Arthur Miller, playwright, celebrity, supposed man of integrity, apparently had a fourth child, whom he institutionalized when the baby was 1 week old, and refused to ackowledge for 40 years. (For an account here is a link to an article in Vanity Fair.

What does this say about Miller?

What do you think, based on your own ethical or religious convicitons, was his duty to the child?

For sake of completeness, I suppose, one has to note that Miller was a well known and vocal atheist. (NB: I do not mention this as an attack on all atheists, or any atheists on this board. This fact may not be known to everyone who wishes to comment, and is, perhaps relevant.)

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

I will not and can not judge Miller for his actions. This is how one man dealt with what life brought to him. I think that Miller tried the best he could and did what he thought was the best considering all involved.

We might disagree with someone actions, but we are not in their shoes. We have not been where they were and seen what they saw.

In over all I see that Daniel became what he did become, because of his fathers choice.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

I do understand you, and your position.

I sometimes wonder, though, when people say this, and do this, are they not abdicating their responsibility to make moral and ethical judgments? An awful lot of evil can be passed over by "not judging" others for the reprehensible things they do; that may make for a quiet and peacefuel life, and World, but don't the wronged deserve justice??

On that note, here is a rather interesting link, having to do with Heinrich Himmler's great-neice, and her efforts to come to with her family's legacy of hatred.

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

Dear Eolas,
I did not read the second article. Articles of such nature provoke sadness in me. I deal with what is brought to my attention, but believe strongly that Love, hope and compassion will bring about a change in this world, not sadness.

I understand the point you are trying to make. But we don't always see the bigger picture:

A lot of good came out of Miller putting his son into a institution. Not just for Daniel, but for all disabled ones.

"Daniel also joined Starlight and People First, two "self-advocacy" groups that promote the rights of disabled people to govern their own lives. "He wouldn't miss a meeting," says Godbout. In 1993, Daniel attended a ceremony to celebrate the closing of the Mansfield Training School, Southbury's sister institution. Three years later, Southbury came under a federal contempt order, and the question of whether it should be closed became the subject of a fiery political debate that continues today. Jean Bowen, an adviser to People First, remembers hearing Daniel speak out at meetings about his desire to see the institution shut down".

Would Daniel have been heard, if he didn't have a famous dad? Would he have been able to get the public attention he did, if it weren't for his father being famous? Daniel was able to point at the cruel conditions in these institutions and cause many institutes to be closed. He also contributed to the research done that lead to special education and early intervention programs. Where would we (the world) be if Daniel was never born? Or if he did not have Down-syndrome? Or if his father did not put him into an institution? Or if his father was not famous?

All things to think about.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

Almost certainly, yes. He was denied and ignored for years. Even when Miller died, only one paper mentioned the fact he had 4 children, not 3...but even they did not know if Daniel was alive.

His father never visited him, never spared a thought for him (apprently); even his closest friends were unaware that Miller had a fourth child. If Daniel became a spokeman for people with Downs Syndrom, he did it on his own, without benefit of his father's fame.

I'm sorry you didn't read the second story; it was not a story of sadness, but of someone coming to terms with truly difficult things.

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

Then I will read it : ) But I did read the first article all the through and it is not true that he never visited him. But I am not sticking up for him or his actions; all I am saying that there is a bigger picture. Good things came from a "bad" situation, therefore we should not judge according to the action or appearance of what happened, but try to seek a deeper meaning how someone's action even though judge as bad can be viewed through the eyes of love. This is not a wishy-washy, mishy-mushy approach to do away with evil; I believe the world is ready to see things in a bigger picture.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection