Damaged Florida Woman Terri Schiavo Being Fed Through New Feeding Tube Again
The Associated Press
CLEARWATER, Fla. Oct. 22 � A brain-damaged woman was receiving nourishment through a new feeding tube Wednesday, a week after her husband had tried to have such treatment ended but was blocked by the Florida Legislature.
Terri Schiavo, 39, was being fed through a tube inserted into her abdomen when family members, fighting an epic battle to keep her alive, visited late Wednesday, said their attorney, Pat Anderson.
Terri Schiavo looked gaunt, with red-ringed eyes, Anderson said, adding: "I think what we're looking at is the price of moving her."
The feeding tube was reinserted during a short stay at Morton Plant Hospital, where the woman was taken after Gov. Jeb Bush, heeding the Legislature's wishes, intervened in the bitter right-to-die case and ordered her kept alive.
Earlier Wednesday evening, she was taken back to the hospice that cared for her several years. The family visited her there, in a Clearwater suburb.
The woman's father, Bob Schindler, said he hoped his daughter would recover from being without food or water for six days.
"Terri is so resilient," he said. "Tomorrow she could be back the same way she was before she left here. Maybe she needs sleep."
Husband Michael Schiavo's attorney angrily complained the woman was being mistreated by attempts to keep her alive, and legal scholars predicted that Bush's intervention would be ruled unconstitutional.
"It is so repugnant to so many provisions of Florida's constitution, we are all certain that it will be overturned," lawyer George Felos said.
The case is one of the nation's longest and most contentious right-to-die cases, pitting members of the same family against one another.
Terri Schiavo has been in a what doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" and on a feeding tube since 1990, when her heart stopped because of a chemical imbalance. Her eyes are open, but doctors say she has no consciousness.
The feeding tube was removed by court order last Wednesday at the insistence of her husband, who has custody.
Bob Schindler and his wife, Mary, say she still could recover. Michael Schiavo contends that she told him she would rather die than be kept alive artificially, but family members said they never heard her say anything like that.
On Tuesday, the Legislature rushed through a bill designed to save Schiavo's life, and Bush quickly invoked the law and ordered the feeding tube reinserted.
A judge later rejected a request by Michael Schiavo to block Bush's order but said he would consider it again after both sides file briefs.
Felos said earlier that the woman was quietly dying after the tube was removed, that her heartbeat had become irregular and her kidneys were shutting down, and that it was "simply inhumane and barbaric to interrupt her death process."
"The hysterical opposition to his case says so much more about us as a society," he said. "I think it says so much more about our fear of death than the sanctity of life."
The bill sent to Bush was designed to be as narrow as possible. It is limited to cases in which the patient left no living will, is in a persistent vegetative state, has had nutrition and hydration tubes removed, and where a family member has challenged the removal.
Legal experts widely agreed that the governor and Legislature went too far.
"This particular administration has not yet understood why we have separation of powers," said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Gerald Kogan. "They seem to believe that the governor and the Legislature can do whatever they want and the courts should not interfere and that's not right."
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said: "I've never seen a case in which the state legislature treats someone's life as a political football in quite the way this is being done."
Bush and the Republican-led Legislature have a reputation for being at odds with the courts. They have clashed over abortion and the death penalty.
Bush and lawmakers who supported the legislation said they had a legitimate reason to intervene in the case to save Schiavo's life.
"Let us err on the part of not condemning this woman to a painful death that she can feel," said GOP Sen. Anna Cowin.
During the years she has been in a vegetative state, her parents reported their daughter laughed, cried, smiled and responded to their voices. But the court-appointed doctor said the noises and facial expressions she made were reflexes.
Family Barred From Seeing Schiavo
Oct 22, 2003 -
CLEARWATER - The family of a disabled woman now under treatment by orders of Gov. Jeb Bush is barred from seeing her because her husband won't allow it, the family's attorney said Wednesday.
Michael Schiavo is Terri Schiavo's official guardian, and can designate who is allowed to see his wife. She had gone without food and water for six days under a court order that allowed her husband to remove the feeding tube that kept her alive for more than a decade.
Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday, acting under a hastily approved law by the Florida Legislature, ordered Terri Schiavo taken to a hospital where doctors could begin the process of rehydrating and eventually feeding her.
Attorneys for parents Bob and Mary Schindler said Terri Schiavo's brother, Bob Schindler Jr., was turned away Tuesday night when he attempted to see his sister. It was not clear what condition Terri Schiavo was in Wednesday morning, about 12 hours after she was moved from a Pinellas Park hospice where she was dying to Morton Plant Hospital in nearby Clearwater.
``They have been told Terri can have no visitors under Michael's order,'' said Tom Brodersen, a paralegal who is a member of the Schindler's legal team that has waged a years-long court battle to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo, did not immediately return a call for comment Wednesday morning.
The fight over Terri Schiavo's life took a dramatic twist Tuesday with Bush's intervention in the decade-long legal battle between the Schindlers and their son-in-law.
Michael Schiavo says his wife never wanted to be kept alive artificially and doctors have testified she is in a persistent vegetative state. The Schindlers dispute she had such wishes and say their daughter has enough functioning ability to laugh, cry and react to them.
Felos called the reinsertion of the tube ``an absolute horrible tragedy for Terri Schiavo.''
``The governor of the state of Florida does not have the right to trump a patient's personal choice,'' he said.
Felos said that on Tuesday, Terri was showing signs of massive organ failure and that the reinsertion of the tube is just prolonging her death. He said he did not know her condition Wednesday.
``She was literally absconded from her death bed in the middle of her dying process,'' he told ABC's ``Good Morning America.''
Observers wondered whether the Legislature and the governor overstepped constitutional boundaries by ramming through legislation that overruled the courts.
``It presents a new legal issue that I've never heard of,'' said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Stephen Grimes.
The feeding tube was removed last Wednesday after a court refused to intervene. Doctors said the 39-year-old woman would die within a week to 10 days without nutrition and water.
On Tuesday, an ambulance took Schiavo from a Pinellas Park hospice to Morton Plant Hospital after Bush issued his order to resume feeding her. A crowd cheered outside as she left. A hospital spokeswoman on Wednesday said she could not release any information on Schiavo.
Hours earlier, the Senate voted 23-15 for legislation to save Schiavo. Within minutes, the House voted 73-24 to send the bill to Bush. The governor signed it into law and issued his order about an hour later.
``It's restored my belief in God,'' said Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler.
Michael Schiavo, meanwhile, was ``deeply troubled, angry and saddened that his wife's wishes have become a political pingpong,'' Felos said. ``He, as many others, is absolutely stunned at the course of events.''
Suzanne Carr, the woman's sister, called the lawmakers' action ``a miracle, an absolute miracle.''
Felos scrambled to try to stop Bush's order. He filed a request for an injunction, but Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer denied it on technical grounds. Felos refiled the request and State Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird also refused to grant it.
``We won. Terri won,'' her father said after the ruling.
Felos said he believes the legislation is unconstitutional. It is Terri Schiavo's right under the Florida Constitution to not be kept alive artificially, and the courts have affirmed that, he said.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said the action by Bush and the Legislature ``violates the core principles'' of a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The court ruled in a Missouri case that Nancy Cruzan, who had been fed through a tube for seven years, could be permitted to die if ``clear and convincing evidence'' proved that was what she wanted. Her parents had fought for the right to remove the tube.
Schiavo never signed a living will, which lets people exercise their right to die should they become comatose. But her husband says she told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially; her parents said she never told them of the wish.
``I've never seen a case in which the state legislature treats someone's life as a political football in quite the way this is being done,'' said Tribe.
Felos will have five days to file additional arguments with the judge and the state will have five days after that to respond. The judge will then hold another hearing.
``It is simply inhumane and barbaric to interrupt her death process,'' Felos said. ``Just because Terri Schiavo is not conscious doesn't mean she doesn't have dignity.''
Court-appointed doctors have described Schiavo as being in a vegetative state, caused when her heart stopped in 1990 from a suspected chemical imbalance.
AP-ES-10-22-03 1219EDT
Oct 22, 2003 -
CLEARWATER - The family of a disabled woman now under treatment by orders of Gov. Jeb Bush is barred from seeing her because her husband won't allow it, the family's attorney said Wednesday.
Michael Schiavo is Terri Schiavo's official guardian, and can designate who is allowed to see his wife. She had gone without food and water for six days under a court order that allowed her husband to remove the feeding tube that kept her alive for more than a decade.
Gov. Jeb Bush on Tuesday, acting under a hastily approved law by the Florida Legislature, ordered Terri Schiavo taken to a hospital where doctors could begin the process of rehydrating and eventually feeding her.
Attorneys for parents Bob and Mary Schindler said Terri Schiavo's brother, Bob Schindler Jr., was turned away Tuesday night when he attempted to see his sister. It was not clear what condition Terri Schiavo was in Wednesday morning, about 12 hours after she was moved from a Pinellas Park hospice where she was dying to Morton Plant Hospital in nearby Clearwater.
``They have been told Terri can have no visitors under Michael's order,'' said Tom Brodersen, a paralegal who is a member of the Schindler's legal team that has waged a years-long court battle to keep Terri Schiavo alive.
George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo, did not immediately return a call for comment Wednesday morning.
The fight over Terri Schiavo's life took a dramatic twist Tuesday with Bush's intervention in the decade-long legal battle between the Schindlers and their son-in-law.
Michael Schiavo says his wife never wanted to be kept alive artificially and doctors have testified she is in a persistent vegetative state. The Schindlers dispute she had such wishes and say their daughter has enough functioning ability to laugh, cry and react to them.
Felos called the reinsertion of the tube ``an absolute horrible tragedy for Terri Schiavo.''
``The governor of the state of Florida does not have the right to trump a patient's personal choice,'' he said.
Felos said that on Tuesday, Terri was showing signs of massive organ failure and that the reinsertion of the tube is just prolonging her death. He said he did not know her condition Wednesday.
``She was literally absconded from her death bed in the middle of her dying process,'' he told ABC's ``Good Morning America.''
Observers wondered whether the Legislature and the governor overstepped constitutional boundaries by ramming through legislation that overruled the courts.
``It presents a new legal issue that I've never heard of,'' said former Florida Supreme Court Justice Stephen Grimes.
The feeding tube was removed last Wednesday after a court refused to intervene. Doctors said the 39-year-old woman would die within a week to 10 days without nutrition and water.
On Tuesday, an ambulance took Schiavo from a Pinellas Park hospice to Morton Plant Hospital after Bush issued his order to resume feeding her. A crowd cheered outside as she left. A hospital spokeswoman on Wednesday said she could not release any information on Schiavo.
Hours earlier, the Senate voted 23-15 for legislation to save Schiavo. Within minutes, the House voted 73-24 to send the bill to Bush. The governor signed it into law and issued his order about an hour later.
``It's restored my belief in God,'' said Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler.
Michael Schiavo, meanwhile, was ``deeply troubled, angry and saddened that his wife's wishes have become a political pingpong,'' Felos said. ``He, as many others, is absolutely stunned at the course of events.''
Suzanne Carr, the woman's sister, called the lawmakers' action ``a miracle, an absolute miracle.''
Felos scrambled to try to stop Bush's order. He filed a request for an injunction, but Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer denied it on technical grounds. Felos refiled the request and State Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird also refused to grant it.
``We won. Terri won,'' her father said after the ruling.
Felos said he believes the legislation is unconstitutional. It is Terri Schiavo's right under the Florida Constitution to not be kept alive artificially, and the courts have affirmed that, he said.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said the action by Bush and the Legislature ``violates the core principles'' of a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The court ruled in a Missouri case that Nancy Cruzan, who had been fed through a tube for seven years, could be permitted to die if ``clear and convincing evidence'' proved that was what she wanted. Her parents had fought for the right to remove the tube.
Schiavo never signed a living will, which lets people exercise their right to die should they become comatose. But her husband says she told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially; her parents said she never told them of the wish.
``I've never seen a case in which the state legislature treats someone's life as a political football in quite the way this is being done,'' said Tribe.
Felos will have five days to file additional arguments with the judge and the state will have five days after that to respond. The judge will then hold another hearing.
``It is simply inhumane and barbaric to interrupt her death process,'' Felos said. ``Just because Terri Schiavo is not conscious doesn't mean she doesn't have dignity.''
Court-appointed doctors have described Schiavo as being in a vegetative state, caused when her heart stopped in 1990 from a suspected chemical imbalance.
AP-ES-10-22-03 1219EDT
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Wrong and Divisive
Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A24
PRESIDENT BUSH rightly took issue yesterday with the anti-Semitic comments of Malaysia's prime minister. Mr. Bush took Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad aside during the economic summit in Bangkok "and told him that what he said was 'wrong and divisive,' " according to White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "It stands squarely against what I believe in," Mr. McClellan quoted the president as saying. Mr. Mahathir had told an Islamic conference last week that "the Jews rule the world by proxy" and urged Islamic nations to unite against being "defeated by a few million Jews." He received a standing ovation from his colleagues -- making Mr. Bush's expression of disapproval all the more necessary.
Would that Mr. Bush's sense of outrage at religiously inflammatory remarks was so finely tuned when it comes to members of his own administration. Thus far he has found nothing to criticize in remarks disparaging of Islam by Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, his deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. In videotapes of appearances before church groups -- obtained by military analyst William N. Arkin and first described on NBC and in the Los Angeles Times -- Gen. Boykin, in Army uniform, describes the United States as a "Christian nation" and says he knew he would capture a Somali warlord because "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Gen. Boykin casts the war against terrorism as a "spiritual battle," saying that "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army."
Gen. Boykin now argues that his "idol" reference was to the worship of money and power, not Allah. But a review of the full text of his remarks cannot support this reading. In fact, the full text only adds to the questions about his suitability. At the Good Shepherd Community Church in Sandy, Ore., last June, just after he received his third star and was named to his Pentagon post, Gen. Boykin said, "Don't you worry about what these courts say. Our God reigns supreme."
Some of his comments also raise questions about Gen. Boykin's fitness to oversee military intelligence, questions of religious bigotry aside. He describes taking photographs during a helicopter tour before leaving Mogadishu, Somalia, and then finding an unexplained black mark on the developed pictures, which he explains as a manifestation of evil. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your enemy," he tells the Good Shepherd audience. "It is not Osama bin Laden, it is the principalities of darkness. It is a spiritual enemy that will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus and pray for this nation and for our leaders." He also offers this take on Sept. 11: "Whether you realize it or not, I believe there were at least two more airplanes that were headed for major installations in this country. I believe that there was one headed for the White House, and there was one headed for the Capitol, but they were thwarted by the hand of God."
Gen. Boykin's comments have already become political fodder -- for those who push the belief that the United States is waging war on Islam, not on terrorism, and for those who would excuse other forms of religious intolerance. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, praising Mr. Mahathir's speech, said, "We hope that those who condemned Mahathir's speech lend more attention to the words of the American general . . . who demonstrated hostility toward Islam and Muslims."
But from the Bush administration, there has not been a syllable of criticism. Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that it didn't seem Gen. Boykin had violated any rules. "We're a free people," said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ducked the question -- twice. The president ought to be forthright about comments that are wrong and divisive -- whether they're uttered by a foreign leader or by one of his own generals.
� 2003 The Washington Post Company
Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A24
PRESIDENT BUSH rightly took issue yesterday with the anti-Semitic comments of Malaysia's prime minister. Mr. Bush took Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad aside during the economic summit in Bangkok "and told him that what he said was 'wrong and divisive,' " according to White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "It stands squarely against what I believe in," Mr. McClellan quoted the president as saying. Mr. Mahathir had told an Islamic conference last week that "the Jews rule the world by proxy" and urged Islamic nations to unite against being "defeated by a few million Jews." He received a standing ovation from his colleagues -- making Mr. Bush's expression of disapproval all the more necessary.
Would that Mr. Bush's sense of outrage at religiously inflammatory remarks was so finely tuned when it comes to members of his own administration. Thus far he has found nothing to criticize in remarks disparaging of Islam by Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, his deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. In videotapes of appearances before church groups -- obtained by military analyst William N. Arkin and first described on NBC and in the Los Angeles Times -- Gen. Boykin, in Army uniform, describes the United States as a "Christian nation" and says he knew he would capture a Somali warlord because "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." Gen. Boykin casts the war against terrorism as a "spiritual battle," saying that "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army."
Gen. Boykin now argues that his "idol" reference was to the worship of money and power, not Allah. But a review of the full text of his remarks cannot support this reading. In fact, the full text only adds to the questions about his suitability. At the Good Shepherd Community Church in Sandy, Ore., last June, just after he received his third star and was named to his Pentagon post, Gen. Boykin said, "Don't you worry about what these courts say. Our God reigns supreme."
Some of his comments also raise questions about Gen. Boykin's fitness to oversee military intelligence, questions of religious bigotry aside. He describes taking photographs during a helicopter tour before leaving Mogadishu, Somalia, and then finding an unexplained black mark on the developed pictures, which he explains as a manifestation of evil. "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your enemy," he tells the Good Shepherd audience. "It is not Osama bin Laden, it is the principalities of darkness. It is a spiritual enemy that will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus and pray for this nation and for our leaders." He also offers this take on Sept. 11: "Whether you realize it or not, I believe there were at least two more airplanes that were headed for major installations in this country. I believe that there was one headed for the White House, and there was one headed for the Capitol, but they were thwarted by the hand of God."
Gen. Boykin's comments have already become political fodder -- for those who push the belief that the United States is waging war on Islam, not on terrorism, and for those who would excuse other forms of religious intolerance. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher, praising Mr. Mahathir's speech, said, "We hope that those who condemned Mahathir's speech lend more attention to the words of the American general . . . who demonstrated hostility toward Islam and Muslims."
But from the Bush administration, there has not been a syllable of criticism. Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that it didn't seem Gen. Boykin had violated any rules. "We're a free people," said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice ducked the question -- twice. The president ought to be forthright about comments that are wrong and divisive -- whether they're uttered by a foreign leader or by one of his own generals.
� 2003 The Washington Post Company
Sunday, October 19, 2003
PHILIPPINES: 60,000 `welcome' Bush
BY NORM DIXON
MANILA � At least 50,000 people mobilised across the Philippines on October 18 as US President George Bush, arrived for an eight-hour visit.
At least 10,000 people jammed the main thoroughfare leading to the House of Representatives in Manila, where Bush addressed a joint session of Congress. Hundreds of US flags were burned.
In nearby Quezon City, 20,000 gathered and marched to central Manila for a �People's dinner�, to counter the official state dinner for Bush. In other parts of the Philippines, more than 30,000 demonstrated.
The mobilisations where a great success considering the deployment of thousands of military and police personnel who had been ordered to thwart the actions. Several urban poor communities were demolished in order to �beautify� Manila for Bush's visit, displacing thousands of poor people.
The Justice Not War Coalition stated that �Filipinos are one with other peoples of the world in confronting Bush� in opposition to the continuing US-led war against the people of Iraq.
Seven members of Congress � Sanlakas representative JV Baustista, Partido ng Manggagawa representative Renato Magtubo, Akbayan representatives Mario Aguja and Etta Rosales and Bayan Muna representatives Satur Ocampo, Crispin Beltran and Liza Maza � protested by walking out of the chamber just before Bush began his speech. Baustista unfurled a banner, which read: �Mr Bush, stop your wars!�.
The MPs said they hoped their protest would prod parliamentarians in other countries to make a similar stand when Bush stands before them to justify the carnage of his illegal �war on terror�. Earlier, they distributed blue and white peace ribbons to their colleagues.
From Green Left Weekly, October 22, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
BY NORM DIXON
MANILA � At least 50,000 people mobilised across the Philippines on October 18 as US President George Bush, arrived for an eight-hour visit.
At least 10,000 people jammed the main thoroughfare leading to the House of Representatives in Manila, where Bush addressed a joint session of Congress. Hundreds of US flags were burned.
In nearby Quezon City, 20,000 gathered and marched to central Manila for a �People's dinner�, to counter the official state dinner for Bush. In other parts of the Philippines, more than 30,000 demonstrated.
The mobilisations where a great success considering the deployment of thousands of military and police personnel who had been ordered to thwart the actions. Several urban poor communities were demolished in order to �beautify� Manila for Bush's visit, displacing thousands of poor people.
The Justice Not War Coalition stated that �Filipinos are one with other peoples of the world in confronting Bush� in opposition to the continuing US-led war against the people of Iraq.
Seven members of Congress � Sanlakas representative JV Baustista, Partido ng Manggagawa representative Renato Magtubo, Akbayan representatives Mario Aguja and Etta Rosales and Bayan Muna representatives Satur Ocampo, Crispin Beltran and Liza Maza � protested by walking out of the chamber just before Bush began his speech. Baustista unfurled a banner, which read: �Mr Bush, stop your wars!�.
The MPs said they hoped their protest would prod parliamentarians in other countries to make a similar stand when Bush stands before them to justify the carnage of his illegal �war on terror�. Earlier, they distributed blue and white peace ribbons to their colleagues.
From Green Left Weekly, October 22, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
Filippinos Protest Bush's Planned Visit to Manila
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of people took to the streets in the Philippines capital, Manila, yesterday and burned about 100 replicas of the U.S. flag to protest the visit of President George W. Bush.
The protesters, carrying banners with such anti-U.S. slogans as ``Bush go away, bring along with you GMA (President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo)'', packed a highway leading to the Congress compound in Manila's suburban city of Quezon, where Bush delivered a speech.
As Bush's convoy passed by, the more than 7,000 rallyists chanted ``U.S., number one terrorist'' and burned an effigy of the American leader dressed as a pirate with a parrot sporting the face of Arroyo on his shoulder.
Five leftist congressmen walked out of the Congress building shortly before Bush made his speech, with at least one of them trying to unfurl an anti-U.S. banner, but was stopped by marshalls.
A few other legislators, who oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, wore pins that read ``Legislators against War'', but stayed throughout the speech.
The demonstrators began to march from various points in Manila, hours before Bush's arrival.
As soon as Air Force One touched down at the Villamor Airbase in Manila shortly after noon, the demonstrators set on fire 100 replicas of the U.S. flag as they chanted: ``Bush go away, go away''.
``We want to let Bush know that he is not welcome in the Philippines,'' said Juli Detablan, a spokeswoman for organisers of the protest. ``The Filipinos do not trust him and we are tired of his broken promises.''
The protesters later had an austere street dinner of tomato and fried dried fish near the Malacanang presidential palace, where Arroyo hosted a state dinner.
Police Deputy Director General Reynaldo Velasco said that more than 11,000 policemen, backed by thousands of soldiers, had been deployed in strategic places in Manila to prevent the demonstrators from getting anywhere near Bush.
Several roads had been closed since midnight as part of the security measures, while unattended vehicles parked along the route of Bush's delegation were towed as a precautionary measure against car bomb attacks.
The military also dispatched a total of 26 K-9 teams to conduct a security sweep in buildings, commercial establishments and public places ahead of Bush's arrival.
The street protests delayed Bush's schedule by almost half an hour, as security forces had to push back the rallyists from some areas to allow the U.S. president's convoy to pass unobstructed.
At least three helicopters hovered above Bush's motorcade throughout the trip, while almost 30 international and domestic commercial flights were delayed as Manila's international airport was closed one hour before his arrival and departure.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Genesis 2:4-25 (excerpt)
[4] This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- [5] and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, [6] but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- [7] the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
[18] The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
[19] Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. [20] So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. [21] So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. [22] Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
[23]The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
[ Read the entire passage ]
Dr. James B. DeYoung
This passage is foundational to all questions regarding sexuality. It is the Bible's description of how God formed Eve to be the companion of Adam, what role Eve was to play, and what the meaning of marriage is. The passage rests on the much shorter text of Genesis 1:26-27 where God clearly indicates his intent to make humanity � "male and female" � in his image and likeness, and that human beings were given the responsibility of "ruling" the remainder of creation (verses 28-30). Both man and woman were to serve God by carrying out a faithful stewardship of the rest of the created world, both animate and inanimate.
Chapter one makes it clear that from the very beginning it was God's intent to make humanity to consist of male and female in order to display his image and likeness, and to carry out God's stewardship.
Chapter one makes it clear that from the very beginning it was God's intent to make humanity to consist of male and female in order to display his image and likeness, and to carry out God's stewardship. Certainly such stewardship would eventually mean the establishment of the home, work place, the state, and the church. It seems clear that two males or two females would not reflect the divine image and likeness, and could not carry out the divine stewardship entrusted to them.
In chapter 2 Eve is described as a female made from Adam the male, to correspond to or be a helper for him. Verse 24 suggests the sexual unity brought about by the intercourse of a man and a woman. Its terminology suggests universality in contrast to the historical, limited nature of the account describing Adam and Eve that surrounds this verse.
These passages teach that God's plan for the propagation of the human race is for a man and a woman to form a sexual bond, which we call marriage. Two men or two women do not form such a bond. But such a union isn't limited to the purpose of propagation. Rather such a union alone reflects the divine image and likeness. Without one or the other, or having two of the same sex, the divine image is incomplete or distorted. We cannot see or know God correctly by any other union, such as a homosexual union or a union of humans with animals. Also this heterosexual union alone provides the complementary aspect implicit in the text, that one is the helper of the other. This implies emotional and inner bonding without any sense of shame because of nakedness. Since this pattern is carried over to chapter 3 it is implicit that only such a union has the pleasure and blessing of God, evident in the words of verse eight and the following verses that God had fellowship with these two.
The text of Genesis 2 is cited by Jesus and by Paul as setting forth the authoritative view of marriage in their day. Any deviation from this union of man and woman would not produce "one flesh" and was understood to be sin, violating what God had joined together (Matthew 19:1-6). Further such a union of one flesh alone pictures the relation of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32).
Dr. David M. Carr
This text presents God's vision of human intimacy, an intimacy that includes sexual love. It affirms that humans were made for loving, that God's primal wish for the first human was for him not to be alone, but to work, cleave to and "become one flesh" with someone made from his own flesh. Humans were made for lovemaking. Yet this is not an "anything goes" vision. Instead, the story depicts a union of peers (no sexual violence), where the woman, in contrast to the animals, "corresponds" to the first man.
Read in context, this text also stands over against those who insist that all homosexuals be celibate and the church exclude "practicing homosexuals." Rather, the God we find revealed in Genesis 2 creates embodied people for sexual intimacy with each other. Humans were not made to be alone.
Read in context, this text also stands over against those who insist that all homosexuals be celibate and the church exclude "practicing homosexuals." Rather, the God we find revealed in Genesis 2 creates embodied people for sexual intimacy with each other. Humans were not made to be alone.
Yes, Genesis 2 focuses on a man and woman as any ancient text like this would. Heterosexual relationships are the most common in every human culture, and they were especially important in an ancient agricultural society like Israel, where children were desperately needed. Nevertheless, Genesis 2 is distinguished from other creation stories in the following way: it never mentions children � a primary product of male-female sex � as the aim of sexuality. Only after the couple have eaten the forbidden fruit, does God sentence the woman to endless childbearing. The first and primary aim of sexuality, however, is intimacy, an intimacy which some need find in shared life and love with another of their own sex.
[4] This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- [5] and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, [6] but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- [7] the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
[18] The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
[19] Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. [20] So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. [21] So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. [22] Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
[23]The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
[ Read the entire passage ]
Dr. James B. DeYoung
This passage is foundational to all questions regarding sexuality. It is the Bible's description of how God formed Eve to be the companion of Adam, what role Eve was to play, and what the meaning of marriage is. The passage rests on the much shorter text of Genesis 1:26-27 where God clearly indicates his intent to make humanity � "male and female" � in his image and likeness, and that human beings were given the responsibility of "ruling" the remainder of creation (verses 28-30). Both man and woman were to serve God by carrying out a faithful stewardship of the rest of the created world, both animate and inanimate.
Chapter one makes it clear that from the very beginning it was God's intent to make humanity to consist of male and female in order to display his image and likeness, and to carry out God's stewardship.
Chapter one makes it clear that from the very beginning it was God's intent to make humanity to consist of male and female in order to display his image and likeness, and to carry out God's stewardship. Certainly such stewardship would eventually mean the establishment of the home, work place, the state, and the church. It seems clear that two males or two females would not reflect the divine image and likeness, and could not carry out the divine stewardship entrusted to them.
In chapter 2 Eve is described as a female made from Adam the male, to correspond to or be a helper for him. Verse 24 suggests the sexual unity brought about by the intercourse of a man and a woman. Its terminology suggests universality in contrast to the historical, limited nature of the account describing Adam and Eve that surrounds this verse.
These passages teach that God's plan for the propagation of the human race is for a man and a woman to form a sexual bond, which we call marriage. Two men or two women do not form such a bond. But such a union isn't limited to the purpose of propagation. Rather such a union alone reflects the divine image and likeness. Without one or the other, or having two of the same sex, the divine image is incomplete or distorted. We cannot see or know God correctly by any other union, such as a homosexual union or a union of humans with animals. Also this heterosexual union alone provides the complementary aspect implicit in the text, that one is the helper of the other. This implies emotional and inner bonding without any sense of shame because of nakedness. Since this pattern is carried over to chapter 3 it is implicit that only such a union has the pleasure and blessing of God, evident in the words of verse eight and the following verses that God had fellowship with these two.
The text of Genesis 2 is cited by Jesus and by Paul as setting forth the authoritative view of marriage in their day. Any deviation from this union of man and woman would not produce "one flesh" and was understood to be sin, violating what God had joined together (Matthew 19:1-6). Further such a union of one flesh alone pictures the relation of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32).
Dr. David M. Carr
This text presents God's vision of human intimacy, an intimacy that includes sexual love. It affirms that humans were made for loving, that God's primal wish for the first human was for him not to be alone, but to work, cleave to and "become one flesh" with someone made from his own flesh. Humans were made for lovemaking. Yet this is not an "anything goes" vision. Instead, the story depicts a union of peers (no sexual violence), where the woman, in contrast to the animals, "corresponds" to the first man.
Read in context, this text also stands over against those who insist that all homosexuals be celibate and the church exclude "practicing homosexuals." Rather, the God we find revealed in Genesis 2 creates embodied people for sexual intimacy with each other. Humans were not made to be alone.
Read in context, this text also stands over against those who insist that all homosexuals be celibate and the church exclude "practicing homosexuals." Rather, the God we find revealed in Genesis 2 creates embodied people for sexual intimacy with each other. Humans were not made to be alone.
Yes, Genesis 2 focuses on a man and woman as any ancient text like this would. Heterosexual relationships are the most common in every human culture, and they were especially important in an ancient agricultural society like Israel, where children were desperately needed. Nevertheless, Genesis 2 is distinguished from other creation stories in the following way: it never mentions children � a primary product of male-female sex � as the aim of sexuality. Only after the couple have eaten the forbidden fruit, does God sentence the woman to endless childbearing. The first and primary aim of sexuality, however, is intimacy, an intimacy which some need find in shared life and love with another of their own sex.
Genesis 19:1-29 (excerpt)
[1] The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. [2] "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
[3] But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. [4] Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. [5] They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
[6] Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him [7] and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. [8] Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
[9] "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
[ Read the entire passage ]
Dr. James B. DeYoung
The crucial verses are 19:5 and 19:8. In 19:5 it is emphasized that the men of Sodom sought to have Lot's male visitors (who were actually angels disguised as men) brought out to them that they might "know" them. The Hebrew word for "know" (yada') usually has the meaning of intellectual knowledge, but on some occasions, as here, it means to have sexual knowledge. For example, the same term in Genesis 4:1, 17, 25 refers to the sexual intercourse of Adam with Eve. Here the context of 19:8 confirms that sexual knowledge is intended, for Lot identifies his daughters as those who have not "known any man." Clearly this must refer to sexual intimacy. Thus the men of Sodom sought to sexually assault the men in Lot's house.
This interpretation is also confirmed by the Greek translation of this text as found in the Septuagint (often symbolized by LXX). In 19:8 the LXX, like the Hebrew, uses the common word for "know" (ginosko). But in 19:5 the term used in the LXX is synginomai, which occurs only once elsewhere in the LXX, of Joseph's refusal to sleep with the wife of Potiphar (see Gen. 39:10). It also occurs in three places in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39), all with a sexual meaning. To try to define the idea of "know" in 19:5 and 19:8 as some kind of knowledge other than homosexual assault is futile.
In the immediate context we are told that Sodom is a place of wickedness (13:13: "the men of Sodom were wicked, and were sinning greatly against the Lord"; 18:20: "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous").
Lot characterized the men's desire for the angels disguised as men as a "wicked" thing. Yet the only sin of the sodomites described in the narrative itself is homosexual assault.
Lot characterized the men's desire for the angels disguised as men as a "wicked" thing (19:7 � and this verdict comes from one whose own morals were compromised � see v. 8). Yet the only sin of the sodomites described in the narrative itself is homosexual assault. Later, when Ezekiel describes the sins of Judah under the symbol of Sodom he names them as pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, failure to help the poor and needy, and being haughty and doing abominations or detestable things before God (16:49-50). The word "abominations" is a term used in Leviticus 18 and 20 to describe homosexual conduct (see the discussion of these texts). In the rest of Old Testament and New Testament Scripture Sodom becomes a code word for sexual perversion and the accompanying pride which motivates it (see 2 Peter 2:7-10; Jude 7). Even Jesus, who mentions Sodom ten times, assumes the story of Sodom to be true and deems it an example of God's judgment on wickedness on a par with the Genesis Flood (Luke 17:26-32).
Dr. David M. Carr
This text is the origin point for the term "Sodomy" still used by many to refer to the homosexual acts they condemn. Yet the main point of this story is not homosexuality, but the inhospitality of the people of Sodom in threatening to rape Lot's guests. We see this already in the way this text is linked to the preceding story of the angels' visit to Abraham in Genesis 18. Abraham and Lot positively respond to the angels' visits, while the people of Sodom are distinguished by their wish to violate the guests sexually.
The main analogy today to this text is not consensual sexual relationships between men or women, let alone committed relationships between people of the same sex. Instead, better analogies would be situations in our society where people, say prisoners or homeless women, are put in situations where they are particularly vulnerable to homosexual or other rape.
To be sure, the text focuses here on attempted homosexual rape. Sadly, ancient societies like Israel were far less sensitive to the problem of heterosexual rape than homosexual rape. That is clear even in this text's positive depiction of Lot's offer of his own daughters for sexual violence in place of his guests (Genesis 19:8). Remarkably, the Bible does not separately name or condemn heterosexual rape. Instead, it focuses here and in Judges 19 on assaults on male honor and hospitality by other males. Christians now know the importance of moving beyond the Bible in recognizing the broader scope of sexual violence.
[1] The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. [2] "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
[3] But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. [4] Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. [5] They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
[6] Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him [7] and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. [8] Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
[9] "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
[ Read the entire passage ]
Dr. James B. DeYoung
The crucial verses are 19:5 and 19:8. In 19:5 it is emphasized that the men of Sodom sought to have Lot's male visitors (who were actually angels disguised as men) brought out to them that they might "know" them. The Hebrew word for "know" (yada') usually has the meaning of intellectual knowledge, but on some occasions, as here, it means to have sexual knowledge. For example, the same term in Genesis 4:1, 17, 25 refers to the sexual intercourse of Adam with Eve. Here the context of 19:8 confirms that sexual knowledge is intended, for Lot identifies his daughters as those who have not "known any man." Clearly this must refer to sexual intimacy. Thus the men of Sodom sought to sexually assault the men in Lot's house.
This interpretation is also confirmed by the Greek translation of this text as found in the Septuagint (often symbolized by LXX). In 19:8 the LXX, like the Hebrew, uses the common word for "know" (ginosko). But in 19:5 the term used in the LXX is synginomai, which occurs only once elsewhere in the LXX, of Joseph's refusal to sleep with the wife of Potiphar (see Gen. 39:10). It also occurs in three places in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16; Susanna 11, 39), all with a sexual meaning. To try to define the idea of "know" in 19:5 and 19:8 as some kind of knowledge other than homosexual assault is futile.
In the immediate context we are told that Sodom is a place of wickedness (13:13: "the men of Sodom were wicked, and were sinning greatly against the Lord"; 18:20: "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous").
Lot characterized the men's desire for the angels disguised as men as a "wicked" thing. Yet the only sin of the sodomites described in the narrative itself is homosexual assault.
Lot characterized the men's desire for the angels disguised as men as a "wicked" thing (19:7 � and this verdict comes from one whose own morals were compromised � see v. 8). Yet the only sin of the sodomites described in the narrative itself is homosexual assault. Later, when Ezekiel describes the sins of Judah under the symbol of Sodom he names them as pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, failure to help the poor and needy, and being haughty and doing abominations or detestable things before God (16:49-50). The word "abominations" is a term used in Leviticus 18 and 20 to describe homosexual conduct (see the discussion of these texts). In the rest of Old Testament and New Testament Scripture Sodom becomes a code word for sexual perversion and the accompanying pride which motivates it (see 2 Peter 2:7-10; Jude 7). Even Jesus, who mentions Sodom ten times, assumes the story of Sodom to be true and deems it an example of God's judgment on wickedness on a par with the Genesis Flood (Luke 17:26-32).
Dr. David M. Carr
This text is the origin point for the term "Sodomy" still used by many to refer to the homosexual acts they condemn. Yet the main point of this story is not homosexuality, but the inhospitality of the people of Sodom in threatening to rape Lot's guests. We see this already in the way this text is linked to the preceding story of the angels' visit to Abraham in Genesis 18. Abraham and Lot positively respond to the angels' visits, while the people of Sodom are distinguished by their wish to violate the guests sexually.
The main analogy today to this text is not consensual sexual relationships between men or women, let alone committed relationships between people of the same sex. Instead, better analogies would be situations in our society where people, say prisoners or homeless women, are put in situations where they are particularly vulnerable to homosexual or other rape.
To be sure, the text focuses here on attempted homosexual rape. Sadly, ancient societies like Israel were far less sensitive to the problem of heterosexual rape than homosexual rape. That is clear even in this text's positive depiction of Lot's offer of his own daughters for sexual violence in place of his guests (Genesis 19:8). Remarkably, the Bible does not separately name or condemn heterosexual rape. Instead, it focuses here and in Judges 19 on assaults on male honor and hospitality by other males. Christians now know the importance of moving beyond the Bible in recognizing the broader scope of sexual violence.
Leviticus 18:22
[22] Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
[13]If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
This passage occurs in a section of Leviticus called the "law of holiness" (chs. 18-20); the emphasis is on moral precepts rather than ceremonial and ritual matters as in the rest of the book. In literary form, chapter 18 resembles the universal texts containing the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5).
The pivotal verse (18:22) says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (or "an abomination"). This prohibition and evaluation is repeated in 20:13, with the addition that the penalty of death is assigned. Not even homosexual apologists deny that homosexual behavior is forbidden here. Yet these interpreters dismiss this text as ritualistic, as limited to Israel's concern for purity and having no universal significance. This misses the mark. Universality is in these chapters, since the second greatest commandment (19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself") is derived from this section of Leviticus and is cited by Jesus (Matthew 22:37-40), James (2:8) and Paul (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14). In addition, Paul cites 18:5 (Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12) and 19:19 (2 Corinthians 6:14ff.); Jesus cites 19:12 (Matthew 5:33); and Peter cites 19:2 (1 Peter 1:14-16). Clearly the New Testament found this section meaningful for Christian morality and behavior. Even within chapters 18 and 20 the Canaanites and Egyptians are indicted for the sins listed and punished for them (18:3, 24-30; 20:23), even though they had not been given Israel's ceremonial and legal statutes. The word "abomination" or "detestable" is from to'eba and covers, in the Old Testament, not only ritual impurity but idolatry and here in chapter 18 homosexuality, incest, child sacrifice, bestiality, etc. (see v. 29). Of all the sins, only homosexuality is twice identified as "detestable." While the prohibition of eating unclean food is also here (20:25), along with other stipulations affecting only Israel, these are not assigned a penalty in chapter 20 and are distinguished from the universal sins (as confirmed by their never being repeated in the New Testament).
Finally, no Israelite man or woman was to serve God in the temple by being a prostitute. Since this usually took the form of men called "dogs" who serviced males in their devotion to pagan female deities, it was especially "abominable" or "detestable" to do this in a religious place, God's temple (see Deuteronomy 23:18; 2 Kings 23:1-7ff.). This suggests that it is particularly detestable to use the cloak of religion to mask homosexual behavior.
Dr. David M. Carr
These texts are the only explicit prohibitions of homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Both focus exclusively on one activity: male-male intercourse where a man "lies with another man the lying down of a woman." Most scholars believe it aims to preserve the purity of Israel through protection of male hierarchy and honor. In honor cultures like ancient Israel it was/is a severe affront for one man to have sex with another man like a woman. This would help explain the exclusive focus here on male-male intercourse.
Meanwhile, the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev 18:19; 20:18), but few Christian conservatives have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment.
Of course, many now live in quite different cultures. But that has not stopped some from selectively using regulations like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to support their condemnation of homosexual intimacy. Meanwhile, the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev 18:19; 20:18), but few Christian conservatives have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment.
Readers of the Bible's diverse sexual regulations � whether liberal or conservative � are and need be selective. The Old Testament allows married men to have sex with prostitutes, slaves and other unmarried women not under the protection of their fathers. It never condemns female homosexuality, nor does it condemn male-male sex aside from intercourse. The Bible's world of sexual mores is not ours. Anyone claiming to be advocating pure Biblical ethics has not taken a close enough look at them. Prayerfully, Christians must build on and beyond the Bible.
[22] Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 20:13
[13]If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
This passage occurs in a section of Leviticus called the "law of holiness" (chs. 18-20); the emphasis is on moral precepts rather than ceremonial and ritual matters as in the rest of the book. In literary form, chapter 18 resembles the universal texts containing the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5).
The pivotal verse (18:22) says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (or "an abomination"). This prohibition and evaluation is repeated in 20:13, with the addition that the penalty of death is assigned. Not even homosexual apologists deny that homosexual behavior is forbidden here. Yet these interpreters dismiss this text as ritualistic, as limited to Israel's concern for purity and having no universal significance. This misses the mark. Universality is in these chapters, since the second greatest commandment (19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself") is derived from this section of Leviticus and is cited by Jesus (Matthew 22:37-40), James (2:8) and Paul (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14). In addition, Paul cites 18:5 (Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12) and 19:19 (2 Corinthians 6:14ff.); Jesus cites 19:12 (Matthew 5:33); and Peter cites 19:2 (1 Peter 1:14-16). Clearly the New Testament found this section meaningful for Christian morality and behavior. Even within chapters 18 and 20 the Canaanites and Egyptians are indicted for the sins listed and punished for them (18:3, 24-30; 20:23), even though they had not been given Israel's ceremonial and legal statutes. The word "abomination" or "detestable" is from to'eba and covers, in the Old Testament, not only ritual impurity but idolatry and here in chapter 18 homosexuality, incest, child sacrifice, bestiality, etc. (see v. 29). Of all the sins, only homosexuality is twice identified as "detestable." While the prohibition of eating unclean food is also here (20:25), along with other stipulations affecting only Israel, these are not assigned a penalty in chapter 20 and are distinguished from the universal sins (as confirmed by their never being repeated in the New Testament).
Finally, no Israelite man or woman was to serve God in the temple by being a prostitute. Since this usually took the form of men called "dogs" who serviced males in their devotion to pagan female deities, it was especially "abominable" or "detestable" to do this in a religious place, God's temple (see Deuteronomy 23:18; 2 Kings 23:1-7ff.). This suggests that it is particularly detestable to use the cloak of religion to mask homosexual behavior.
Dr. David M. Carr
These texts are the only explicit prohibitions of homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Both focus exclusively on one activity: male-male intercourse where a man "lies with another man the lying down of a woman." Most scholars believe it aims to preserve the purity of Israel through protection of male hierarchy and honor. In honor cultures like ancient Israel it was/is a severe affront for one man to have sex with another man like a woman. This would help explain the exclusive focus here on male-male intercourse.
Meanwhile, the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev 18:19; 20:18), but few Christian conservatives have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment.
Of course, many now live in quite different cultures. But that has not stopped some from selectively using regulations like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to support their condemnation of homosexual intimacy. Meanwhile, the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev 18:19; 20:18), but few Christian conservatives have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment.
Readers of the Bible's diverse sexual regulations � whether liberal or conservative � are and need be selective. The Old Testament allows married men to have sex with prostitutes, slaves and other unmarried women not under the protection of their fathers. It never condemns female homosexuality, nor does it condemn male-male sex aside from intercourse. The Bible's world of sexual mores is not ours. Anyone claiming to be advocating pure Biblical ethics has not taken a close enough look at them. Prayerfully, Christians must build on and beyond the Bible.
Mark 12:28-34 (excerpt)
[28] One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
[29] "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [30] Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' [31] The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
[32] "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. [33] To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
[34] When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
In this particular text Jesus discusses what is the most important commandment (to love God with one's entire being; see Deuteronomy 6:5 and following verses) and what is the next greatest commandment (to love one's neighbor as oneself; Lev. 19:18). These are more important than ritual sacrifices. All the rest of the teaching of the Old Testament, Jesus says, hangs on these two commands (see Matthew 22:40).
Clearly Jesus' words have universal significance. For all time and for all people, they provide the standard of love for our relationships, first to God, then to people. Apologists for homosexual behavior cite these as the only, or chief, concern that we should have for what it means to please God. Yet what does it mean to love God? The rest of the NT, including Jesus himself, makes it clear that love equals obedience and the doing of God's will. Jesus said: "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me... If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching... He who does not love me will not obey my teaching" (John 14:21, 23-24). Thus love is identified by obedience, and obedience assumes a standard of truth to be obeyed. Jesus not only emphasized love but also the truth: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
We can assume that homosexuality comes under sexual immorality. Jesus' words to a homosexual person would be what he said to the adulterous woman: "Go now, and leave your life of sin " (John 8:11).
What is the truth, the teaching of Jesus, regarding homosexuality? While Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, this is not an obstacle to discovering what his view would be. Jesus never mentioned incest (but Paul identifies it as sin, 1 Corinthians 5), nor circumcision (but the Church saw it as unnecessary to becoming a Christian, Acts 15), nor bestiality, child sacrifice, rape, abortion, etc. He did list evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander as sins (Matthew 15:19). We can assume that homosexuality comes under sexual immorality. Jesus' words to a homosexual person would be what he said to the adulterous woman: "Go now, and leave your life of sin " (John 8:11).
Dr. David M. Carr
For centuries Christians have found in this text (and parallels) a guide to how to apply the morals of the Bible. Amidst all of the rules of the Old and New Testaments, Jesus lifts up just two as primary: 1) Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:4-5); and 2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). Some contemporary Christians have taken the first command ("love the LORD") to mean an unquestioning acceptance of a particular, selective reading of the Bible. Nevertheless, this command originally urged a devotion to God that replaced worship of "idols," material images of God. Contemporary analogies to such ancient idols could include love of money, an addiction, or even devotion to the Bible in a way that interfered with love of God and neighbor.
It is hard to see how one could love a gay or lesbian neighbor as oneself and then deny that person the chance to experience embodied, human sexual intimacy.
Yet more relevant is the second command: to love one's neighbor as oneself. It is hard to see how one could love a gay or lesbian neighbor as oneself and then deny that person the chance to experience embodied, human sexual intimacy. For an increasing number of people, the word "Christian" does not stand for a true love of others as oneself, but a false "love" that doesn't recognize the way some are drawn to lifegiving, erotic intimacy with others of their same sex. This results not only from a highly selective reading of ancient law, but from a failure to recognize the priorities for law within Christian Scripture itself: love God and neighbor.
Select a passage:
[28] One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
[29] "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [30] Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' [31] The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
[32] "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. [33] To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
[34] When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
In this particular text Jesus discusses what is the most important commandment (to love God with one's entire being; see Deuteronomy 6:5 and following verses) and what is the next greatest commandment (to love one's neighbor as oneself; Lev. 19:18). These are more important than ritual sacrifices. All the rest of the teaching of the Old Testament, Jesus says, hangs on these two commands (see Matthew 22:40).
Clearly Jesus' words have universal significance. For all time and for all people, they provide the standard of love for our relationships, first to God, then to people. Apologists for homosexual behavior cite these as the only, or chief, concern that we should have for what it means to please God. Yet what does it mean to love God? The rest of the NT, including Jesus himself, makes it clear that love equals obedience and the doing of God's will. Jesus said: "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me... If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching... He who does not love me will not obey my teaching" (John 14:21, 23-24). Thus love is identified by obedience, and obedience assumes a standard of truth to be obeyed. Jesus not only emphasized love but also the truth: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
We can assume that homosexuality comes under sexual immorality. Jesus' words to a homosexual person would be what he said to the adulterous woman: "Go now, and leave your life of sin " (John 8:11).
What is the truth, the teaching of Jesus, regarding homosexuality? While Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, this is not an obstacle to discovering what his view would be. Jesus never mentioned incest (but Paul identifies it as sin, 1 Corinthians 5), nor circumcision (but the Church saw it as unnecessary to becoming a Christian, Acts 15), nor bestiality, child sacrifice, rape, abortion, etc. He did list evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander as sins (Matthew 15:19). We can assume that homosexuality comes under sexual immorality. Jesus' words to a homosexual person would be what he said to the adulterous woman: "Go now, and leave your life of sin " (John 8:11).
Dr. David M. Carr
For centuries Christians have found in this text (and parallels) a guide to how to apply the morals of the Bible. Amidst all of the rules of the Old and New Testaments, Jesus lifts up just two as primary: 1) Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:4-5); and 2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). Some contemporary Christians have taken the first command ("love the LORD") to mean an unquestioning acceptance of a particular, selective reading of the Bible. Nevertheless, this command originally urged a devotion to God that replaced worship of "idols," material images of God. Contemporary analogies to such ancient idols could include love of money, an addiction, or even devotion to the Bible in a way that interfered with love of God and neighbor.
It is hard to see how one could love a gay or lesbian neighbor as oneself and then deny that person the chance to experience embodied, human sexual intimacy.
Yet more relevant is the second command: to love one's neighbor as oneself. It is hard to see how one could love a gay or lesbian neighbor as oneself and then deny that person the chance to experience embodied, human sexual intimacy. For an increasing number of people, the word "Christian" does not stand for a true love of others as oneself, but a false "love" that doesn't recognize the way some are drawn to lifegiving, erotic intimacy with others of their same sex. This results not only from a highly selective reading of ancient law, but from a failure to recognize the priorities for law within Christian Scripture itself: love God and neighbor.
Select a passage:
Romans 1:26-27
[26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
Clearly Paul is condemning both lesbianism and male homosexuality. The verses come in a context in which Paul describes the general course of pagan Gentile behavior. Without excuse (v. 20) Gentiles suppress the truth of the knowledge of God revealed in the creation (v. 18-20), turn to idolatry (vv. 21-23), and degrade their bodies (v. 25). He goes on to say that such people are given over by God to a depraved mind and become filled with every kind of wickedness (verses 28-31). Worst of all they approve this behavior in others (v. 32).
Paul is like Jesus here in affirming that Christians should leave their lives of sin (see also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If people are oriented toward homosexuality, they should stop the behavior and seek to change their orientation.
Various attempts are used to water down the stern disapproval of homosexual behavior here. Some dismiss it as a diatribe against idolatrous Gentiles, whereas modern homosexuals may not be idolatrous (but Paul speaks more generally, not linking directly the two). Some say that Paul's words refer to ritual impurity (but such is not in the context); or that they do not condemn people who are homosexual "by nature"; he only condemns those who leave their natural orientation (yet Paul's words about "unnatural relations" parallel those used by non-Christians, such as Aristotle and Plato, to describe homosexuality in such terms). Paul indicates that all homosexuality is a departure from the created order of Genesis 1-2. Others say that Paul knew nothing of homosexual orientation, of those born with a homosexual inclination, nor did he know anything of (and thus does not condemn) life-long mutual homosexual commitment. Yet starting hundreds of years before Paul, Plato (see his Symposium) and others spoke of such mutuality, orientation and life-long commitment. It is inconceivable that Paul was ignorant of homosexual behavior and orientation, or that he would approve of such. Elsewhere, Paul "insists" that the Ephesian Christians "no longer live as the Gentiles do," who "have given themselves over to sensuality and indulge in every kind of impurity and continually lust for more." The Christians "did not come to know Christ that way." They were "taught to put off their former way of life" (which he describes in detail). There must "not be even a hint of sexual immorality or of any kind of impurity" since "these are improper for God's holy people." It is "shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret" (see Ephesians 4:17-5:16). Paul is like Jesus here in affirming that Christians should leave their lives of sin (see also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If people are oriented toward homosexuality, they should stop the behavior and seek to change their orientation.
Dr. David M. Carr
Here Paul is describing how God punished the Gentiles by "giving them over" to various forms of sexual immorality and "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity." As for other Jews of his day, one of Paul's prime examples of Gentile immorality is male-male sex (1:27). He also condemns "unnatural relations" by women (1:26), but the meaning of this is unclear. This may be sex between women, but recent research suggests that it more likely concerns women playing an unnaturally "aggressive" role in sex.
It is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves.
Paul's distaste for excessive female sexual dominance and male-male sex correspond with other ancient aspects of his thought, like his command that women not cut their hair or pray with their heads uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:5-6).
Those who isolate this as a proof text for condemning homosexuality, often ignore the point to which Paul is driving in this passage. As becomes clear in Romans 2, Paul is condemning someone for proclaiming the truth of God's judgment on Gentile sinners when "you do the same things" (Romans 2:2-3). This unknown judge is focusing on Gentile immorality when he should be focusing on his own forms of wickedness. Given this context, it is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves.
[26] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
Clearly Paul is condemning both lesbianism and male homosexuality. The verses come in a context in which Paul describes the general course of pagan Gentile behavior. Without excuse (v. 20) Gentiles suppress the truth of the knowledge of God revealed in the creation (v. 18-20), turn to idolatry (vv. 21-23), and degrade their bodies (v. 25). He goes on to say that such people are given over by God to a depraved mind and become filled with every kind of wickedness (verses 28-31). Worst of all they approve this behavior in others (v. 32).
Paul is like Jesus here in affirming that Christians should leave their lives of sin (see also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If people are oriented toward homosexuality, they should stop the behavior and seek to change their orientation.
Various attempts are used to water down the stern disapproval of homosexual behavior here. Some dismiss it as a diatribe against idolatrous Gentiles, whereas modern homosexuals may not be idolatrous (but Paul speaks more generally, not linking directly the two). Some say that Paul's words refer to ritual impurity (but such is not in the context); or that they do not condemn people who are homosexual "by nature"; he only condemns those who leave their natural orientation (yet Paul's words about "unnatural relations" parallel those used by non-Christians, such as Aristotle and Plato, to describe homosexuality in such terms). Paul indicates that all homosexuality is a departure from the created order of Genesis 1-2. Others say that Paul knew nothing of homosexual orientation, of those born with a homosexual inclination, nor did he know anything of (and thus does not condemn) life-long mutual homosexual commitment. Yet starting hundreds of years before Paul, Plato (see his Symposium) and others spoke of such mutuality, orientation and life-long commitment. It is inconceivable that Paul was ignorant of homosexual behavior and orientation, or that he would approve of such. Elsewhere, Paul "insists" that the Ephesian Christians "no longer live as the Gentiles do," who "have given themselves over to sensuality and indulge in every kind of impurity and continually lust for more." The Christians "did not come to know Christ that way." They were "taught to put off their former way of life" (which he describes in detail). There must "not be even a hint of sexual immorality or of any kind of impurity" since "these are improper for God's holy people." It is "shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret" (see Ephesians 4:17-5:16). Paul is like Jesus here in affirming that Christians should leave their lives of sin (see also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). If people are oriented toward homosexuality, they should stop the behavior and seek to change their orientation.
Dr. David M. Carr
Here Paul is describing how God punished the Gentiles by "giving them over" to various forms of sexual immorality and "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity." As for other Jews of his day, one of Paul's prime examples of Gentile immorality is male-male sex (1:27). He also condemns "unnatural relations" by women (1:26), but the meaning of this is unclear. This may be sex between women, but recent research suggests that it more likely concerns women playing an unnaturally "aggressive" role in sex.
It is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves.
Paul's distaste for excessive female sexual dominance and male-male sex correspond with other ancient aspects of his thought, like his command that women not cut their hair or pray with their heads uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:5-6).
Those who isolate this as a proof text for condemning homosexuality, often ignore the point to which Paul is driving in this passage. As becomes clear in Romans 2, Paul is condemning someone for proclaiming the truth of God's judgment on Gentile sinners when "you do the same things" (Romans 2:2-3). This unknown judge is focusing on Gentile immorality when he should be focusing on his own forms of wickedness. Given this context, it is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves.
ICorinithians 6:9-1
[9] Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
The chief discussion of this passage concerns the terms "homosexual offenders." In the Greek it is one compound word, which never occurs in any writing before the Apostle Paul (he uses it once more in 1 Timothy 1:8-10). The term arsenokoitai literally means "male beds." Paul probably coins the word (as he coins others in his Epistles) and derives it from Leviticus 20:13 (similar to 18:22) where in the Greek text of the LXX the two terms arsenos and koitein are back-to-back in the sentence: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable" (literally, "If a man makes a bed with a man...").
By drawing on Leviticus Paul's meaning cannot be limited to male prostitutes, pederasts, perverts, etc., for he thinks more broadly with his biblical worldview. All homosexual behavior and orientation, written about hundreds of years before Paul, must be included.
By drawing on Leviticus Paul's meaning cannot be limited to male prostitutes, pederasts, perverts, etc., for he thinks more broadly with his biblical worldview. All homosexual behavior and orientation, written about hundreds of years before Paul, must be included. With the preceding word translated "male prostitutes," Paul gives us the passive and the active terms for same-sex behavior, following the pattern of the words of Leviticus 20:13, as even the rabbis and Philo interpreted the passage. Following the pattern of Leviticus 18 and 20, where incest is condemned before homosexuality, Paul's list here follows his condemnation of incest earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.
This text is important for several reasons. It affirms that homosexuals and other unrepentant sinners have no place in God's kingdom (which must include heaven in its meaning). Also, people who come to Christ are expected to change from their past evil behavior and identity by the power of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Finally, the same term occurs in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 where Paul deals with what is unlawful, ungodly and unholy (using legal, religious and moral categories). This suggests that homosexual behavior is a proper object of restriction by the law, faith, and public morality.
Dr. David M. Carr
This list illustrates just how far Paul's world was from ours. None of its terms refer to the sort of "homosexual identity" under debate now. The term translated "male prostitutes" in the above NIV translation more likely refers to the passive partner of a male-male sexual relationship. The word translated "homosexual offenders," is an obscure expression made of the Greek words for "male" and "bed." If it refers to "offenders,"
People cite vice lists of this sort from Paul while ignoring his broader ambivalence toward all sexuality. As is clear in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not just want his congregation to avoid sex between males. He would be happiest if they avoided sex and marriage altogether.
it would be males who sexually abuse boys, but it may well refer to another form of male-male sexual relations. However interpreted, this list of vices agrees with the Old Testament in ignoring female-female sex.
People cite vice lists of this sort from Paul while ignoring his broader ambivalence toward all sexuality. As is clear in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not just want his congregation to avoid sex between males. He would be happiest if they avoided sex and marriage altogether. To be sure, he tells married men and women to stay married and to have sex as needed to prevent other sorts of sexual immorality, but this he says "as a concession, not as a command" (1 Corinthians 7:1-6). He wishes others were celibate like him, and he encourages the unmarried to stay unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7-27). Marriage is a distraction from "affairs of the LORD" (1 Cor 7:32-33). Like many contemporaries, Paul was ambivalent about sex, certainly male-male and female-female sex, but also sex between husband and wife. Those finding a pro-family agenda in Paul must ignore his broader attitude about sex and marriage.
[9] Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Dr. James B. DeYoung
The chief discussion of this passage concerns the terms "homosexual offenders." In the Greek it is one compound word, which never occurs in any writing before the Apostle Paul (he uses it once more in 1 Timothy 1:8-10). The term arsenokoitai literally means "male beds." Paul probably coins the word (as he coins others in his Epistles) and derives it from Leviticus 20:13 (similar to 18:22) where in the Greek text of the LXX the two terms arsenos and koitein are back-to-back in the sentence: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable" (literally, "If a man makes a bed with a man...").
By drawing on Leviticus Paul's meaning cannot be limited to male prostitutes, pederasts, perverts, etc., for he thinks more broadly with his biblical worldview. All homosexual behavior and orientation, written about hundreds of years before Paul, must be included.
By drawing on Leviticus Paul's meaning cannot be limited to male prostitutes, pederasts, perverts, etc., for he thinks more broadly with his biblical worldview. All homosexual behavior and orientation, written about hundreds of years before Paul, must be included. With the preceding word translated "male prostitutes," Paul gives us the passive and the active terms for same-sex behavior, following the pattern of the words of Leviticus 20:13, as even the rabbis and Philo interpreted the passage. Following the pattern of Leviticus 18 and 20, where incest is condemned before homosexuality, Paul's list here follows his condemnation of incest earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13.
This text is important for several reasons. It affirms that homosexuals and other unrepentant sinners have no place in God's kingdom (which must include heaven in its meaning). Also, people who come to Christ are expected to change from their past evil behavior and identity by the power of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Finally, the same term occurs in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 where Paul deals with what is unlawful, ungodly and unholy (using legal, religious and moral categories). This suggests that homosexual behavior is a proper object of restriction by the law, faith, and public morality.
Dr. David M. Carr
This list illustrates just how far Paul's world was from ours. None of its terms refer to the sort of "homosexual identity" under debate now. The term translated "male prostitutes" in the above NIV translation more likely refers to the passive partner of a male-male sexual relationship. The word translated "homosexual offenders," is an obscure expression made of the Greek words for "male" and "bed." If it refers to "offenders,"
People cite vice lists of this sort from Paul while ignoring his broader ambivalence toward all sexuality. As is clear in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not just want his congregation to avoid sex between males. He would be happiest if they avoided sex and marriage altogether.
it would be males who sexually abuse boys, but it may well refer to another form of male-male sexual relations. However interpreted, this list of vices agrees with the Old Testament in ignoring female-female sex.
People cite vice lists of this sort from Paul while ignoring his broader ambivalence toward all sexuality. As is clear in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not just want his congregation to avoid sex between males. He would be happiest if they avoided sex and marriage altogether. To be sure, he tells married men and women to stay married and to have sex as needed to prevent other sorts of sexual immorality, but this he says "as a concession, not as a command" (1 Corinthians 7:1-6). He wishes others were celibate like him, and he encourages the unmarried to stay unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:7-27). Marriage is a distraction from "affairs of the LORD" (1 Cor 7:32-33). Like many contemporaries, Paul was ambivalent about sex, certainly male-male and female-female sex, but also sex between husband and wife. Those finding a pro-family agenda in Paul must ignore his broader attitude about sex and marriage.