BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Against the grain

42 comments on Against the grain

Against the grain

: Conservative radio talk-show host Neal Boortz breaks from the pack on Terri Schiavo with a religious argument that we have rarely heard:

Where do your concerns truly lie, with the eternal soul of Terri Schiavo, or with her earthly body?…

Is it possible that the soul of Terri Schiavo has been floating ñ held in some prolonged and excruciating limbo ñ waiting for doctors to stop interfering with the process of her death? I believe that this is so, and that is why I have supported her husbandís desires to have her feeding tube removed. Terri Schiavo isnít being murdered. Sheís being allowed to die. Death will not be an end for Terri Schiavo, it will be a beginning. She will finally be allowed to claim the reward that ultimately we all seek, a reward sheís earned and deserves.

: LATER: Nuclear Dann corrects me and says he is a libertarian and not a conservative and is, indeed, staying with the grain of libertarians who say that government imposition of medical treatment violates individual rights. Boortz, though, put himself in the club of nonliberal talk-show hosts and is certainly against the grain among them. I quoted it less for the political graininess than for the religious view we’ve seen infrequently.

42 responses to “Against the grain”

  1. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Fabulous. A practicing Christian approach, if ever I saw one.

  2. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Hi Jeff,
    Just a modest correct. Neal is a LIBERTARIAN…..not a conservative. He isn’t breaking with any pack, he is remaining consistent with his values and beliefs.
    Regards,
    Dann

  3. Jeff Jarvis Avatar
    Jeff Jarvis

    Dann: Thanks. See my addition to the post.

  4. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    I’m not sure what you think of Boortz’ argument, since you just say it’s an argument rarely heard, but arguing for her death to get her soul out of “prolonged and excruciating limbo”? C’mon, if Jerry Falwell or James Dobson argued for a policy goal or judicial action based on concern for someone’s soul, they would be thoroughly mocked in the MSM and blogs for a month. But Boortz gets a pass because he’s a libertarian and we get to see the fuzzy, softer side of a group usually labeled coldly rational? I don’t give a damn about Boortz’s religious views; I want to know why we’re relying on the word of a single person with gross conflicts of interest in deciding what this woman would have wanted.

  5. MattJ Avatar
    MattJ

    As far as I know, most Protestant Christians (especially fundies) don’t believe any souls are released from the Earth until Judgement Day.
    Revelations 20:11-15
    Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
    Nobody goes to Heaven (except Jesus and some Old Testament guy – Ezekiel, maybe?) until Judgement day. No matter how long they’ve been dead.
    It seems to me that Boortz’ theological argument is of the not-so-serious type. I think it squares with Catholic belief, (Could be wrong, though. I don’t know much about Catholic beliefs except they seem to believe that at least the various saints are in heaven) but I don’t think he’s trying to reach Catholics with it. I think he’s trying to reach the millions of ‘fuzzy’ Christians who don’t study the bible at all.
    I’m an atheist, by the way.

  6. daudder Avatar
    daudder

    in matters of faith, rational arguments hold little sway

  7. J. Peden Avatar
    J. Peden

    What good is Heaven if they won’t let you get there?
    Thanks for the info on Boortz, I flashed by him speaking last night, but couldn’t wait very long to hear what he was saying because I feared another “God demands that I save living corpses” claim. Terri has been dead probably since her initial hospitalization, according to EEG and CT trends and findings then, and certainly since her 1996 CT scan.
    As Tammy Bruce and Shania Twain have suggested: “Don’t Be Stupid”.

  8. Jeff Harrell Avatar
    Jeff Harrell

    Up front: I do not consider myself to be a Christian. I don’t consider myself to be much of anything. I’m not a person of faith. However, I was raised in a Baptist church, and I feel pretty qualified to express an opinion on this.
    To the Christian, matters of life and death are not for us to decide. God reserves the right to make decisions about who lives and who dies; that’s why he commanded us not to kill. To kill someone, therefore, is to make a decision that only God is allowed to make. It’s putting oneself in the place of God. In a word, it’s blasphemy.
    Yes, Christians believe that there’s a Heaven, and that the saved go there when they die. But they also believe that only God gets to decide when and the manner in which we die.
    Terri Schiavo is not dying. Apart from the injury to her brain, she’s in perfect health, as far as I understand it. All she needs is nourishment and care, the same things that a baby requires from its parents. We no more have the right to starve Terri to death than we have the right to starve a baby to death.
    To the contrary, God tells us that we have a responsibility to take care of each other. Love our neighbors as we love ourselves, we’re told. To turn our backs on a woman in need, to decline to provide her with the basic necessities of life, runs contrary to the fundamental principles of Christian charity, and is a direct violation of Christ’s commandment to us.
    When God is ready for Terri Schiavo to die, she’ll die. Until then, we must treat her like we’d treat anyone in need: with love and charity.
    (Note, please: I don’t personally subscribe to this position. But it’s what I was taught to believe as a kid, going to church on Sundays. If we’re going to talk about the Christian point of view, I thought I should weigh in with what I would believe if I’d stayed in the church.)

  9. Linda Edwards Avatar
    Linda Edwards

    If the argument is being made that Terri isn’t dying and that God will take Terri when he’s ready, then you can also make the argument that God tried to take Terri in 1990, but that human intervention prevented that. God took away Terri’s ability to swallow, but when man attached a feeding tube, he interfered with God’s will, and therefore, man was playing God.
    BTW, that’s not really my position. My point here is that you can go ’round and ’round with these arguments, and you’ll only end up going in circles. Such is the nature of these sorts of debates.

  10. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Why can’t she just be given over to her parents who love her, and everyone else go home.
    I can’t imagine being denied access to my child, who lay helpless somewhere. Can any of you?
    This is a monstrous atrocity towards the Schindlers.
    The state claims she can’t feel suffering, so they can’t use that as a reason to not let her parents take care of her.
    Michael’s husbandly duties lie with another.
    He can’t have two wives. He is husband to another. He has abdicated the position of Terri’s husband.
    Clearly the right and wrong of this is fuzzy. So yes, let’s err on the side of humanity for the Schindlers. Who cares, really cares, more than they?
    It’s not possible to know what Terri wants.
    Michael doesn’t want Terri around.
    Her parents do.
    No law should tell a responsible, loving child or parent or blood relative, …(morally and logically, no one can say Terri still has a viable marriage) … that he or she is “not allowed” to care for a close member of their family who is for all purposes….otherwise alone.
    This ruling would make sense if there was no family in agony watching her die, standing ready, willing, and able to care for her. Who does it hurt for the state to make this exception? Not Terry…if the state’s claim that she can’t experience suffering is correct.

  11. SloppyDawg Avatar
    SloppyDawg

    This ruling would make sense if there was no family in agony watching her die, standing ready, willing, and able to care for her.
    We seem to forget that at one point Terri did go home to be cared for by her family. They decided that they just couldn’t handle it.
    We also seem to forget that the Schindlers encouraged Michael to get on with his life.
    Don’t take my word for it. Read the report of Jay Wolfson, Guardian ad Litem for Terri Schiavo, appointed by Jeb Bush.

  12. kingdom2000 Avatar
    kingdom2000

    I still say if the parents are right and Terry is aware then they are evil bastards leaving her in a hell like that. We wouldn’t wish that on our worst enemies and those evil selfish parents are fighting to do it. It is selfishness to. They don’t want to let go. So are choosing what is best for them over what is best for their child. Regardless, if they are right, they are making a conscience decision to keep their child trapped and a in a living hell. I hope they get a special place in hell for that.

  13. Scott Chaffin Avatar
    Scott Chaffin

    And if Boortz is a libertarian, he’s hardly breaking from any pack.
    I’m also glad he’s not my spiritual adviser.

  14. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    And I wish her murderers go to hell.

  15. MD Avatar
    MD

    The American Association of People with Disabilities has a link to an article by Harriet McBryde Johnson from The Washington Post/Slate magazine. The AAPD is not a religious organization, and yet is very concerned about the outcome of this case and what this means for people with disabilities.
    “Clearly, Congress’s Palm Sunday legislation was not the broader type of proceeding Harkin and I want. It does not define when and how federal court review will be available to all of those in the shadows. To create a general system of review, applicable whenever life-and-death decisions intersect with disability rights, will require a reasoned, informed debate unlike what we’ve had until now. It will take time. But in the Schiavo case, time is running out.”
    She is a disability rights lawyer. I’ve been frustrated with most comment threads I’ve been commenting on because it seems that the ‘religious view’ versus ‘right-to-die’ is the angle being talked about, when the majority in the disability rights community are with Terry’s parents on this matter.
    I’m still uncomfortable with emergency, one-time legislation for one person – but I would like to see us consider the points that Harkin and other disability rights advocates are making. How, when you have someone who is profoundly disabled and not be able to speak for themselves (and yes, I know that disabled might not the right word to use for Terry Schiavo) do you protect that individual’s rights from a guardian who may have an inherent conflict of interest, in the absence of a living will? Or even with a living will written when you are completely healthy? How do you know as a healthy person what you would be capable of living with, until it happens to you? I have MS and it is very mild, but I have a very different idea of who I am and what I would be able to live with than before I was diagnosed or developed symptoms of this disease. I envy those that seem to have such a clear view of this issue, because for me it is confusing: it occurs at the intersection of protecting the rights of the vulnerable and excessive government intervention into areas that may best be decided amongst families.
    It’s frustrating because everything gets turned into liberal, conservative, red-state, blue-state these days. Sometimes it’s not that straighforward.
    http://www.aapd.com/News/disability/Overlooked.html

  16. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    MattJ:
    Actually, have you read Dante’s Inferno? or seen paintings in the Sistine Chapel? You will note that the dead are represented as entering immediately into their reward, whether it be heaven or hell. I suppose there are differing beliefs, but these were the publicly accepted ones.

  17. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    I saw this on the blogs somewhere (Ann Althouse, maybe?) that Ralph Nader was on some talk show (maybe Crossfire) and said this: Why aren’t Republicans and Democrats consistently compassionate? Think about it. If Terri Schiavo was a mass murder, ready to executed by the “state”, you bet your booties the liberals would be in hysterics. But yet, the conservatives say they are “for life” but support the death penalty. If we are truly a compassionate nation, wouldn’t we all denounce abortion(certainly after about 8 weeks), the death penalty, and pulling the plug on someone who has not put his/her desires in writing? Terri’s husband doesn’t want to bother with her, I’m sure his girlfriend and their kids find her distracting, but if her parents wish to take care of her, shouldn’t they be allowed? Why do liberals only “choose life” for criminals and not the innocent? It’s an interesting idea.

  18. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    I saw this on the blogs somewhere (Ann Althouse, maybe?) that Ralph Nader was on some talk show (maybe Crossfire) and said this: Why aren’t Republicans and Democrats consistently compassionate? Think about it. If Terri Schiavo was a mass murderer, ready to executed by the “state”, you bet your booties the liberals would be in hysterics. But yet, the conservatives say they are “for life” but support the death penalty. If we are truly a compassionate nation, wouldn’t we all denounce abortion(certainly after about 8 weeks), the death penalty, and pulling the plug on someone who has not put his/her desires in writing? Terri’s husband doesn’t want to bother with her, I’m sure his girlfriend and their kids find her distracting, but if her parents wish to take care of her, shouldn’t they be allowed? Why do liberals only “choose life” for criminals and not the innocent? Why don’t conservatives “choose life” for convicted felons? It’s an interesting question.

  19. MattJ Avatar
    MattJ

    Ruth:
    As an atheist, it’s not me you need to convince. Dante is no more ‘correct’ to me than the authors of the Bible or the artists of the Sistene.
    If you want to convince the fundies, however, you’ll probably need more than Dante. I don’t think they count his writings as anything more than literature.

  20. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    MattJ:
    convincing you was far from my intention, it was an answer to a question you raised, and of course, convincing a ‘fundie’ is not a matter of reason either. I should have been more clear, you were expressing the view that reaching heaven or hell only occurred on judgment (legal spelling) day in Christian belief.
    paladin:
    RalphNader is inclined to bash liberals because he cant get elected … if you recall, the same egomaniac prevented the election of Al Gore in 2000. We could have had a gentleman and a scholar in the highest office if this fella had had good sense. Why would you credit what he says now?
    All:
    From the Chair of the Pres’s Council on BioEthics: regarding death as a disease to be cured presents the question of whether it matters not so much how long one lives as how well one lives. (Speaking at Holy Cross against cloning as a potential for curing illness.)

  21. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    paladin,
    That is a good question, for both conservatives and liberals.
    Ruth,
    Interesting that you employed a straight ad hominem attack against Nader, that in no way addressed the question he posed, so soon after decrying the lack of reasoned argumentation in another thread.

  22. Lynn Avatar
    Lynn

    Thanks Sloppy Dawg …for the link….appreciate it. :-)
    Certainly I’m not saying we should not let people die a natural death.
    But Terri did not tell us, and cannot now tell us if her life is of value to her. We do know it has value to her parents. So it has value.
    I threw no stones at Michael. It’s a fact, that’s all, that he’s moved on to be someone else’s husband. Worse, his interests now confict with hers. That alone, should be enough to raise a red flag, and perhaps a possibility to transfer her guardianship to her parents.
    Caring for a disabled person is not always possible at home. They still are taking care of her, …with outside help. That’s why long and short term care facilities exist.
    I don’t think feeding and hydration tubes are in the same league as being hooked up to life support. Some people need their dentures at mealtime. Terry needs her tubes.
    My children’s father died young from esophageal cancer. The last six months of his life, he drove, shopped, and lived with the very same hole in his gut that Terri has. It accomodated the cans of Ensure he poured in there to stay nourished and hydrated when swallowing became too painful. No one considered that “life support”, or considered denying him that help to eat and drink.
    While Terry is not pouring in the necessary nutrition and hydration herself, her parents and surrogates are willing to do that for her.
    It’s cruel to keep them from doing so.
    Terry is not “hooked up to life support”. While she needs help with bodily functions, her body functions without help.

  23. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Hubris:
    Caught me. Nader isn’t some one whose views I can respect because I have experienced his extreme disregard of the effects of his actions, and know that he expresses views that have no meaning to himself, under the urgings of a gigantic need for attention. However, I should remember the origins of the man, when in “Unsafe at Any Speed” he made consumer interests an element of concern on the part of formerly indifferent manufacturers.

  24. Superhawk Avatar
    Superhawk

    Begging your pardon…
    But when you say “that government imposition of medical treatment violates individual rights…” are you saying that when medical treatment is “imposed” on people who are attempting suicide that this violates their rights? Do we not pump someone’s stomach or not bind their wrists? After all, they’ve made it pretty clear that they don’t wish to live.
    My concern about this case from the beginning is not what the situation is now as it relates to right to die issues, but what it will be 30 years from now. Is there going to be a point where we cross the line between helping someone die for their sakes and killing them for our sakes? Will we recognize that point when we get to it? Will it be too easy to slip over the edge because of all the steps we’ve taken before?
    I made the point in a post last week.
    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2005/03/19/the-slippery-slope-groningen-and-terri/

  25. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    Ruth,
    I’m sure you’ll catch me some other time.

  26. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    I probably have a more libertarian temperament or philosphy of government than the average person. But the Libertarian Party, and many people who describe themselves as libertarian, have policy opinions that are so contrary to my views that I cannot bring myself to call myself a libertarian.
    It’s as if the libertarian perspective is the only tool in their toolbox that they allow themselves to use, whether it’s the most appropriate one or not.
    Neal Boortz is a very bright, very decent, and very successful fellow, so I admire and respect him. But I do not understand how the Sunday night intervention by the Congress and the President was anti-libertarian. I just don’t see it at all.
    The courts had intervened to allow Ms. Schiavo’s guardian to euthanize her. Her parents countered that this should not be done. If anything, it seems the libertarian position would be to assume that Ms. Schiavo would want to live unless she had left instructions to the contrary. And the Congressional/Presidential position seems to correspond to that assumption a lot more so than the judicial position does.

  27. plunge Avatar
    plunge

    “And the Congressional/Presidential position seems to correspond to that assumption a lot more so than the judicial position does.”
    The judicial position was based around following the law. The Congressional opinion was based upon hysteria, misrepresentation of the facts, and a laughable if it wasn’t so scary ignorance of what the power of Congress include (hint to Congress: you don’t get to directly decide the outcome of court individual rulings!)

  28. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    Mullah kat is wishing people into hell. Not much of a Christian sentiment. But damn good for a mullah! Stay tuned for her next post, when she issues a fatwa on all doctors and judges in Florida who disagree with her.

  29. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Matthew:
    You wrote: The courts had intervened to allow Ms. Schiavo’s guardian to euthanize her. Her parents countered that this should not be done.”
    Euthanization involves chemical intervention. Surely you realize you are not dealing with facts? I tend to be optimistic and think everyone has good intentions. You are falsifying.
    LYNN:
    ‘Terry is not “hooked up to life support”. While she needs help with bodily functions, her body functions without help.’
    Are you fully functional? Perhaps changing your diaper which her family chose not to do is something you do routinely?
    Hubris:
    yeh, gotcha. I have seen a couple of family members who wanted to be let go die with a lot of profits and a lot of hooked up stuff go to these arrangements.
    To All
    And I intercepted a fundraising appeal to my schizophrenic mom who is constantly donating to appeals that give more than 80% of their funds to fundraisers … not your problem. But I know where Kat’s funds are coming from.
    My mother became a republican about the time her schizophrenia was diagnosed.
    Lord love you all

  30. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    Derek–I don’t have time to play silly games. I am too busy getting ready for Easter dinner. Your baby sitter gets paid for looking after you, but she doesn’t seem to be doing her job.
    Ruth:(But I know where Kat’s funds are coming from. ) My funds come from my being well educated and having a good job. But if you want want me to send you some money so you can buy some meds, I will.
    Does Schizophrenia run in the family?

  31. Derek Avatar
    Derek

    Mullah kat speaks—the worl laughs!

  32. John Avatar
    John

    The humanist outlook favored by the “Terri must die” crowd judges her fitness for life based only upon her level of brain function, and disregards the belief that she may at the same time retain her soul.
    If she does in fact have a soul, who decides when it shall be released?
    If it is to be made by human beings, what is the criteria for this type of decision?

  33. Jon Avatar
    Jon

    As the Terri Schiavo tragedy continues, we’ve learned that most Americans believe that these complex, deeply private end-of-life decisions should be made by families, not the government.
    What we’ve also learned that is that one of the Americans who apparently feels that way is none other than Tom Delay. The Los Angeles Times reports that in 1988, Mr. Delay’s own family chose to end life support for their 65 year old father, severely injured in a tragic accident:

    “There was no point to even really talking about it,” Maxine DeLay, the congressman’s 81-year-old mother, recalled in an interview last week. “There was no way he (Charles) wanted to live like that. Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn’t have wanted to live that way.”
    Doctors advised that he would “basically be a vegetable,” said the congressman’s aunt, JoAnne DeLay.
    When the man’s kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. “Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated,” said his medical report, citing “agreement with the family’s wishes.” His bedside chart carried the instruction: “Do Not Resuscitate.”
    On Dec. 14, 1988, the senior DeLay “expired with his family in attendance.”     (Source: LA Times, 3/26/05)

    In a further irony for the tort reform crusader Delay, his family filed a product liability lawsuit and later received a $250,000 settlement.
    In 1988 and beyond, the Delay family suffered a terrible tragedy, one which should elicit only our sympathy, not our judgment. Surely all Americans can respect their pain, their preferences – and their privacy.

  34. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    And we learn that Greer got rewarded for his rulings.
    According to Florida’s Department of State, Pinellas County Circuit Court Judge George W. Greer received a contribution of $250 for his 2004 re-election campaign from Felos & Felos, the law firm of George Felos. The Empire Journal also reported contributions to Greer were made by three other lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo at various stages in the case. Deborah Bushnell, Gwyneth Stanley and Stephen G. Nilsson each contributed at least $250 to Greer’s re-election campaign, as did court-appointed attorneys representing the husband’s interest, Pacarek & Herman and Richard Pearse. Ronald D. Rotunda, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Empire Journal he sees such contributions as problematic. He cites a 2002 poll of the American Bar Association concluding 84 percent of all Americans are concerned that the impartiality of judges is compromised by their need to raise campaign contributions. Rotunda said judicial campaign contributions constitute or appear to constitute a tacit quid pro quo in which the judge favors or tilts towards the contributor-litigant.

  35. SloppyDawg Avatar
    SloppyDawg

    Just a couple of things for Kat:
    And I wish her murderers go to hell.
    Do you feel that way about the “murderers” who pulled the plug on Sun Hudson? Or don’t young, poor children count in your book?
    And I’m sure that Judge Greer — a Republican — put his reputation on the line for $1,000.
    And quoting The Empire Journal doesn’t help your case any. Might as well quote the Weekly World News. I can see the headline now: Judge Greer and dozens of other judges — including Antonin Scalia — conspire with Batboy against Terri Schiavo!

  36. John Avatar
    John

    Jeff, I’m surprised you’ve forgotten about Boortz’s on-air battle with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly a couple of years back, which ended with O’Reilly calling him an evil SOB (Boortz was on his show to defend a group of white high school students who were holding an off-campus segregated prom. He took the libertarian view and said as a non-school event it was their own business, while O’Reilly said the school should take action, and went off when Boortz said some comments with racial overtones that O’Reilly had made a few days earlier at an event in Washington was the reason why he was going after a bunch of white Georgia high school students).
    Made for some fun TV that night, and his stance, while unpopular, was pretty much in line with the libertarian stance he’s holing in the Schaivo case.

  37. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Lovely Easter to you all. Hope you all love your fellow man/woman, and your day is full of positive values. (here it’s snowing, but the flowers are in bloom!)

  38. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    Ruth,
    Euthanasia has nothing to do with chemicals. It means “mercy killing”, killing someone whose quality of life is so horrible that the person no longer wishes to live, or no longer would want to live.
    It can be done with chemicals, poison gas, a bullet, a pillow over the face, whatever.
    I challenge anyone to find any instance of my falsifying anything.
    Happy Easter.

  39. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    Plunge,
    Florida law actually forbids euthanasia, and only allows life support to be withdrawn under very narrow cicurmstances.
    See Florida Statute 765.
    The Florida courts did not follow their own state statute, thus depriving Ms. Schiavo of her rights. The Congress and the President intervened to retstore some of those rights to her in federal court. They were unsuccessful, but they were no more ignorant than you or I.
    Happy Easter.

  40. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    matthewg:
    You wrote: “Euthanasia has nothing to do with chemicals. It means “mercy killing”, killing someone whose quality of life is so horrible that the person no longer wishes to live, or no longer would want to live.”
    Let’s see, it seems you are defining euthanasia as an end to life for some particular reason. That is not a method, it’s a reason. Of course, we can empathize with Ms Schiavo and imagine easily that we would not want to live in her condtition. But ‘euthanasia’ is not an analysis of anyone’s feelings. Maybe you don’t see misinterpretation as falsification. Maybe you are wrong.
    And may you know Easter’s joys.

  41. Matthew Goggins Avatar
    Matthew Goggins

    Thank you, Ruth, for acknowledging that I may not have been actually falsifying anything.
    Here are some definitions of euthanasia you might want to like to look at:
    euthanasia
    euthanasia
    euthanasia
    euthanasia
    Have a happy Easter week!

  42. Jon H Avatar
    Jon H

    Ruth: “Actually, have you read Dante’s Inferno? or seen paintings in the Sistine Chapel? You will note that the dead are represented as entering immediately into their reward, whether it be heaven or hell.”
    Actually, in Dante (and maybe in folklore) a soul can end up in hell even before death. For a really bad person, the soul goes down to hell, and a demon takes posession of the body for the rest of its natural life.