Life and Death have meanings of hidden dimenson

There is more than one dimension to the meaning of “life” and “death”.  We think of life in terms of our mortal lives – that is we are the centre of the very existence of life, and we have a finite beginning and end. Yet, our worldly life and death is only one dimension for the meaning of what is life and death.

I have repeatedly asked Fundamentalists to explain what is meant by these terms. I never seem to get a response from them relating to the state of the soul. Yet this is how we are viewed by God. Each time we sin, we begin to slowly die inside of ourselves. Another dimension of Life is that it is the grace or the very breath of God, existing within us, so that we, in turn exist in the world. The flip side of the spiritual life is spiritual death. It is the withdrawal of grace – a free gift from God that feeds and nourishes us on a daily basis – that causes the death of the soul because of sin.

I had my own brush with what it means to come face to face with my own mortality last year when my next oldest sister was suddenly diagnosed with bone cancer and died. She did not make it to her 53rd birthday. It is a shock when someone so close in age suddenly dies like that and it causes one to recognize the reality that we are only here for a short time. Yet, her spiritual existence continues even though her flesh has been consumed in the fire from a cremation.

Christians sometimes tend to negate that the animals, birds, and even the flora are the creation of God, and that it is God that gives life to these things. We have the superior intellect and the superior soul, but these other creations of the Creator also have their own form of soul. How Christians view the souls of animals is a juxtaposition of the way in which an atheist sees the life of an animal.

As I digress for a moment, I want to briefly consider the views of the Greens and their counterparts who seem to think that animals have feelings on the same level as humans. For this reason, they demonstrate against cooking live lobster because of the sounds that come from a cooking pot. They are blissfully unaware of the fact that God created these creatures so that we would have food. They also get uptight about cutting down a tree, sometimes behaving in a way that suggests that they worship trees as though the trees are gods. Their sense of proportion with regard to human life and the lives of these other creatures is truly distorted. To highlight their inconsistency, I point to the fact that this same group are the ones who promote the murder of the unborn on the grounds that a foetus is not legally recognized as having a life.

The abortion debate centres upon when life begins, but this debate has implications that is infringing upon giving justice to the unborn and to the parents of the unborn when a child has been killed as a result of a car accident. A recent decision in Hawaii has led to a further denial of the rights of the unborn and a man has been allowed to get away with the manslaughter of an unborn child because of the lack of a legal definition of when life begins. It would seem that the activist judges have outsmarted themselves because now it is possible for irresponsible drivers to escape prosecution when the victim is an unborn infant. Once again we see an overwhelming sense of a lack of justice that has been allowed to permeate the world, in the name of feminism, modernism and political correctness.

Another debate that rages in this modern world of ours is that of the concept of the Immaculate Conception. The reforming fathers such as Martin Luther believed that Mary was in fact conceived without the stain of original sin. The problem centres upon the philosophy that has stemmed from the age of the “Enlightenment”, as well as anti-Catholic rhetoric and bigotry.  The Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who are so keen to deny the Immaculate Conception fail to see that they are in fact denying that Jesus is the Christ through their very failure to accept the Immaculate Conception. This dogma, which centres not upon Mary, but upon the origins of Jesus Christ, states that Mary is the woman with whom Satan has enmity. If she had sinned, then she would be a friend of Satan, and she would not have grace within, yet the angel gave the greeting: “Hail, Full of Grace”, (which also bestows upon Mary, the TITLE – “Full of Grace” – according to the Will of God.)  

The denial of the life of an unborn infant has now spread to the point that people are willing to deny the life of those who are incapacitated. The danger to the incapacitated is that there are family members and unscrupulous lawyers who act as public guardians who want the people dead. The Terri Schindler-Schiavo story is in fact the tip of the iceberg. This was a case where hard evidence was not provided and the outcome has the potential of affecting millions of the incapacitated every day of every year. The life safeguards were further eroded by the refusal to properly evaluate the case and Greer’s decision making.

Who cares if Haleigh lives or dies?

Catholics in the Public Square">Haleigh Poutre is only 11 years old, and she has been on life support since she was nearly beaten to death last September. Ever since she was rushed to hospital by her relatives, it is as if no one has cared about whether Haleigh lives or dies, except for the man who is accused of beating her to the point of near death. Up until now he has been the lone family voice who has been advocating for her life, which is in stark contrast to the child's real mother.

Haleigh's short life has not been a picnic. She had been neglected by her biological mother, so she was removed and given to her aunt, who did adopt Haleigh. However, the aunt then met and married the man who has been acting as Haleigh's stepfather, (and dare I call him her advocate for life?). The department of social services was informed of charges of neglect and abuse against the aunt, but they failed to act. After Haleigh ended up in hospital, having being bashed within an inch of her life, the aunt and stepfather ended up being arrested over the bashing. Two days after being released from jail, Haleigh's adoptive mother, and grandmother were found to be shot dead. Mr. Strickland faces fresh charges of murder if Haleigh dies, and so he has a vested interest in keeping her alive (but really is that such a crime, that he does not want her to die in such a fashion as having her nutrition and hydration withdrawn?)

Haleigh has been made a ward of the state, and the officials of the department sought to have a DNR placed upon her charts, and they sought permission to withdraw all life support. Haleigh's biological mother joined with the departmental officials who are seeking to end Haleigh's life. What kind of mother would respond to her child's desparate situation by making the following statement?:

CBS reporter SHARYN ALFONSI: This is Haleigh Poutre before, before her teeth were broken, before her tiny body was burned and before she was beaten, doctors say, into a vegetative state. You're her mother.
Ms. ALLISON AVRETT (Biological Mother): Yes.

ALFONSI: What do you want for her?

AVRETT: I want her to rest.

ALFONSI: And right now?

AVRETT: She's not. Being kept like that is not a life.

So it would seem that Ms Avrett sees her daughter in terms of what is, and what is not a life. Her comments point to a woman who does not love her daughter, and who wants her dead.

However, Haleigh, it seems has other ideas because no sooner did the courts decide against Mr Strickland and said that the life support could be withdrawn when Haleigh began to show signs of coming out of her coma. The doctors who have written off Haleigh have not been doing their work as doctors because they have been more interested in ending her life, than they have been in rehabilitating this child, and giving her a chance to live a normal life.

This child is too young to be able to tell anyone what her end of life wishes might be. An adult has to make the decision for her. As usual the court has refused to listen to the one person who wanted them to err on the side of choosing life. It would seem that the court decided against the petition of Mr. Strickland because of his vested interest in keeping the child alive. The case sounds like Maria Korp and Terri Schiavo redux. Only this time it is the mother who wants her child to die.

Even after Haleigh has shown signs of coming out of the coma, it would seem that her mother is intent upon giving the all too famous line from the culture of death: "the movements that you have seen is nothing more than a reflex action".

Well there are people who care if Haleigh lives or dies. Michelle Malken has spoken up and is advocating for Haleigh's life, and there are others in the blogosphere who care about whether or not this child is given the opportunity to live a full life.

Haleigh is an innocent child. She is not a criminal and she does not deserve to have a death sentence. It is truly amazing that the more liberal types in the community will raise their voices in protest over the impending death of a criminal who has been sentenced to death because of crimes committed against others, but their silence in the case of innocent disabled people being condemned to death is totally deafening. It is about time that these Hollywood activists were called into line and forced to get their act together with regard to priorities.

If Haleigh is allowed to die at the hands of the state, then we will all be moving headlong along the slippery slope of destruction. It is time to wake up and it is time to stop the killing of innocent people in the name of the culture of death.