Opinion: March 2005 Archives

Okay. For those of you that think I'm a left-wing nut, here's one to chew on.

The Colorado Supreme Court overturned a death sentence on Monday and replaced it with a sentence of life without parole. Why is that? Because five of the jurors had consulted the Bible during closed-door deliberations.

The CNN.com article states in part :

Defense attorney Kathleen Lord, arguing before the state Supreme Court last month, said the jurors had gone outside the law. "They went to the Bible to find out God's position on capital punishment," she said.

I would agree that any decision by a jury that was gained by threatening, harassing, or putting pressure on other jurors to vote a certain way should be thrown out.

I do not agree that just because someone relies on their faith in determining whether to sentence someone to death or not. that their decision should be thrown out.

Religion plays a part in most everyone's decisions. At one end of the spectrum are people who are totally guided from moment to moment by their religious beliefs. At the other end of the spectrum are the people who are not at all guided by a belief in a religion for themselves. Most everyone falls between those extremes.

Deciding whether or not to have someone put to death is a difficult and very serious decision to make. In a time like that, one would hope that each juror would delve deep within themselves to determine what they believe should be the punishment for whatever crimes that were committed. I don't think that any juror should take such a decision lightly.

Since a juror must weigh many facts and actions during their internal deliberations, there often are times when jurors will need to seek religious texts to clarify what their religion says is acceptable to their God. Once they have found this out, they can choose to follow the text or not, based on their personal views. Also, anyone who has read the Bible will know that it doesn't always have a clear-cut answer for every situation that may come up in court. So, again, a juror would have to rely on their own judgement to determine the course of action and the weight to give to various facts in the case.

In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court was presented with the fact that "five jurors had looked up such Bible verses as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," copied them and discussed them while deliberating behind closed doors." I believe that whether they copied the Bible verse, brought the entire Bible in, or just quoted memorized verses is irrelevant. Regardless of the method of presentation, the verse came from the Bible and was undoubtedly presented as such.

I don't believe that jurors could be told to leave their religion at the courthouse door and still be able to decide between what is right and what is wrong. Those decisions are based on your personal belief system. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a need for a jury of your peers.

To sum it all up, then; I believe that jurors should be allowed to consult any text, either religous or secular, while trying to decide the fate of a convicted criminal.

Let me preface this by saying that I voted for George Bush and other Republicans during the last election. While I've said many times that I agree with some of what GB says and disagree with some of what he says, I'm beginning to find myself disagreeing with his decisions more and more. As I sit here and think about what he and the Republican Congress have done over the last week alone, my stomach is literally upset. I don't get that way easily.

While I understand that the conservative right "values life", I am seeing more and more that it's a very selective system. And, more and more, I'm seeing that it is a very political value.

I have always nodded in agreement when Republicans have stood at podiums and said that the government should be small and should not impose the government's views on individuals. They have said time and time again that the movement in the U.S. to make homosexuality more tolerated and/or accepted must be stopped. They say that they (the Republicans) refuse to have "that lifestyle" shoved down their throats. However, they are guilty of the very same thing. Here they are shoving a life-beyond-all-reason stance down Michael's, Terri's, and every other U.S. citizen's throat whether we like it or not. Just as they don't want Ted Kennedy running their personal lives, I don't want Bill Frist (or Ted) running mine.

It has come to my attention that, while Governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law the "Texas Futile Care Law". This law gives hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities the authority to turn off life support to anyone who was braindead or in a persistent vegetative state and, in the health care facility's judgement, would not get better with treatement and the family could not pay for treatment, regardless of the family's wishes!! You can't pay? We flip the switch. Bye bye grandma, baby, sis, mom, dad, whoever.

This authority was exercised last Thursday on 6 month old Sun Hudson. He died after a Texas hospital removed his feeding tube, despite his mother's pleas. He had a fatal congenital disease, but would have been kept alive had his mother been able to pay for his medical costs.

What's different in Terri's case? Number one, she's in Florida, where, as far as I know, Jeb hasn't signed a similar bill -- probably due to the huge percentage of aging retirees that die and grant Florida a sizeable chunk of estate taxes. They wouldn't want to delay anyone's death and risk having medical bills eat up that tax base. Number two, her husband won a malpractice lawsuit soon after her brain damage and that money is paying for her treatment.

Of course, Congress is feverishly working to limit such lawsuits so that in the future families of people like Terri won't have that benefit. They'll have to pay for that treatment out of their own pocket. So what if the bills pile too high? File bankruptcy? Nope, Congress is also working feverishly to keep that from happening too.

What would you do in the situation where your spouse is terminally ill or a vegetable? It's looking more and more like Republicans in Congress want you to keep your spouse alive, no matter what, until your money runs out. Then, you won't have a choice. The medical facility will turn off their support, whether you want it or not, and send you packing. Then you'll have plenty of time to get three or four jobs to try to pay off those hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that you racked up. Maybe you'll get it all paid off by the time you are shoveled into the grave next to your spouse. Probably not.

So, what the Republicans in Congress are doing is to suck every penny they can out of working-class people so that medical providers and big businesses can rake in the dough. Once they've raked it all in, Republicans want to make sure it stays there, by limiting lawsuits and making bankruptcy nearly impossible to pull off.

What are they creating? A class of indentured servants. Because of your circumstances, you may be forced to work all of your life to pay off a debt that you may or may not be responsible for. Even one that you were born into.

There are at least two sides to the Terri Schiavo case: 1) She should be given every opportunity to recover, including living out a life-span of 30-40 more years connected to medical devices; and 2) Every effort has been reasonably exhausted to give her the chance for any recovery and it's time to let her go.

I fall onto the side of #2. There are several reasons (moral, legal, and humane) why I'm on the side of letting her go.

Morally, I find it objectionable to allow someone to lay in a bed for fifteen years as a vegetable and decide that it would be better for her/him to lay in that bed for another forty years. There comes a time as reasoning human beings that we decide that enough is enough. In Terri's case, Michael gave her eight years (1990 - 1998) to show any sign of recovery. She showed no sign of recovery. After eight years of seeing your spouse lying in a bed with no change, wouldn't you also decide that it was time to let him/her go? I would. I hope my wife would before that long had passed.

So, Michael filed all of the necessary paperwork and consulted doctors to make sure he was making the right decision. He decided it was and proceeded. Terri's parents, however, decided that it wasn't the right decision and began filing claims to stop him. While I understand that parents don't want to see their child die, they must realize that there is a time that even they must let go.

Legally, states have traditionally given a husband or wife the final say in medical treatment of their spouse. This is for very good reason. Who should know a person's wishes better than their spouse? Parents can claim to know better, but the law conveys those rights to a spouse as part of the legally binding agreement of marriage -- an institution that, evidently, the Republicans in Congress no longer hold sacred. What happened in the past couple of weeks to turn them 180 degrees? Politics.

In addition, Terri didn't secretly tell Michael that she didn't want to be kept alive on tubes. She told her best friend, her brother-in-law, and an uncle that she didn't want to be kept alive artificially.

If there had been abuse, I could understand the Schindler's argument that Terri's and Michael's marriage should be disolved and the right to determine her medical treatment be conveyed to them. However, an investigation concluded that there was no abuse on the part of Michael. To the contrary, I applaud Michael's resolve to pursue her treatment for eight years before deciding that it was time to let her go.

With Congressional "leaders" spouting off how we should protect the sanctity of marriage, in the case of Terri and Michael Schiavo they are saying, "Her husband doesn't know best. We, the Congress in Washington D.C., know what's best for his wife." While they spout that a husband should love their wife and vice versa, they are saying that it doesn't matter unless they agree. Basically, they are saying "To Hell with their marriage, it's worthless."

So where does it stop? Florida state law says that Michael should decide, as her husband, what is best for her. The Congress disagrees with his decisions and the decisions of many courts and doctors over the past seven years.

Many say, "If she had only had a living will, none of this would have happened." Is that true? I wonder.

How would having a living will make the situation any different? Her parents would argue that she didn't mean it, or that Michael had forced her to write it, or that she didn't understand it, or that what she wrote didn't specifically apply to what was happening to her. Could we cover all of the possible things that can happen to us? Probably not. Why not, then, just say that we give legal authority to our spouse to decide based on the circumstances? Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. That's what the law says in regards to those in Terri's position without a written document specifying what happens. It gives the spouse, Michael Schiavo in this case, the right to decide what is best for their spouse, Terri Schiavo in this case.

So, even if you write a living will, this precedent, if it stands, will allow congress the authority to override any living will you may write to prohibit your death in the case you are a vegetable, severely disabled, or even terminally ill. Regardless of your wishes. Furthermore, if this precedent stands, they would have the legal authority to override ALL STATE LAWS regarding medical treatment. From prenatal care to end of life care, we would be subject to the rules and regulations of Congress.

I believe that this move by Congress is a move toward creating a legal Federal precedent to give the Federal government the right to outlaw physician assisted suicide and euthenasia. If this stands, it will be a short step to give the Federal government the ability to move all cases where individuals (either themselves or via their medial guardian) decide that they should end their life.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, I think it is inhumane to allow someone to live year after year, with no hope of recovery, in a state such as Terri's, so that the parents and sister can feel good about themselves. That is totally selfish, doesn't do Terri any medical good, would probably disgust her, and is disrespectful toward Michael.

Bottom line, I agree with seven years' worth of court rulings. It's time to let Terri rest in peace. May God have mercy on the Schindler's souls for putting her through this against her wishes.

-- Mark --

Like in the marijuana post, I didn't plan to jump right into a subject that might scare people away. However, I keep coming back to this subject as I try to think of things to write. So, I decided to get it off of my chest (partly).

Most of my friends know that I'm a nudist. None of my co-workers do. That's by plan. I just have to keep the two groups apart now...

First, for all of you whose only knowledge of nudism comes from Playboy or Hustler articles (or the like), or from your college buddies who once went to a nudist "colony", I'll tell you what true nudism is not.

• It's not about sex.
• It's not about sex. (just wanted to make sure you saw that one)
• It's not about showing off your body -- anyone who knows me understands that
• It's not about seeing naked people -- anyone who has been to a nude beach or nudist resort knows that the perfect 10's don't usually come out... or the perfect 9's or 8's either.
• It's not about showing off or comparing anatomy
• It's not about finding a loose woman to hit on or get it on with

When I tell someone new about nudism, they always have certain questions that they ask. Some of them are:

Question : Are there old or young people there?
Answer : There are all ages there, from a few weeks old to men and women in their 90's and beyond.

Question : Do people have sex at nudist resorts?
Answer : Sure. But like textile (clothed) resorts, they do it in their hotel room or in their cabin. Open sex (or even too much touching of any kind) will get you thrown out of the resort and probably banned from all nudist resorts. It's pretty rare to even see two people holding hands for fear of displaying enough affection to warrant management intervention.

Question : How do you walk around nude around a bunch of strangers?
Answer : It does take some getting used to. We live in a society that says that nudity=sex=naughty. We are taught to be ashamed of ourselves at a very young age. Once you can get over a little of that, it gets a lot easier. Once you get over the shame aspect of nudity, you find that you feel more free and open than you have ever felt before.

Question : Are there any Christian nudists? Is that a contradiction?
Answer : Absolutely there are Christian nudists. There are nudists from all religions. If there is interest, I'll write another article why it is acceptable for Christians to be nudists. For those interested, start by reading about Isaiah.

Have I covered the major points?

For me, nudism is about comfort and freedom. There's nothing like laying next to a pool in the Sun as the heat of a summer day is building. Feeling the breeze blow over your bare skin combined with the heat from the Sun is just incredible. Then, getting into the pool to cool off and swimming around without a heavy pair of trunks dragging around me is exhilarating.

There is certainly a camaraderie between nudists. We know what it's like to go home and have to keep our nudism to ourselves. To shut ourselves behind doors and curtains because society believes that we are either perverts or are just lunatics.

When we gather at nudist resorts or beaches, there is a common bond between us that helps us to relax, begin new conversations, and make new friends. Nudists are very open and will start a conversation with little provocation. I like to lay back and listen to conversations mostly. However, I like to join in when I feel I have something of interest to contribute too. In most settings I'd doubt myself and would rarely interject. However, at a nudist venue I feel more outgoing and accepted.

Acceptance is a major part of what nudism is about. Nudists, for the most part, strive to accept everyone -- no matter age, size, race, sex, handicap, or scarring of life. I have seen women with mastectomies, men and women with amputated legs and arms, men and women with cerebral palsy, and many other disorders, conditions, or hardships. Everyone is accepted.

Keep in mind, though, that although we accept others and ourselves as we are, many of us still look in the mirror and find things that we want/need to change about ourselves. I am currently working to lose some weight. It's not that I care what anyone (other than my wife, of course) thinks about my body, but it's about trying to get down to a healthy weight for myself.

I must note, however, that nudists are people too. There are always people that are prejudiced, judgemental, rude, and just outright mean. Some of them happen to be nudists. However, the vast majority of dedicated nudists are open-minded, friendly, and accepting.

Do I think nudism is for everyone? Not at all. Neither is horseback riding, model airplane flying, astronomy, or any other hobby/lifestyle. Do I think that there are people that want to be involved but are too afraid, ashamed, or nervous about giving it a try? Sure.

A poll of adults by Roper in March 2003 showed that 19% of respondants said that they had skinny-dipped in mixed company. 18% said that they would consider visiting a clothing-optional beach or resort. I would hope that the numbers have grown even more in the last couple of years.

In recent years, nudist vacation businesses have reported tremendous growth. It is the fastest growing sector of the travel industry. The numbers also were outstanding during the major travel slump after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. I guess it just goes to show that nudists are dedicated and have money to burn... On second thought, some of us are just dedicated.

If you want to be involved in (or just read) on-going discussions on nudism, try checking out a nudist bulletin board. For instance, The Clothesfree.com website has a large and very active bulletin board. You should also check out the site of the American Association For Nude Recreation (AANR). They have a lot of practical information about what nudism is and is not, what the role of the AANR is, and how to get involved in nudism if you think it's right for you.

If there are particular questions that you have about nudism, feel free to post them and I'll try to answer them in future posts. Keep in mind the Terms Of Conduct For Posting if you decide to write.

--Mark