Other Columns by Kevin Fobbs
Kevin Fobbs Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

For two weeks America and the world witnessed the passing of two Catholics who led very different lives. Yet both deaths would leave an indelible mark upon the consciousness of our nation and on the world. Many in the nation claimed, quite incorrectly, that reliance on religious doctrine to support the declaration of life, which was guaranteed by our founding fathers, was merely a coincidence of fate. Yet Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, Samuel Adams and President George Washington, if they were alive, would certainly beg to differ.

You see there is an intrinsic connection between those who are casually labeled (with restrained derision) "The Religious Right" for strenuously supporting our nation's founding fathers' doctrine of protection of individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This document created our nation's moral foundation which the historically disabled would have known had anyone in their flock had made a mere cursory reading of our founding principles. These guiding principles provide the subtext for connecting the death of a pope and the starvation of an innocent.

Although the demise of Pope John Paul II -- the Holy Father -- was expected and imminent, the timing of the death of this global leader impacts us as well. His comment upon speaking to his fellow Polish people in 1979 set the stage for morally principled activism that was not built on just sitting idly by. He began his reign by declaring, "Be not afraid." He emboldened his fellow countrymen to stand for freedom. He deeply felt this to be the noblest stance one can take as part of a religious doctrine. Too bad most Americans who labeled Terri's life supporters as fanatics forgot that "Be not afraid" was also part of the Revolutionary War leaders' religious call to arms as well.

Samuel Adams, who most Constitutional historians will remember was not only a patriot but a leader of the Continental Congress, spoke about the value of the individual and warned of the "adversaries who would laugh at the rights of humanity, who turn religion into derision." Was he a fanatic? Was he too radical to say, "The hand of heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps, humble instruments and means in the great providential dispensation which is completing." He was speaking to the individual who would rise to be a guardian of justice, of the spirit of freedom, of the individual protection of life.

The designers and framers of our nation's Constitution were particularly concerned about the fact that eventually our country would become too comfortable, too trusting of others to do the citizens' duty, and too willing to give to the notion that standing up for the rights of Americans should be someone else's job. They rightly predicted the rise of the disengaged American.

John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was quite eloquent in accurately describing the dilemma that Terri Schiavo and her family would be confronted with several centuries later. He spoke of the danger that would befall the individual if we claimed that the Constitution and Congress could offer no protection. "What are the favorite maxims of Democracy?... Can we pretend to the enjoyment of political freedom or security, when we are told that a man has been struck out of existence without a trial by jury? Shall it be a maxim that a man shall be deprived of his life without the benefit of law?" Terri Schiavo was deprived of her life because a state court judge in Florida decided he would ignore a subpoena of Congress, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, all because he put himself above the law he was sworn to uphold.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3 4 5