|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Monday, July 31, 2006
Costs and Consequences
John Leo rebuts the idea that opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is extreme or resistant to science.
Conservative opposition to evolutionary theory and resistance to data on global warming has hurt too, enabling Democrats to lump all three issues as examples of an anti-science mentality. But the lumping is unfair. Unlike the issues of evolution and global warming, in the stem-cell debate nobody is challenging the science involved. The issue is one of moral judgment.
An ad by the Campaign to Defend the Constitution identifies one stem-cell scientist as "a lone voice who breaks with the mainstream medical establishment in his rejection of embryonic stem-cell advancement." In fact, there are many mainstream scientists who oppose the killing of tiny embryos. Many more think that the government shouldn't be financing such morally dicey research in any way. They have a point. Though I would note that criticisms of evolutionary or global warming theories are themselves not typically anti-science -- but only part of a search for true science -- the point is well taken that the stem-cell debate does not hinge upon the science. Critics of embryo-based research may argue that other sources of stem cells offer as much or more hope as embryos, but that is by no means the real issue involved. After all, if there were no moral qualms with embryonic destruction, few would dispute that such research would be worth trying. On the other hand, since the process involves tampering with and destroying human life, the potential results of any subsequent medical discoveries cannot match the moral cost.
--- Thursday, July 27, 2006
'Mean' to Girls
The New York Times agrees with the sentiment that the Child Custody Protection Act is an unnecessary and spiteful piece of legislation.
No one knows how many under-age girls seek out the help of a friend or a relative to get them out of a state that requires parental consent for an abortion and into one of the two dozen states that don't. The number may not be very large. The underlying intent of the bill's sponsors was to score pre-election points with social conservatives who are looking for reassurance that the Republican majority still cares about the abortion issue, and to do it in a way that would not alarm moderate voters who believe that parents should know if their child is pregnant and considering an abortion....
Supporters of the bill conjured up images of lascivious older men ferrying off their sexual prey to out-of-state abortion clinics. Opponents envisioned a concerned grandmother or aunt, trying to help a child-victim of incest or parental abuse. But the bottom line is that the sexual predator would already be subject to prosecution for statutory rape, while the grandmother should not be the target of legal harassment at all. One wonders, however, how "mean" proponents of the bill could be if they merely want to protect young girls from potential predators. Wouldn't it be better to stave off wicked evildoers, even if it (supposedly) inconvenienced Grandma? And as Kathryn Jean Lopez points out in National Review, it's not like those "lascivious older men" wouldn't have reason to skirt the law.
The New York Times today also argues -- as some did on the Senate floor earlier this week -- that the Child Custody Protection Act is unnecessary, that in the case of nightmare scenarios where an adult male is involved with a child and takes her for an abortion out of state, statutory rape laws already on the books will get him. Uh, duh. Odds are, he knows that better than anyone. Which is why he's off with the minor to get the baby taken care of. What seems evident is that the NY Times, like other organizations diligently defending the right to abortion, have a knee-jerk rebuke to even the slightest hint that abortion might be curtailed -- or made somehow more difficult. Perhaps it is equally true that pro-lifers are overjoyed at the chance to put a chink in the armor of Roe v. Wade policy. I know I am. But even under the shadow of Roe and other decisions, this law is certainly constitutional and is the least we could do to protect young girls from forces and decisions that could damage their bodies and souls.
--- Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Crossing the Border of Choice
In another in a series of controversial, social-policy votes on Capitol Hill, the Senate yesterday passed a bill that would restrict young girls from crossing state lines to avoid parental notification laws to have an abortion.
In a statement, Mr. Bush said that "transporting minors across state lines to bypass parental consent laws regarding abortion undermines state law and jeopardizes the lives of young women."
Critics questioned the necessity of the measure, saying it would apply to only a small number of cases and could result in criminal charges against close relatives or clergy members who interceded to help in a time of personal crisis.
Proponents of the bill, acknowledging that it was unknown how often such incidents occurred, said abortion clinics in states without such parental involvement laws had advertised that no consent was needed in an effort to appeal to those interested in avoiding such requirements. Predictably, Planned Parenthood is appalled and concerned that such a law could harm the "health and safety" of pregnant teenage girls.
"The Senate showed a frightening lack of compassion for American teens and a disturbing willingness to play politics with their health and safety today," said PPFA Vice President of Public Policy Stephenie Foster. "We all want our daughters to come to us, but what is most important is that they are safe. Forbidding young people from turning to trusted family members when they are in crisis does not prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion. Parents need support to keep their kids healthy and safe -- not laws that criminalize family members for helping teens get access to good medical care." One must wonder, of course, why "good medical care" would require an underage girl to sneak across state lines to duck the law. In fact, Planned Parenthood and NARAL's entire deranged worldview is exposed by the fact that the group so doggedly equates abortion with a child's well being. Yet ironically enough, the problem is that abortion is a much more serious endeavor than such a view allows. Not to mention that the rules of law and family are undermined by allowing girls to be escorted to less restrictive jurisdictions. Even from a strictly legal view, this act works to uphold the wishes of a family's home state.
But the bottom line is that our daughters are not protected or served by allowing them freer reign to a process so serious and permanent as abortion. When a young girl becomes pregnant, there is an inherent tragedy in her loss of innocence -- but to try to reverse the effects by removing the baby only compounds the tragedy. Despite the spin, there is no sense in which a girl will be less safe by the passing of this law. Though she might be much safer if she can avoid the teachings of Planned Parenthood.
--- Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Breaking Up the Bay State
During a week where the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass an amendment to protect the traditional definition, another marriage-related news item flew largely under the radar -- the separation of the "married" homosexual couple whose lawsuit led to the legalization of same-sex unions in Massachusetts.
The Goodridges, who selected a common surname after perusing their families' histories, declined to comment Friday on the split. They have a 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
Family spokeswoman Mary Breslauer said Friday: "Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart. As always, their No. 1 priority is raising their daughter.
Like the other plaintiff couples in this case, they made an enormous contribution toward equal marriage, but they are no longer in the public eye and request that their privacy be respected."
Breslauer would not speculate whether the pressures associated with the legal battle had contributed to the Goodridges' breakup. Seven same-sex couples acted as plaintiffs in the Massachusetts lawsuit.
"I think this is much more about recognizing that plaintiff couples, even those that are at the center of the storm, are simply at the end real people with real lives," Breslauer said. And perhaps it is indeed irrelevant that these women would break up. Yet I can't help but get the sense that it makes the whole scheme of bringing same-sex "marriage" to Massachusetts seem like a fraud.
The bizarre insinuation is made that this dissolution actually makes the couple more "normal." But it is this kind of callous disregard for commitment that has long been tearing up traditional marriage from the inside. Not to mention that proponents of same-sex "marriage" have used the instability of marriages to justify the supposed need to give homosexuals a shot.
That the instigators whose work led successfully to the redefinition of marriage in one state should have such short-lived benefits from their efforts is no small matter -- and it suggests that the principle underlying the suit was not the deep, abiding "love" that was suggested. Meanwhile, it is tragic that a child must now endure not just the awkward and painful process of divorce, but an atypical, public one.
In the end, however, it does no good to dwell on relationships that begin with such a fatal moral flaw. The only real surprise here is that these women were so soon willing to risk publicity that could damage their cause.
--- Thursday, July 20, 2006
Vexed by the Veto
The President yesterday signed the first veto of his presidency to plug a growing leak in the culture of life he has tried to defend. As Joseph Loconte and Kathryn Lopez note in National Review, however, many of the President's detractors on the stem-cell issue have been quick to express disgust for this "anti-science" act, while doing little to promote better science in the process. Loconte writes:
President Bush's veto of a bill allowing federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research is generating a predictable cacophony of anguish and acrimony. "He has crushed the hopes of millions," according to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The New York Times editorial page talks as if Bush's veto signals the arrival of Torquemada on our shores. Historian Kevin Phillips, evidently unhinged from reality, decries an "American theocracy" in the making. As does the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, which accuses Bush of "choosing religious extremists over American lives."...This is the liberal narrative of the real meaning of the debate over stem-cell research: It is a tale of religious fanaticism standing in the way of hope and healing. And as if on cue, the LA Times (which is certainly not alone) laments the hopes that opponents of embryonic research have dashed.
By rejecting a bill that would have lifted some federal restrictions on funding for stem cell research, Bush handed a political victory to social conservatives, widened a rift in the Republican Party and gave electoral ammunition to his Democratic opponents. Oh, and he also landed quite a blow against scientific progress and human health. At his first veto ceremony, Bush piously surrounded himself with children who were adopted while still embryos in fertility clinics. The kids were telegenic symbols of the potential embedded in each human embryo, but entirely disingenuous ones; the bill Bush rejected wouldn't have prevented a single one of them from being born. The President may or may not have aided medical progress by yesterday's veto, but it did serve to guard bioethics and the sanctity of life from the largely unknown and unproven territory of embryo-destroying stem cells. Even if embryos are eventually determined to be the single most effective place to gather medically useful stem cells, nothing in "science" demands that we standardize and expand such methods now.
But on the other hand, even if the promised cures can indeed be found by destroying millions of embryos, we must not be led down a blind, utilitarian path that tampers with the foundations of human life. The moral cost is greater than the physical benefit.
--- Tuesday, July 18, 2006
A Cell-Sized Moral Dilemma
Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader who has largely been a stalwart conservative legislator, offers his defense of the embryonic stem-cell bill that is expected to reach President Bush's desk.
I am pro-life. I recognize that human life begins at conception; before coming to the Senate, I spent my life practicing medicine in order to save lives. Today, as the Senate discusses legislation about cutting-edge biological research, we will shape our debate around three separate proposals. All three are consistent with my deep-seated belief that human life has value at all stages of development.
While a law that would expand the range of stem cells eligible for federal funding has received the most attention, I think it is equally important that the Senate pass measures that will place "moral guardrails" around future research and accelerate efforts to find alternative means of securing cells for research. The danger with this Senate bill, however, is that it moves the moral guardrails set in 2001 by the President -- who himself, one could argue, moved moral guardrails away from earlier taboos. And with every promise of a new cure, every image of a young child who could be spared the pain of disease, comes the temptation to expand those moral boundaries into new territory.
Frist claims that the current legislation will hold research in check by limiting available embryos to those left over from in vitro fertilization. But if anything, the IVF process should be reconsidered if it results in such a substantial number of destroyed embryos. And there seems to be no reason to think that medical researchers who support embryonic stem-cell study will be satisfied with the "leftovers." Indeed, the NY Times suggests that the Senate isn't going far enough.
Our concern with the bill is how limited its reach would be. It would not allow federal financing of the most promising field of research, known as therapeutic or research cloning. Therapeutic cloning involves the creation of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and, sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. It is no more immoral to create and destroy embryos for therapeutic purposes than to create and destroy surplus embryos for fertility purposes. At the very least, the Times demonstrates how easy it is to jump over Frist's "guardrails." Far better to keep these questionable methods unfunded and unsupported and allow scientists to pursue processes that don't involve tampering with and destroying early human life.
--- Monday, July 17, 2006
Will the Camel Endure One More Straw?
A somewhat startling editorial from the LA Times points the fingers of blame in the Israel/Hamas-Hezbollah battle in the right direction.
Make no mistake about it: Responsibility for the escalating carnage in Lebanon and northern Israel lies with one side, and one side only. And that is Hezbollah, the Islamist militant party, along with its Syrian and Iranian backers. Reasonable minds can differ on the strategic wisdom of the Israeli response, but there can be no doubt about the blame for the mounting death toll on both sides of the border.
The international community has not been sufficiently forthright about this. A statement issued Sunday by the Group of 8 leaders meeting in Russia acknowledged that the crisis was triggered by cross-border raids on Israel by Hamas in Gaza and by Hezbollah in Lebanon. But reflecting Russian and French concerns, the statement shied away from pointing the finger at Damascus and Tehran. Instead, it merely condemned "the extremist elements and those that support them." No question, this is a fight that was started by the terrorists who have prodded and poked at Israel's patience since around 1948. The world squirms uncomfortably at Israel's intense retaliation, which is deemed "disproportionate." And certainly, civilian casualties must be avoided at all costs -- but the reality that such care could only be a unilateral effort demonstrates why this ballooning war is so difficult to manage.
What is truly disproportionate is that the terror groups lob rockets carelessly into civilian territory and then think that the release of a couple thousand of their captured minions is sufficient payment to stop the violence for another day. But it ought to be obvious by now that the Middle East conflicts are not going to be solved at the debate table -- particularly when the only objective of one side is the obliteration of the other.
And as Jeff Jacoby and Bill Kristol point out, the presence of Iran in the Hamas/Hezbollah attacks makes recent events yet more troubling and could broaden the conflict beyond the Middle East.
Senate Under the Microscope
The most important vote on Capitol Hill this week may not be the House's consideration of the marriage amendment. As crucial as that is, another set of bills in the Senate may hold the potential for farther reaching, more immediate effects. Three votes on stem-cell research are scheduled for tomorrow, the most controversial of which would widely expand President Bush's limited allocation of funds for studying embryonic stem cells -- and provide federal backing for a detached view of human embryos that could radically alter the culture's understanding of life. In the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol and Eric Cohen explain that such a shift would be unnecessary and ethically dangerous (National Review agrees).
The most important arguments for maintaining the Bush policy are moral: The federal government should not be a party to the destruction of nascent human lives. Yes, such embryos might be left over in fertility clinics, but the fact that they are unwanted does not change what they are or give us a license to destroy them. But even for those who are agnostic about the moral standing of human embryos, a policy that encourages the expanded use of federal dollars for research on "spare" embryos makes little sense when more promising alternatives apparently exist.
Of course, we cannot predict the scientific future--a fact too often ignored by those promising to cure "100 million" Americans if only we funded embryo research without limits. Even the most promising scientific alternatives are speculative. But this much we do know: Destroying more "spare" embryos is unlikely to advance stem cell science significantly. Rather, using federal dollars to fund such research will only lead to demands that further ethical lines be crossed. When using the "spares" doesn't produce results, the demand will be to fund the creation and destruction of embryonic human clones, an even more damaging leap into the brave new world. The good news is that, even though the bill is likely to pass, the President has thus far been steadfast in his opposition and intends to use his first veto to knock it down. As the headline of the Kristol article suggests, however, this may do no more than "stem the tide" of a growing pressure to use embryos for medical application.
At the very least, Congress is charging into territory where the ramifications -- positive and negative -- are unseen. This is not helped by the media and popular culture, which seem to declare it a foregone conclusion that stem cells from embryos are the hope of the future. Science does not yet concur.
Yet whether or not embryonic research eventually produces its promised medical miracles, American culture will be changed greatly if the callous destruction of embryos is thought acceptable and appropriate. If media and government open this Pandora's box, it is not likely to be shut anytime soon.
--- Thursday, July 13, 2006
Don't Rush to the Alter
A column in Slate suggests that opposition to same-sex marriage does not necessarily lead to a restriction of "gay rights."
How to reconcile the growing support for equal rights for gay Americans with the seemingly hardening opposition to gay marriage? It certainly suggests that homophobia is only part of the explanation for the widespread resistance to same-sex marriage. A lot of the resistance is less about sexual orientation than about sex difference. In other words, it's not about the difference between gay and straight; it's about the difference between male and female. By this logic, conventional marriage doesn't exclude gay couples from a special status reserved for straights; it excludes women from a special status reserved for men -- that of husband -- and excludes men from a status reserved for women -- that of wife.
Does this sound purely semantic? It's not. When San Francisco undertook its short-lived experiment with same-sex marriage, it confronted marriage certificate forms with blanks for the names of the "bride" and "groom." The city hastily rewrote them to read "first applicant" and "second applicant." And this is telling. Many people get married because they want the established sex roles the institution provides: a blushing, beautiful, white veil and miles-of-lace bride set off against her dashing, handsome, chivalrous groom. Same-sex marriage seems to undermine these very sex-specific statuses, leaving everyone a sex-neutral "applicant." Sure, we could say same-sex marriages involve two brides or two grooms, but something really is lost in this translation: At that point the terms do not describe distinctively gendered roles but are merely gendered descriptions of the same role. We could just as well say "male applicant" and "female applicant." This might explain why so many straight people think same-sex marriage will change the nature of marriage for them. In the end, this analysis seems to be merely a convoluted version of the argument that the more enlightened society becomes, the more we will be willing to accept homosexuality as morally neutral, or morally good. No need to fear that Americans are still uncomfortable with changing the definition of marriage -- just give it time. It is not bigoted to support the traditional union between a man and a woman -- just a little primitive.
And, of course, American culture is growing increasingly tolerant of -- or apathetic to -- the mainstreaming of homosexuality. This can hardly be attributed to a cultural enlightenment, however, so much as a subtle desensitization brought about by the pervasive messages of "inclusiveness" in media and politics. Marriage may be too visible a target for now, but it's time will come enough.
The result may be the same -- gradual acceptance of same-sex civil unions and, perhaps, eventually "marriages" -- but it won't leave behind a better America.
A Cup of Trembling Overflows
The world may be close to discovering the limits to how far Israel is willing to be pushed and poked by the terrorist enemies surrounding it. As Joel Mowbray reports from the region, the recent string of events may be demolishing the illusion that peace between Israel and its enemies was, or will be, within reach.
The reason ordinary, otherwise apolitical Israelis supported Gaza disengagement last year had nothing to do with Oslo-era delusions that peace was possible. Israelis simply want an end to the prolonged "negotiations" which never really lead anywhere. Unilateral disengagement was sold and supported on the idea that there was no partner with whom to negotiate, so Israel would just pull out to end the headache once and for all. It offered at least the hint of an opportunity for "normalcy."
Now the body politic appears poised to swing in the other direction, meaning no more appetite for unilateral concessions. Which, were that to happen, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would find the central -- perhaps only -- platform from his campaign left in tatters. Shortly after Olmert dropped "acting" from his title, the new political buzzword became "convergence," which was in essence a proposed disengagement from most of the West Bank. As a personal friend of Olmert's conceded to me today, "That's dead for now, at least for this term." As the past few decades have demonstrated, finding a strained semblance of peace in the region is rare and difficult, but escalating anger and violence is accomplished with short fuses. It seems likely enough that Israel's retaliation for the abduction of its soldiers will result in increasing and desperate attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah.
We could expect little else. As has long been the case, Israel fights for self-preservation and with the need to show strength. The enemies surrounding Israel fight for destruction and with a pride that can never admit weakness. Such are present in every battle, perhaps, but the terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups operate with an irrational and seething rage and pride that is unlikely to be soon tamed.
--- Monday, July 10, 2006
How Flimsy a Foundation
Time Magazine has an interesting interview with a newly installed (and controversial) Episcopal bishop that would seem to demonstrate all that is wrong with the denomination. And it's not, primarily, because the bishop is a woman.
Much more troubling is that we learn from this interview, among other things, that the main focus of the church is fixing AIDS, education, and poverty -- rather than preaching the message of Christ. That "the best of recent scholarship" trumps whatever the Scripture might say. That only an arrogant worldview assumes that God cannot save a soul outside of Christ. And that these issues are merely "finer points of doctrine" that shouldn't result in fierce argument.
Yet the bishop hasn't merely picked a few obscure elements of doctrine with which to offer dispute -- she has thoroughly and radically redefined the most central tenets of Christ's gospel and Scriptural truth. In a column in the LA Times, Charlotte Allen describes some other Episcopal woes:
As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.
You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests. This doesn't seem to be an overstatement, and one wonders how a church can recover from such an abandonment of doctrine. A split in the Episcopal Church, and perhaps the Presbyterian Church (USA) as well, is all but inevitable, and there seems to be little reason left to try to reconcile theological differences. At this point, it's not just theology that is at odds, but rather the most fundamental questions of salvation, morality, and the person of Christ.
--- Friday, July 07, 2006
Something Old, Something New York
The Court of Appeals in New York yesterday determined that the constitution of that state does not, in fact, mandate the allowance of homosexual marriage. The New York Times is perplexed.
New York's highest court has harmed both the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and its reputation as a guardian of individual liberties by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
The 4-to-2 ruling by the Court of Appeals, which left standing the state's discriminatory marriage laws, comes at a time of intense debate over gay marriage. It leaves the highest court in Massachusetts as the only appellate court willing to require recognition of same-sex marriage.
The ruling involved some twisted legal reasoning. Judges on both sides agreed that marriage is a fundamental right entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection. But the majority decision, written by Judge Robert S. Smith, an appointee of Gov. George Pataki, said this fundamental right applies only to heterosexuals. It said limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples could be based on a sense that children benefit from being raised by two natural parents, even without any hard evidence to show that. Regardless of how intensely the Times may support same-sex marriage, that's not the most bothersome part of this editorial. What may be more disturbing is that the paper criticizes the Court of Appeals for not branching out on its own -- as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did -- to mandate policy that the state and federal law have never acknowledged. It is absurd to suggest that the court "harmed" the constitution in this case, even if the concept of marriage were truly as fluid as the Times wishes.
Neither the high court in New York, nor any other segment of the judiciary, has the obligation, right, or power to alter hundreds of years of American law, and thousands of years of human tradition.
--- Thursday, July 06, 2006
The Call of Obama
But of course, Republicans aren't the only ones seeking to answer questions of faith and values in the current political scene. Peter Wood at National Review critiques a recent speech given by Illinois Senator Barack Obama that attempted to blend Christian beliefs with Democratic ideals.
Obama, in [Jim] Wallis's terms, definitely "gets it." Since his attention-grabbing speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama has rightly been recognized as a rising star of his party. On that occasion, he seemed to repudiate the racial resentment mongering that has become a standard part of Democratic campaigns. But a close reading of the text, as well as his subsequent statements, made clear that he was essentially triangulating. He was saying No to Sharpton-style race-baiting, but No as well to any politics that would abandon race-based grievances. Obama's path is to veil racial grievances in the less-threatening diversity lingo of educrats and corporate human resource departments. Smart move.
Obama's Call to Renewal speech similarly triangulates. He is looking for the sweet spot between the hard-core secularist worldview of many Democrats and the tough-minded Biblical literalism of many Christians. If it's triangulation, it's also tightrope walking. For the sake of those hard-core secularists, he needs to offer solid, pragmatic reasons for cozying up to Christians. For the sake of the Christians whom he hopes to persuade to support Democratic political ideas, he needs to offer solid, credible assurance that his party will take their faith seriously -- and is not being merely pragmatic.
He woos the secularist side by reminding Democrats that there are so darn many of these committed Christian believers -- 38 percent of Americans. They are organized, their church communities mobilize people, and they have access to a powerful way of speaking, which Democrats could use too. Religion, moreover, is a great motivator that could help capture elite opinion to support Democratic policies. Obama is certainly an articulate spokesman for the "religious left," but his speech offered little substance to declare what an actual Christian believer -- or Democrat believer, for that matter -- should look like. He derides "extreme" leaders on the right and puts forth some politically correct values forced into theological terminology, but otherwise there is nothing to really convict, challenge, or inspire his party toward faith.
Latter-Day Presidents
Cal Thomas offers an interesting column suggesting that America -- namely, American Republicans -- won't be ready to elect a Mormon for President, even if he matches their ideology more than other candidates.
In a telephone interview, Governor Romney tells me he doesn't believe religion is a factor "when people know the real individual." Asked whether he might follow Kennedy's example and make a speech about church and state, Romney says, "There may well be a time when something is said by me or something happens that crystallizes the issue for people, but I believe the people in this country subscribe to the Lincoln view that when people take the oath of office they abide by America's political religion and that they place the Constitution and the rule of law first."
The poll results may reflect attitudes toward Mormonism that are similar to what non-Catholic voters thought about Catholics four decades ago. Some may get their impressions of Mormonism from the HBO series "Big Love," about a modern polygamist and his three wives (the church banned polygamy in 1890 as a condition for Utah's admission to the Union, which took place in 1896.)
If an ambulance hits me, I care less where or how the driver worships than I do about his sense of direction to the nearest hospital. It troubles me not that a Mormon might be president. It does trouble me a great deal that so many people would think a person's faith - whether one shares it or not - should be the only reason to deny someone the presidency. Perhaps if Romney decides to run it won't matter too much of that 37 percent, anymore than it eventually did during the 1960 campaign when the issue was Catholicism. I have not been able to generate excitement about a Mitt Romney candidacy, in large part because of his religion. However, in envisioning some of the scenarios that Thomas presents, I find it easy enough to consider supporting Romney, especially against several other potential Republican nominees. His Mormonism would be an obstacle -- but not an impenetrable wall.
The reason is simply this: A Christian/Catholic candidate who is unwilling to take firm stands against abortion and for marriage, for example, would seem to be a far more dangerous threat to our moral society than one who does take such stands but is Mormon. That is not to say that the same would be true of a member of any religion -- a President professing many, if not most, other religions would bring an inherent tension with the majority of Americans; nor is it to concede that Mormon doctrine is consistent with Christian teaching.
By no means should we discount the belief system of a political candidate, but we must be careful to balance his professed worldview with his track record and policy positions.
A Clone in the Dark
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Eric Cohen and Robert George warn of the political and cultural march to accept embryo-destroying stem-cell research.
Over and over again, scientists and ethicists say: Here and no farther. And then they seek to go farther, in the name of "progress." Yet this moral challenge also presents us with a golden political opportunity. Last week the Senate agreed to consider three bioethics bills: one that would permit federal funding for research on embryos left over in fertility clinics, one that would prohibit fetal farming and one that would fund various alternative methods of producing genetically controlled, pluripotent stem cells -- just the kind of stem cells we would get from cloning, but without the embryo destruction....
In the end, the lesson of the cloning scandal is not simply that specific research guidelines were violated; it is that human cloning, even for research, is so morally problematic that its practitioners will always be covering their tracks, especially as they try to meet the false expectations of miraculous progress that they have helped create. If cloning is really so important for research, then overturning the Bush administration policy to fund research on "spare" IVF embryos is not very useful. But because cloning is so morally problematic, we need to find another way forward. Cloning of humans is indeed an atrocious and -- for now, anyway -- obviously immoral meddling in the life process. Yet this can only remain so if we as a society are willing to draw a sharp line in the sand of science as to what is acceptable and forbidden in medical research. Yet the drive to permit and fund embryonic stem-cell research, which the Senate seems increasingly poised to support, will only blur that line and make it more difficult to justify the taboo against cloning. And as this article implies, there is no small connection between the production of embryos for research and the processes of human cloning -- even though it may be given a euphemistic name.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
