On my earlier post on Terri Schiavo, I responded to claims made about the beliefs of Michael Schiavo’s lawyers. It turns out that Schindler family spokesperson Randall Terry also has some interesting beliefs:
Terry’s words and personal life have also stirred controversy. As the Fort Wayne (Indiana) News Sentinel reported on August 16, 1993, at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Terry said “Our goal is a Christian nation. … We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism. … Theocracy means God rules. I’ve got a hot flash. God rules.” In that same speech, Terry also stated that “If a Christian voted for [former President Bill] Clinton, he sinned against God. It’s that simple.” According to a March 18, 2004, press release, Terry declared on his radio program that “Islam dictates followers use killing and terror to convert Western infidels.”
At his website, Terry describes himself: “Randall Terry is the Founder of Operation Rescue, the largest peaceful civil disobedience movement in American history. Randall has been arrested over forty times for peaceful opposition to abortion.”
In 1988, Terry and his legions started standing in front of local abortion clinics, screaming and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They tossed their bodies against car doors to keep abortion patients from getting out. They waved crucifixes and screamed “Mommy, Mommy” at the women. When Terry commanded, hundreds went jellyfish-limp and blockaded the “death clinics.”
In 1989, a “Holy Week of Rescue” shut down a family planning clinic in Los Angeles. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years. Subtlety wasn’t Terry’s thing — he described Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, as a “whore” and an “adulteress” and arranged to have a dead fetus presented to Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.
Culture of life?
There’s some discussion over at The Daily Kos.
Update (2/4): Terri Schiavo has passed away.
And nasty bastards are still entitled to have their arguments considered on their merits. Interesting background but totally irrelevant to the case.
Nice gravatar, Jason
I disagree though. Sciavo’s lawyers’ beliefs are irrelevant if the Courts accept their legal arguments.
If the Schindler family’s tactics are being run by a member of the Religious Right, he may not be acting in their and Terri’s best interests, but in his own political interests.
It’s very suss too given the whole Republican “talking points” thing…
Yes, Jason, I agree with Kim’s reasoning on this one.
Dammit, cant these nutjobs stop embarassing my religion? Is that relaly too much to ask?
Leftist hysteria.
Kim: The Felos’ astral-travelling is irrelevant but Randall Terry’s beliefs are oh-so important all of a sudden? My question on this remains the same: why are people so morbidly obsessed with killing this woman? When her parents want her and her ‘husband’s’ spousal status would not be recognised by any court in the Western world? When this would be prosecutable as murder in Australia?
Where’s that old anti-Americanism?
Protesters regularly did the ‘die-in’ thing during the Iraq War and used language and tactics far worse. Did that indicate they weren’t actually to be taken seriously as proponents of peace. Christians do have a duty to convert and conquer. Christ commanded it. Abortion clinics kill people. They’re legitimate targets. The saints of history did far more confronting things to win their case.
Far more.
As Clinton believed in that infanticide known as ‘late term abortion’ why not confront such a fascist with the reality of what he was supporting?
The conclusion I don’t understand. Somebody wrote or claimed somewhere that the ‘cuture of life’ was defined in its essence by a hitherto unknown personage called ‘Randall Terry?’
PS: The ‘talking points’ were fake.
Randall Terry…..has gone the way of many others. Starting out OK and ending up censured even by his church (Landmark Church of Binghamton ) in 1999
The censure was reported in the Washington Post and posted here (scroll down a bit for the actual censure)
http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/randallterryneedsprayer.html
C.L’s question is valid.
And while I agree the law should support spousal preference for guardianship etc it should not be ultimate for all cases. Just ask some of the women who live in the women’s shelter a few doors down from me.
P.S. Terri’s father was also quite clear about what Terry was asked to do:
“”[In 2003] Our family asked Randall Terry to come, and we gave him carte blanche to put Terri’s fight in front of the American people. He did exactly what we asked, and more. Randall organized vigils and protests, he coordinated the media, he helped us meet with Governor Bush, which gave us the momentum to pass the law that has saved Terri, for now, from death. My daughter is alive today because of Randall Terry’s efforts.” — Bob Schindler Sr., Father of Terri Schindler Schiavo
Nic,
This article might be on interest if you haven’t already seen it:
Christian moderates drowned out
Ron, Muriel Porter is scarcely a ‘moderate’ indeed given her views you could question whether she is a christian at all.
All Christians believe God rules however this is only naturally enough on politicians who are christian.
They must obey God first and well before their countrymen.
Any person who called voting for Clinton a sinful act is a moron.
All politicians are sinful. I could put forward a very convincing case that Bush has acted against his beliefs during his presidency.
Late term abortions are an abomination yet let us not forget that one of our present Government’s first acts was to deport a chinese woman back to China who was in that very condition and was duly aborted.
The government was warned this would happened but deported her regardless.
normally the husband should make the decision regarding his wife however in this case he is hopelessly compromised.
He wants to marry the woman who has had his children and will gain the money that the Court awarded to Mrs Schievo.
On that basis I pay greater heed to her parents than to her husband.
I couldn’t give two figs about Terry’s personal opinions, but his public activities are something else altogether.
Billmon puts it well:
“if you’re a reporter, and someone like Randall Terry tells you a woman with virtually no cerebral cortex has just cried out “I want to live,” or that “she laughs, and cries, she says yes and no” — or makes any of the other incendiary claims Terry has been alllowed to beam live into American living rooms — you might want to let your audience know the man is notorious religious fanatic with a long record of telling fantastic lies whenever and wherever they suit the purposes of his grand crusade to outlaw abortion and “reclaim” America for Christian fundamentalism.” (emphasis added)
Which goes to the heart of Jason’s comments about considering his arguments on their merits - there is no merit to the arguments being put by Randall Terry or the parents of this poor woman.
And seriously, I’d love to be shown where Christ commanded his followers to ‘convert and conquer’. I can only think of John 13:34-35, but I’m not noted for my awesome powers of recall.
d
I agree with Darryl. It seems to me that Terri’s parents - understandably - have bought the whole argument that she has cognitive function and is trying to communicate. It seems that Terry is in part responsible for this. That’s tragic as the overwhelming weight of the medical evidence shows that her smiling, nodding etc are just reflexes from the brain stem and that she has no awareness whatever. This is no doubt why Michael Schiavo wants to have an autopsy performed to demonstrate this conclusively. I hope that if the Schindlers realise that Terri was indeed in a total vegetative state, this may bring some small reconciliation.
I’d go back to my earlier point about how tragic situations and tragic individual decisions have been massively over-politicised to no-one’s benefit.
Christians are called to convert the world, but not to conquer it, and if the sense of Terry’s claim is that Christians ought to set up some sort of theocracy, this it seems to me is not Christian at all. Imagine the outcry if an Islamic activist had said Muslims were called to convert and conquer the world!
Thanks for that Ron. *big sigh*
Imagine the outcry if an Islamic activist had said Muslims were called to convert and conquer the world!
Islamic activists do say that all the time, but the only outcry from the Left is to scream “racist!” at anyone who objects to such statements.
As Clinton believed in that infanticide known as ‘late term abortion‚Äô why not confront such a fascist with the reality of what he was supporting?
More lying, CL. You can’t help yourself, can you?
From Tim Dunlop whose theory is that the whole Schiavo controversy is being organised by Tom Delay. He’s even gotten to the Pope!! And Jesses Jackson! And Ralph Nader!
I note also that Tim Blair has again caught you out lying about children in Australian detention centres. Apparently they’re not being fed!!
Pull that tinfoil hat down firmly Tim - the GOP’s Rovian Death Ray might zap you!
“Islamic activists do say that all the time, but the only outcry from the Left is to scream “racist!” at anyone who objects to such statements.”
EP, do they say that all the time? Got any examples to hand? I’m not suggesting you’re ignorant. Far from it - I’m just curious.
Homer,
Michael Schiavo asked the Florida court to rule in the case of his wife because he acknowledged his obvious conflict of interest, and that of his in-laws. The court found that BOTH sides had a conflict of interest, but more importantly that Terri’s wish was NOT to have been kept alive on a machine.
That’s as much as I want to say on the issue of motives - most of what I’ve read (including your recent comments) on the Schiavos, Schindlers and respective partisans is melodramatic bullsh!t, IMHO. I apologise for the vulgarity, but I’m sick of people imposing their moral judgements on either side of this charade, and forgetting about the wishes of the ONLY person who matters.
Oh, Clinton vetoed the late term abortion ban on late-term abortions. If you don’t that, I can’t help you with your education - which is presumably now concluded formally.
Fyodor, I don’t have time to go through all of the examples. However, you can find the words of one prominent Islamist activist in the UK here, and further information here and here.
I haven’t seen much outrage from the Left about these genuine theocrats, yet the same people falsely brand the elected government of the US a “theocracy”.
I take it you’re referring to that well known “leftist” Andrew Sullivan, EP. Come off it!
I am opposed to Islamic theocracy.
There you go. What you’re actually saying is that you want lefties to add their condemn to your condemn, to misquote Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
You still haven’t responded to Fyodor’s challenge about “lefties screaming ‘racist’”. If you haven’t got the time to back up your assertions, maybe you shouldn’t make them.
Should have read: “Clinton vetoed the ban on late-term abortions.”
More lies, CL. Or maybe it’s just your unseriousness shining through. Any thoughts on why Clinton veteoed the bill and how that amounts to “Clinton believed in that infanticide known as ‘late term abortion‚Äô “?
EP, I appreciate you don’t want to waste much of your time answering my question, but that’s a deeply unimpressive effort. It’s disappointing, really, because you’ve shown yourself to be such a master of google research.
The first reference made no call on Muslims to “conquer and convert the world” and the other two references are dubious to say the least: no access to original quotes, some of them attributed to long-dead Muslims (i.e. they’re not advocating “all the time”), and posted on decidedly anti-Islamic websites. If this is your evidence, your argument is less than persuasive.
Moreover, as Mark noted, you haven’t shown that “the Left” is supportive of any of these supposed statements. Have you constructed, dare I say it, a strawman?
“Unseriousness…”
After some analysis, Tim concludes in his latest post that the US isn’t worse than al Quaeda!!
He’s an academic by the way.
You still haven’t apologised for your lie about the Schiavo controversy being a conspiracy run out of (Patricidal Murderer!!) Tom Delay’s office!! How did that man get the Holy See to do his bidding?
Every morning, shortly after taking a leak, Tim posts something about Bush the torturer!!
He believes Terri Schiavo should die because he dislikes Republicans and that she should be starved to death over two weeks in an act prosecutable under Australian law. Morally, Tim the Australian has embraced the rendition of Mrs Schiavo to a more - wink wink - ‘creative’ jurisdiction.
Dr D, your obsession with me is flattering but it’s time to do your own work now grasshopper.
!!
CL -She’s dying of dehydration, not starvation. The ‘popular press’ (and others) keeps getting that basic fact wrong which rather undercuts any claim to authority, in my view
What’s your basis for saying it would be prosecutable under Australian law? Refusal of medical treatment was an uncontroversial right last time I checked (and withdrawl of treatment, under restricted circumstances)
Daryl, nutrients and food aren’t classified as ‘medical treatment’ in Australia.
This whole thing is making me seriously consider going to one of my law mates and having them draft me up a living will.
Liam, she’s also being given morphine.
The difficulty with this situation - as with Australian law - is that there is no provision for voluntary euthanasia - otherwise had this been her wish (as I understand it to be - not to continue living in a TVS) she could have stipulated this in a living will. It’s different - and arguably more humane - than withdrawal of treatment.
Atrifical nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube _is_ medical treatment, not pallative care (at least in Vic, Qld and the ACT - with more surely to follow when it comes before the courts).
Living wills, incidentially, have no legal standing in NSW, WA or Tas, nor do they allow agents/proxies to participate in medical decisons (unless they are the legal guardian).
Speaking to your law mates sounds like a potentially productive exercise. I encourage you whole-heartedly.
clarification to the above: replace “nor do they allow” with “nor do those states allow”
Fyodor didn’t ask me to demonstrate that lefties were “supportiove of calls to Jihad”. What he actually asked for was evidence that Islamist activists do actually call for world conversion by force, which I duly provided (limited, as I mentioned, by my time constraints).
The point I was making, which still holds true, is that lefties get more upset by imaginary “theocracy” in the United States than they do by real theocracies such as Iran, and large parts of Nigeria and Sudan. I would include Afghanistan, but President Bush and the CoW effectively removed the theocracy there, despite opposition from the Left.
I heard a very good interview last week on Radio National breakfast, two doctors talking about the Schiavo case and the Australian situation. It was very clear that the legal and political circus that has attended this case would not occur here.
The Schiavo case is one I don’t think I have enough information to comment on in relation to the family memebrs. One thing I learnt from the RN interview is that the term ‘persistent vegetative state’ is not one that is used in Australian medicine. There are very complex issues of life and death here which I don;t think can be reduced to simple black and white dramatics. I gathered from the interview, that if a similar situation arose in Austrlaia, and they have, that it would be handled very differently than in the US, with, here, a focus on the person’s wishes and likelihood of recovery.
One thing though about the Bushites and their handling of it all. While governor of Texas, BUsh passed legislation that made it easier for hospitals to turn off life support equipment, regardless of family wishes. MOre inmportant than family wishes, apparently, was medical insurance companies and availability of such funding to maintain the life support. So, in other words, at the political level we’re seeing a bit of an exercise in hypocrisy on the part of Bush and co - more playing to the Christian Right on their part than any concern about a patient’s right to live or die.
Here’s one article about the Texas situation
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20050329%2FOPINION%2F503290390%2F1015
And here’s a Guardian article from 2003 with some more background on the Schiavo case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077219,00.html
and another with more on the Texas law
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/03/schiavo_hudson_and_nikolouzos.php
Thanks for the links, Michael - very informative!
“He wants to marry the woman who has had his children and will gain the money that the Court awarded to Mrs Schievo.
“On that basis I pay greater heed to her parents than to her husband.”
Homer, see this Guardian article for the only credible account I’ve seen of Michael Schiavo’s motivation. I understand that Michael offered to forgo the inheritance when he asked the court to order the tubes removed.
Why is it so hard to understand that he hated to see her in such a condition when her stated wish was not to linger under such circumstances? The request to the court came years after he realised the situation was hopeless and years after the medical negligence funds became available.
Futhermore, the parents sought to have him removed from guardianship and sought also a divorce for Terri. Had they been successful they would have inherited the money.
Dunno how that happened. I put the first two paras (quote from Homer) in italics and it spread like rash to the whole comment!
Brian, I’ve fixed it for you. You had an open italics tag sitting right after the close italic tag.
That’s extremely interesting about the divorce given the ultra-Catholic company the Schindlers are now keeping.
Mark, I can’t remember exactly where I read about the divorce attempt, but it may have been Guy Wolfson’s report as Guardian ad Litem to Jeb Bush in 2003 (largish pdf).
It’s also interesting, Brian, in regard to the Republican claims that Michael Schiavo is a “common law bigamist” - as is the fact that the Schindlers apparently encouraged him at the beginning to start another relationship.
It may just be another sign that a difficult family situation has been made progressively worse by the involvement of lawyers, pollies, lobby groups and publicity machines.
What ever happened to the Republican Party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller? These guys even make Nixon and Dole look good.
If you are going to make ridiculous statements, CL, you probably should make some attempt to justify them. Your assertion is that because Clinton vetoed the bill he believes in infantacide. So, make the case. If you were just indulging in hyperbole, then say that.
Tim, I wouldn’t bother with C.L. on this one - he’s been hyperbole city. Like I said, when he’s good, I have a blog crush on him, when he’s in RWDB mode, I’m inclined to just let it all drift by…
Kim, but I’m obssessed with him!
Incidentally, would you mind dropping me an email address for your good self - I have a question.
No probs, Tim
All this Kim, Tim, Kim, Tim is making me crave Timtams! I think I should go to bed instead!
Mark, I don’t know in what sense the Schindlers ‘tried’ for a divorce, because it was of course found that you can’t file for divorce on behalf of a third party.
I’ve just heard on News Radio that the lady has died.
Thank God.
In other news, the Pontifex Maximus has just received his last rites.