Who'd want to get on the wrong side of Terry Sweetman? The fearless coulumnist from the Sunday Mail who likes to get it off his chest pulled no punches when discussing the effective euthanasia of Terri Schiavo, especially when dispensing with the views of those who opposed it.
While identifying that opinions are divided on the issue, and that her parents and siblings disagreed, his caricature of their perspective is disquieting.
Part of his introduction is to express his unhappiness if he was in a physically vegetative state but still mentally sound:What if I was lying there in pain and my family interpreted my every
facial tic as a sign of animation and pleasure? If that is Christian
kindness, count me out.
He then launches a full frontal assault on all things "Christian":
"...only those hostage to blind religious dogma could have refused to accept that Terri's mind was dead and that her body was a helpless shell"
Although there are many other parties involved (the President of The United States, the US Congress for example), Sweetman continues his pursuit of Christians, implicit in the next phrase:
"...the right to make that sort of decision [a husband authorising the decision to terminate his wife's life] is under challenge from third parties and busybodies."
Yes, like the President. And Congress. And the Supreme Court. But these are not the targets of Sweetman.
He goes on:
"The intrusion of religion in politics and secular affairs and the exaggerated influence of Bible-bangers and fundamentalist happy clappers, is a pointer to where we are heading. "
Let's not let anything like democrcy intrude and have any of those fundamentalist bible-banging happy-clappers have a vote and an influence, shall we?
Sweetman again:
"In a Schiavo-like situation, any understanding either of us might come to
with carers could be challenged by self-appointed ethicists. "
Like politicians, judges, courts, and God forbid, journalists.
More Sweetman, this time, the attempted knockout blow:
"Knee-bending, psalm-singing and politically motivated stickybeaks and grandstanders can mind their own business.
We don't need them in life and we don't want them in death."
Perhaps Terry Sweetman has better legal advice than Sam Newman, who on live TV fired off his opinions about homosexuals, and was subsequently censored.
Even John Laws has been muzzled following similar complaints about homosexual vilification.
In my view such comments by Sweetman constitute religious vilification according to the Anti-Discrimination Commision.
Or perhaps acomplaint to the Press Council would close down such worrying expositions.
Time to do some homework.
No comments:
Post a Comment