Posted on 07/21/2006 10:55:13 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Yesterday President Bush vetoed a bill that, had it become law, would have deeply eroded respect for human life. It was a courageous act because there was enormous pressure on him to agree to fund more embryo-destructive research.
After vetoing this bill, the president signed one for funding research into methods of creating pluripotent stem cells—the kind that can be turned into many types of body tissue without creating or killing human embryos.
Not surprisingly, there was an outpouring of vitriol directed not only against the president but also against conservative Christians. A full-page ad in the New York Times, funded by a liberal front group called DefConAmerica, screamed, “The religious right is imposing its will on all Americans. . . . That loud noise you hear is the wall between church and state crumbling.”
Wait a minute. Aren’t Christians allowed to have a voice in politics like everybody else, or has the First Amendment been repealed?
Other critics claim Bush is anti-science. The bill he vetoed was about funding, not banning research—billions in taxpayer money for something private companies refuse to support. Why? Because the prospects of it leading to any cures are very poor. As President Reagan said when he outlawed stem-cell research: If private companies won’t put up their money, why should the taxpayers? Good question.
Another argument we hear is that embryonic stem-cell researchers only want to use so-called “spare” embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. False: Many researchers really want to engage in so-called “therapeutic cloning”—the cloning of huge numbers of embryos in the attempt to find cures for diseases, to which the bill the president vetoed would have opened the door.
Another false claim is that we ought to proceed with this research because everybody else is doing it. That would be news in Canada, Norway, Switzerland, and Australia, where cloning research is illegal. Both Germany and France have embraced the same position President Bush has.
The supporters of embryo-destructive research want to cross a great moral divide. They are seeking not only to destroy human life made in God’s image but also to manufacture life made in man’s image. Tragically, we are losing this fight, however, because too few people understand the issues.
That’s why I recommend an excellent new book called How to Be a Christian in a Brave New World. The authors are bioethicist Nigel Cameron and Joni Eareckson Tada. Nigel and Joni grapple brilliantly with the brave new world of biotech challenges—stem-cell research, cloning, euthanasia, even the reshaping of human nature.
The authors—both good friends of mine—believe that Christians need to be well informed in order to argue the case about these new technologies and what they really mean. This book is going to help Christians sort out the arguments and see through the propaganda.
I hope you’ll read this book and share it with your church, and you can find out information about it on our website. The secular world wants us to pipe down; but as Christians and as citizens, we need to speak out when it comes to new technologies that may lead us down the seductive path to a Brave New World and killing humans.
Heck, maybe the president should be on the hook for paying for my gas when I drive to church, or be on the hook for drinks and panty money whenever some guy wants to go to the strip club...wouldn't want to violate the separation of church and state, dontchaknow?
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
It is too bad his veto power never found its way into matters of state, as well as matters of ideology.
What a brave President we have! He gets attacked on all sides for doing the right thing...in the defense of life and liberty.
Amazing times we live in...
Aren’t Christians allowed to have a voice in politics like everybody else, or has the First Amendment been repealed?
Indeed~!
Bing and go.
Embryonic stem cell research isn't about curing disease, it's about devaluing human life.
Shalom.
Only liberal,gay,pro-abortion "Christians" are supposed to be politically active</s>
Stem cell research isn't illegal. Bush isn't trying to make it illegal. The feds as far as I know are continuing to fund research on lines already begun. Yet to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left you'd think Bush was putting arsenic in Grandma's meds. He's simply saying the Feds don't want to fund research using new stem cell lines. That seems like an extremely moderate reasonable position to take. If the potential for this research is so great that Bush is accused of horrible things for failing to fund it, why aren't pharmaceutical companies stampeding to do it themselves? That would be a more appropriate avenue for funding anyway. This is all a tempest in a teapot, IMHO.
Oh, what, them again?!
Yep-you never hear anyone screeching about "separation of church and state" when Hildebeast or algore and their cohorts speak to black congregations in their churches and encourage them to be politically active.
It's weird. I come from a long line of Dems, but the parties have changed places since the 50's. I still hold that McCarthy was on to something and that's when everything started turning the wrong way...
Oh good grief it is not. People doing this research aren't sitting around in little rooms ringing their hands like Snidely Whiplash and revelling in devaluing human life.
Not consciously. People often don't really know their motivations. There are also those who aren't really thinking about it and are just going along. But it is still true that the push for embryonic stem cell research is the push to devalue human life. If it were truly a desire to cure disease then these people whould be focusing their attention on the therapies and methodologies that have actually shown some promise.
Shalom.
The question of whether to pay taxpayers' money out by the millions is certainly a matter of "state" (as contrasted with "church.")
As for "ideology": can you define that for us all in a way that distinguishes it from "political philosophy" or "principle"? BTW, I would have liked a few more vetoes over the past 5 years, but as for the particular matter at hand, this one's a good one.
That should tell you something.
One wonders why some lobbyists are so frantic about pushing public funding for something so dubious, unless they also want to underline their belief that the early stages of a particular human being's life have zero moral significance.
I for one have always resisted the idea that children constitute some kind of "resource" for "progress" or "the nation" or "the good of the human race," and I will never accept that any of us--- at any age --- are just raw material for somebody else's project.
The question of whether to pay taxpayers' money out by the millions is certainly a matter of "state"...
----
Yes it is, but that is not the stated reason (by Bush himself) that he vetoed this legislation. Even the worst newspapers carried his explanation --- read it!!!
The "can" questions concern science. The "ought" questions, are, precisely, the realm of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.