I'll take door #1, Dave (or is it the 7th Ring?)

The inestimable Dave Pollard has posed 4 questions to his readers in addition to a big question of what will be "How to save the world" 's next iteration. Far be it from me to answer that one, but here are the lesser four:

1. Without getting into the ethics of the case, and without blaming the media, please explain why so many people care so much about that one singular right-to-die case in Florida?
2. What's a better name for 'the environment' that is less separate in connotation from human civilization?
   
3. Why does it break our heart to throw out teddy bears and other stuffed animals, even if they're not childhood toys with memories attached to them?
4. How could we effectively teach online the critical skills that take a lot of practice and one-on-one coaching? I'm referring to skills like effective listening, collaboration, and even meditation. It seems to me our inability to do this well is the greatest limitation today of the Internet as an agent of change.

Since today is outsourced post day at Fouroboros Worldwide, it's only proper I lift my comment from Dave's blog and turf it out here....

Well, I'll take Number 1, Dave.

Without getting into the ethics of the case, and without blaming the media, please explain why so many people care so much about that one singular right-to-die case in Florida?

Because they think the future doesn't want them. And they're probably right.

Because, sadly, some people of faith are not driven by their beliefs as much as they are driven by defending their beliefs. For many, a beseiged mentality is a visceral reaction against a mundane and anonymous existence. Existential peace escapes them; spiritual practice leaves them largely un-beatified. (i.e.: still Imperfect) and somebody must pay.

Christian consulting firms like The Barna Group, polling evangelicals and self-declared people of faith, find that many are poor at practicing what they preach. In effect, they are human and succumb to temptations just like regular folks, and in many cases, more so. (Massachusetts libs divorce at rates equal to or slightly less than born-agains [etc and so on].)

Given this reality one has two choices:

1. Adhere to Jesus' admonishment that your relationship with him is personal, not to be worn on your sleeve and so, blame self and try to do better.

2. Make your faith public, and its quality outside your control, like that of the biblical "Hypocrites" and so, blame others and find an all-purpose excuse, security blanket *and* rallying cry.

Cake, and no calories!

Number two has appeal for all kinds of reasons that governments, corporations and tribes of all stripes are familiar with: It cements the bonds of the group, albeit at the expense of greater American community. It changes the subject from personal imperfection and failure, and relegates practical everyday accountability to the back burner because, well, because "we have bigger fish to fry--there are barbarians at the gate!"

Terry Schiavo, rest her soul, will be their Che, t-shirts and all, for years to come. And like today's Che-wearing skateboarder, CYO kids 20 years hence will have their Terri in a beret fashions and have no clue of her significance or the facts of her case. She will be part of the uniform--a prop.

Tip o the Hat to Jane Crow Journal for the link