Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Now Fool, one quick question and I am really wanting an answer.... how is this judge legislating from the bench ok (silent approval) and Schiavo's judges were having their heads called for.
Is that not hypocrasy or am I missing something?
|
Well, what immediately comes to mind is that I don't think this has gotten nearly as much attention as the Shiavo case. Much, perhaps most, of the "silent approval" may come from people simply not knowing about this. People who don't watch/read/listen to the news at all knew about Shiavo.
But as for those who do know of it:
1. I think Ustwo's response is actually one likely possibility. Shiavo was life and death. This is case of religious freedom that I, myself, am not incredibly concerned with - I don't believe the infringement will survive and I think the damage will be nominal.
2. It's possible to hold the view that Wicca is a dangerous cult and that the judge in this case did the right thing, while also holding the view that the Florida judge legislated from the bench. I don't think this is correct, but I see a possible non-hypocritical assimilation of these views.
3. Yeah, there are probably hypocrites in this as well, people who neglected to sufficiently examine their positions or refuse to.
On a side-note, I lean towards both the "judge acted correctly" side and the "Shiavo should've lived" side. What gave me pause about the whole issue was that she only required what
everyone else in the world requires - food and water. But enough of that, I don't want to derail the thread.