It’s time for a gut check for conservative Christians in America. If we are on the right side of one of the greatest social, moral, and spiritual issues of our time, then we need to dig deep, hold our ground, strengthen our commitment, and redouble our efforts, regardless of cost or consequence. But if we are on the wrong side of this issue, then we had best throw in the towel before we lose all credibility and further damage the reputation of the Lord.
The issue of which I speak is that of “gay rights” (or, more broadly, “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights”), and on an almost daily basis, the mainstream media assures us of two things: 1) Just as many conservative Christians were on the wrong side of slavery, segregation, and women’s rights, we are on the wrong side of the gay rights issue today. 2) It is futile to oppose gay activism any longer, since the battle has already been won and Americans have embraced “equality and tolerance.”
Put another way, those who continue to argue that homosexual practice is sinful or that same-sex couples should not have the right to marry will soon be consigned to the dung heap of public opinion, there to join past generations of slave traders, misogynists, and members of the KKK. Is this true?
To be sure, we are living in times of stunning social transition:
For the third straight year, President Barack Obama has declared June to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, also commemorating the Stonewall Riots of June 1969.
In New York, both Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg are making an aggressive attempt to legalize same-sex marriage now.
One of the country’s most prestigious law firms, King & Spalding, dropped the United States Government as its client under pressure from gay activists after agreeing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
Media outlets have praised the students of a Florida high school for selecting a cross-dressing teenage boy as their prom queen.
Major league baseball teams have now joined the “It Gets Better” campaign, designed to encourage gay and lesbian youth and teenagers in their sexual orientation, and “It Gets Better” commercials, sponsored by Google and even featuring a word of encouragement from Pixar’s “Woody” of Toy Story fame, have been broadcast during NBA playoff games.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated some of America’s most respected family ministries as “hate groups” because of their alleged spreading of misinformation regarding homosexuality.
When a Chik-Fil-A store in Pennsylvania donated brownies and sandwiches to a pro-family organization that opposed same-sex marriage, college students began to call for boycotts of Chik-Fil-A on their campuses. At the same time, major corporations pour millions of dollars into gay activist organizations and are widely praised for their philanthropy.
And the list goes on… and on. Is it time for us to capitulate? Are we on the wrong side of history once again? Certainly not.
It is true that there are many kind, friendly, hard-working, conscientious LGBT people and they deserve to be treated with civility and respect, but when it comes to biblical truth, there is not a single argument that has been presented or a single discovery that has been made – historically or linguistically or archeologically or exegetically – that would cause us to alter our understanding that God’s Word opposes homosexual practice. And it is true that there are many devoted, loving, same-sex couples, but there is still not the slightest reason to redefine marriage – society’s most fundamental social institution – nor, for that matter, has any proponent of same-sex marriage provided an adequate answer to the most basic of questions, namely, What’s so special about the number “two” if marriage is not the union of a man and a woman?
When it comes to recent polls that indicate that a majority of Americans – especially among younger Americans – now believe same-sex marriage should be legal, we must remember that polls do not tell us what is right, they simply report public opinion. Why in the world should Christian leaders bow down to polls when it comes to determining morality?
We must also bear in mind that other recent polls indicate that most Americans, quite remarkably, believe that more than 25% of the population is gay (as opposed to the correct figure, which is closer to 3%), with Americans under 30 years of age putting the figure at close to 33%. This is an almost unbelievably inaccurate picture (thanks to TV and the media, no doubt), and one that certainly influences public perception towards LGBT people.
The fact is that followers of Jesus are called to swim against the tide of popular opinion and go against the grain of popular morality rather than do what is convenient or expedient. And so, the real question is not whether we are on the right side of history. The question is: Will we do what is right or will we cave in to culture?
Dr. Michael Brown is the author of A Queer Thing Happened to America and the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network.
Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “Safe Schools” Czar, may have his department on the chopping block as the Federal Government looks to cut down on unnecessary spending. According to CNSNews.com:
A draft report by the president’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform calls for, among other items, eliminating a division of the Education Department run by one of the most controversial appointees in the Obama administration: Kevin Jennings, the safe schools czar.
The draft report, which will be finalized by Dec. 1 if 14 of the 18 members agree, calls for eliminating the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, which would save taxpayers an estimated $1.8 billion.
The intentions of Jennings, who ran and helped found the radical gay activist group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), have been in question since a troubling episode he himself recounted surfaced involving his advice to a 15 year old student when he was a teacher in Massachusetts. CNSNews recounts the story below:
In a widely circulated 2000 speech, Jennings recalled a 15-year-old teenager named Brewster. “And I said, ‘Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?’” Jennings said of the 1988 incident. “And he said, ‘Well, I’m tired.’ And I said, ‘Well, we all are tired and we all got to school today. And he said, ‘Well I was out late last night.’”
“And I said, ‘What were you doing out late on a school night.’ And he said, ‘Well, I was in Boston,’” Jennings recalled. “Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’”
“He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well, I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say,” Jennings added.
“Knew I should say something quickly, so I finally said, my best friend had just died of AIDS the week before. I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’ He said to me something I will never forget. He said, ‘Why should I, my life isn’t worth saving anyway,’” Jennings said.
More on this episode is recounted in the video below:
Mr. Jennings is what I’ve come to term a “false physician,” seeking to impart a false identity to the troubled youth that are entrusted to him. The wounds are real, and the confusion is real (as was clearly evident in the case of this 15 year old). Yet, rather than leading these confused youth into their God-given identities as young men, and healing their wounds by cutting off these gates of Hell in their lives (in this case, anonymous sex with older men) with compassion, Jennings’ approach is to compound the problem permanently by acting like these illegal acts can be made “safer.”
With a radical gay activist like Jennings running the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, the ultimate goals and agenda of the office should be all too clear to the objective observer. The 1.8 Billion Dollars saved by its elimination will be welcomed.
Our nation is in need of help concerning our relationship with Israel. You may be very familiar with the following passage, but carefully read the following:
I am speaking the truth in Christ- I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit- that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)
If left to my own reasoning I might think Paul misspoke. Surely he should have said, “belonged,” yet the text says, “belongs.” Let us quickly review the seminal oracle which established this reality.
Now the LORD said to Abram, “… I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1a-3)
If the promises belong (Present-Tense) to Israel, then certainly the genesis and source of both covenants and promises are valid today. This foundation, Genesis 12:1-3, supports the promises. The English Standard Version correctly translates Genesis 12:3 – “…and him who dishonors you I will curse…” When one makes light of God’s choice one is making light of the God who chose.
In the light of this promise, please consider this: President Obama, in an over the top display of apparently reflexive reverence, symbolically abased the United States as he paid obeisance to the Saudi monarch. Within a year’s time he displayed a dishonoring dismissal of Israel in the person of Benjamin Netanyahu. Although our uniquely obsequious Chief Executive had no problem being photographed kowtowing to the brutal tyrant of China apparently he had issues about being captured in the same lens as the prime minister of Israel. Surely, if there was ever an example of personal (Obama) and institutional (President) dishonor of Israel, this would qualify. This incident illustrates and encapsulates the official attitude of the current administration.
However, (please read this carefully) President Obama is not the primary reason our nation is having a problem with Israel. In fact, it seems to me that it is a miracle our nation recognized Israel in the first place. From the inception of Israel’s founding, our State Department has been averse to the existence of the Jewish State and they are joined by many top-level military strategists and intelligence officers who have been ambivalent, at best. State Department career employees remain in place from presidential administration to administration. Our current administration’s actions and words, led by President Obama, exemplify a long term attitude of these bureaucrats and manifest already established policy.
President G. W. Bush modified the official stance, but recently, President Obama’s administration pressed the “reset” button and seized upon an excuse to reveal and run with our nation’s official outlook. At this time our President and State Department are united in their adversity to Israel. It is reported that earlier this year our Commander in Chief was enraged with Israel and subsequently our Secretary of State went to war with words, putting down the building up of Jerusalem, Israel’s capitol. Then General Petraeus stirred up pre-existing flames of fiery opposition to our alliance with Israel. Unlike NSA advisor General James Jones’ foray into comedic propaganda, this is no joke.
These official forces are joined by our news media, the arts and academia as they participate in an ongoing onslaught of slanted information aimed at our nation’s populace. However, despite this barrage, two thirds of our nation currently remain supportive of maintaining a strong relationship with Israel. Think about it. This is a strange phenomenon. It is a manifestation of mercy. We need to stand in the gap that this mercy might increase. Why? Please consider Psalm 122:6 – “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! “May they be secure who love you!“” In the light of this verse a question begs to be asked, “If they don’t love Jerusalem, how secure will they be?”
Let us pray for the overthrow of longstanding policy in our State Department. Let us pray for the thwarting of the current administration’s antipathy towards Israel. Let us pray for our nation and our leaders. Let us pray that our government would honor God’s purposes.
Within two weeks we’ll post some heart qualifications for effective intercession for our nation.
Here are two articles that may help us focus our prayers:
Editor’s Note: A guest article from N. Scott Rabinowitz.
On May 14 the nation of Israel celebrates its sixty-second birthday. Despite insurmountable odds, Israel has not only survived, it has prospered.
The United States has played an enormous part in that prosperity—at least until now. President Obama has demanded that Israel reset the Middle East history button.
On March 10, Obama dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to demand that Israel halt renewed building in East Jerusalem. The trip resulted in what Israeli ambassador Michael Oren called the “most serious crisis since 1975″ for U.S. and Israel relations.
That assertion was dramatically confirmed on March 23 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Washington to meet with the President. Failing to acquire concessions from the Prime Minister, Obama – in a breach of protocol, left Netanyahu to dine alone.
Despite extraordinary pressure from the White House, Netanyahu remains resolute regarding Israel’s right to build in East Jerusalem.
There are two reasons for this. First, Israel has a historical claim to the territory, a fact recognized by the international community. Second, Israel fought a series of defensive wars over the territory and the current borders are legitimate under the rules of international law.
Obama and other opponents of Israel’s sovereignty need to acquaint themselves with the history of Jerusalem and international law regarding the annexation of territory captured during a defensive war. If they did, they would discover the following:
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine recognized Jewish national rights to the entire territory in 1922. While recognizing the need to protect the rights of the territories’ Arab inhabitants, the Mandate declared that “recognition has been to the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine and to reconstituting their Jewish national home in that country.” When the UN replaced the League of Nations in 1946, its charter specifically stated that the UN must uphold the terms of all existing international instruments ratified by the League of Nations. In other words, the UN—and President Obama—are obligated to recognize Israel’s legitimate claims on Jerusalem.
That obligation would be less clear, however, had the Palestinians agreed to UN Resolution 181—the Partition Plan of 1947. Conceding that the creation of a single Jewish state was impossible, the resolution was a non-binding recommendation that called for the partition of “Palestine” into two separate states, with Jerusalem existing temporarily under the administration of the UN.
For over half a century, the Palestinians rejected a two-state solution. They did so because they were confident that their Arab neighbors would intervene and destroy Israel militarily. That never occurred and Palestinian dreams of statehood never materialized.
Resolution 181 was a non-binding resolution and more importantly, it was one that the Palestinians rejected. Moreover, the Arab aggression that ignited the 1967 war irreversibly changed the territorial landscape and made a return to borders that existed nineteen year earlier impossible. In 2004 President George W. Bush acknowledged this fact in a letter to Prime Minister Arial Sharon. “In light of new realities on the ground,” Bush wrote, a return to the armistice lines of 1949 is “unrealistic.”
The Palestinians discarded UN Resolution 181 more than sixty years ago but they now wish to resurrect it to legitimatize their claim to Jerusalem.
President Obama also wishes to hit the reset button. He chooses to ignore Israel’s legal claim to Jerusalem, the fact that the Palestinians rejected UN Resolution 181, and that the U.S. has acknowledged current geo-political realties make a return to previous borders impossible.
Despite adamant claims to the contrary, East Jerusalem does not meet the criteria of an occupied territory. Following the 1948 war, Jordan occupied East Jerusalem and expelled its Jewish community. By the standards of international law, Jordan’s nineteen year occupation of Jerusalem — not Israel’s — was illegal.
Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem in a war of self-defense makes it the legitimate claimant to the territory. Former Chief Judge of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, Stephen Schwebel wrote in 1970 regarding the matter: “Where the prior holder of the territory had seized the territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense, has against the prior holder, better claim.”
Why has the President turned on America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East and embraced the revisionist history of Israel’s enemies? As long as the U.S supports Israel’s claim to Jerusalem, Israel’s enemies will remain our enemies. President Obama has chosen to appease our enemies rather than stand by our ally.
About the Author: Noel Rabinowitz is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at The King’s College in New York City. You can contact Noel via his faculty profile located here.
The truth is that even with the executive order in place, the government will still subsidize abortions under the new health care law. Here’s how:
Starting in 2014, if a qualified person enrolls in a state-based private health insurance exchange that offers abortion coverage, the federal government will send tax dollars to that insurance provider to help offset the cost of the insurance coverage – coverage that includes abortion.
If you enroll in a taxpayer-subsidized health plan that covers abortion, the law requires you to make a separate payment of no less than $1 per month (an “abortion premium”) to the insurance company for abortion services. It doesn’t matter that you may object to the practice of abortion. It doesn’t matter that you may never actually have an abortion. You pay anyway. In fact, everyone who enrolls in a taxpayer-subsidized health plan that covers abortion will be paying into a pool of money – money which can only be used by the insurance company to pay out for abortion services.
On November 21st, the U.S. Senate voted to proceed to Senator Harry Reid’s version of a government health care bill. The bill includes government funding for elective abortion. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins weighed in with the following:
“Forcing Americans to buy government approved health care insurance is arguably unconstitutional. Forcing Americans to fund abortion within the government plan is without question unconscionable. Disregarding the conscience concerns of the vast majority of Americans, the U.S. Senate, voted to proceed to Senator Reid’s new health care takeover bill. Recent polls including a CNN poll released last week shows more than 60% of Americans are opposed to the bill’s provisions that would create the largest expansion of abortion since the 1970s.
“Instead of including the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts amendment passed in the House to prevent this government expansion of abortion, Senator Reid included a watered down version of the Capps provision which would flood the coffers of the abortion industry. The Senate should instead adopt the Stupak-Pitts language which would maintain the status quo first established over 30 years ago. Additionally, the Reid bill undermines conscience protections for pro-life health plans and doctors.
“It was disappointing to see pro-life Senators Bill Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA) vote to advance a bill that will vastly expand abortion in America with federal dollars. The burden to protect taxpayers and the unborn from a massive expansion of abortion, as provided for in this bill, now rest upon the shoulders of Senators Nelson and Casey. It is imperative that they stand on principle. ”
Over the summer I was stopped in downtown Charlotte by an Obama campaigner out soliciting support for the president’s health care bill. When I said I was unwilling to support something that would provide taxpayer-funded abortions, she assured me that it would never do such a thing. Hmmm….
Discussion on the abortion ramifications of the Senate’s Baucus health care bill is underway. From LifeNews:
The Senate Finance Committee today started its debate on the new Baucus health care bill that contains massive abortion subsidies and mandates. During the opening statements, Sen. Chuck Grassley said the bill funds abortions and that it must be amended to make sure that is not the case.
At least six pro-life amendments will be offered that address abortion funding, state laws and the conscience rights of pro-life medical professionals who do not want to be forced to perform or refer for abortions.
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has introduced amendments 354, that protect the right of conscience of medical workers, and 355, which “prohibits authorized or appropriated federal funds under this Mark from being used for elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions.”
Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming is the sponsor of four pro-life amendments.
Obama did promise that the proposed health care overhaul would not publicly fund abortions, though some find those statements misleading.
Harry Knox, Director of the Religion and Faith Program at the Human Rights Campaign (watch a debate between Dr. Brown and Harry Knox here), is in hot water after comments he made against the Catholic Church.
In 2007, Knox said in reference to an outspoken lesbian Wyoming couple being refused communion at a Catholic church (an act which is commendable Biblically, see 1 Cor 11:27-29):
“In this holy Lenten season, it is immoral and insulting to Jesus to use the body and blood of Christ the reconciler as a weapon to silence free speech and demean the love of a committed, legally married couple. The Human Rights Campaign grieves with the couple, Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson, over this act of spiritual and emotional violence perpetrated against them.”
In 2009, Knox reacted to the Vatican’s opposition to an initiative to decriminalize homosexuality by stating:
“As faith leaders we were shocked by Vatican opposition to this proposed initiative. By refusing to sign a basic statement opposing inhumane treatment of LGBT people, the Vatican is sending a message that violence and human rights abuses against LGBT people are acceptable. Most Catholics, and indeed most Catholic teachings, tell us that all people are entitled to live with basic human dignity without the threat of violence. The Catholics we know believe that Scripture asks us to be our brother and our sister’s keeper. Many are speaking out against this immoral stance in the name of religion.”
A call has been made from Catholic leaders to have President Obama dismiss Mr. Knox from his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships:
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500-0003
Dear Mr. President,
On April 6, you named Harry Knox to your Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. You claim to have created this Council, among other things, to “bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities.”
Harry Knox is the hate-filled antithesis of this noble objective. Knox is a virulent anti-Catholic bigot, and has made numerous vile and dishonest attacks against the Church and the Holy Father. He has no business on any Council having to do with faith or religion.
We do not know if you or members of your Administration were aware of Knox’s deplorable, abusive attitude towards the Church and Pope Benedict XVI when you named him to the Council. We assume you were not. But since then, there have been numerous press reports on Knox’s loathsome, and clearly bigoted rhetoric, so there no longer is any excuse for your failure to act. We can remain silent no longer.
As Catholics, we call on you to remove Mr. Knox from his position and to formally disassociate yourself from his militant anti-Catholicism. Failure to do so will result in the tainting of your Faith-Based Council—and indeed, your entire administration—as anti-Catholic. We urge you to give this matter your immediate consideration.
House Republican Leader
Member of Congress
L. Brent Bozell, III
Founder and President
Media Research Center
Judie Brown, President,
American Life League, Inc.
Catholic Activist and Founder
National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools (NAPCIS)
Executive Vice President
Family Research Council
Deacon Keith A. Fournier Editor in Chief, Catholic Online
Founder, Common Good
Deal W. Hudson
Philip F. Lawler
Catholic World News
National Catholic Prayer Breakfast
(Mr. Leo’s affiliation is listed for identification purposes only)
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council
Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
National Review Institute
American Papist Blog
The American Spectator
Patrick J. Reilly
The Cardinal Newman Society
Notre Dame Law School
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)
Founder and President
Fr. Robert Sirico
The Acton Institute
American Target Advertising
The American Center for Law & Justice is encouraging people to sign a petition to protect the Conscience Clause, which allows doctors and other medical personnel to abstain from performing services (most notably abortion) which are against their beliefs and convictions. The petition can be found at BeHeardProject.com:
President Obama: Respect My Pro-Life Convictions
You have strong convictions, but President Obama says that doesn’t matter. He’s ready to rescind the Conscience Clause.
The Conscience Clause was implemented by former President George W. Bush to give physicians and nurses the choice to act according to their conscience — to not participate in abortion procedures if it conflicts with their personal convictions. If President Obama makes this damaging move, if he reverses the Conscience Clause, pro-life doctors and nurses will be forced into performing abortion procedures, despite their individual beliefs.
The announcement was made Friday, March 6, 2009. Since the official announcement was made, the public now has 30 days to file comments with the White House … so we’ve got 30 days to make our voices heard at the White House.
Make a difference in this nation and stand for the freedom to act according to your conscience. Sign the online “Petition to Protect Pro-Life Doctors” below now. It will be delivered and filed at the White House no later than April 8, 2009. Get the word out now. BE HEARD!
Perspective from members of both sides of the issue can be found below, as reported by KJCT8:
One group against Obama’s planned reversal demonstrated in front of St. Mary’s hospital today. Both sides of the issue hold strong opinions.
Patti Brown was one of the demonstrators. “[It’s important] our citizens become aware of this because no matter what your stand is on the abortion issue, citizens should be outraged that our rights can be taken away if we morally .”
Emilie Ailts of N.A.R.A.L., a group supporting pro-choice believes differently. “People, like secretaries who schedule appointments or whole health care organizations, [can] deny access to contraception or even referral to sources where they might get contraception…which would include victims of sexual assault.”
Those against the change are worried the reversal could force medical workers to leave their job due to their ethics. But those pleased with the reversal say health-care providers have a moral obligation to their patients despite their own beliefs.
Consider defending the pro-life nurses and doctors in our land from being required to perform or aid in abortion procedures. Consider signing the ACLJ petition, which will be delivered and filed with the White House.
President Obama has overturned the restrictions on the federal funding of stem-cell research that were set in place by the Bush administration in August 2001, when President Bush limited funding because of “fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science.”
Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values…
It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology…
Promoting science ‘is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.’
Restrictions from the Bush administration on stem cell research allowed scientists to work with stem cells which were not obtained through the exploitation or destruction of human embryos. Those restrictions are now lifted:
“The president is, in effect, allowing federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to the extent that it’s permitted by law — that is, work with stem cells themselves, not the derivation of stem cells,” Varmus said in a conference call with reporters Sunday.
While conceding that “the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown” and “should not be overstated,” Obama nevertheless expressed hope that the order will help spur faster progress in the search for cures to afflictions such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer and spinal cord injuries…
Researchers highly value embryonic stem cells because of their potential to turn into any organ or tissue cell in the body. Stem cells have this ability for a short time. A few days before the embryo would implant in the uterus, it starts to develop into specific cells that will turn into skin or eyes or other parts of a developing fetus.
When the embryo is 4 or 5 days old, scientists extract the stem cells and put them in a petri dish. With the removal of these stem cells — of which there may be about 30 — the embryo is destroyed.
Several polls from different sources indicate that the majority of Americans were in favor of these restrictions being lifted. Scientists are hoping to use stem cell research to eventually develop treatments for people with diabetes, cancer, spinal injuries, and many more debilitating conditions, which garners support from many Americans. However, the ethics involved in embryonic stem cell research are questionable. Some opponents of the bill have this to say about stem cell research:
“Advancements in science and research have moved faster than the debates among politicians in Washington, D.C., and breakthroughs announced in recent years confirm the full potential of stem cell research can be realized without the destruction of living human embryos,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Sunday.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, said the Bush policy imposed proper ethical limits on science.
“My basic tenet here is I don’t think we should create life to enhance life and to do research and so forth,” Shelby said Sunday. “I know that people argue there are other ways. I think we should continue our biomedical research everywhere we can, but we should have some ethics about it.”
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America [says this]: “President Obama’s order places the worst kind of politics above ethics. Politics driven by hype makes overblown promises, fuels the desperation of the suffering and financially benefits those seeking to strip morality from science.”
President Obama set his “ethical limits” at using stem cells for human cloning. Such cloning, he said, “is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society.” One might ask, since he has made such clear statements about science not being limited by ideology, why he sets the limits at human cloning as wrong and dangerous? Once the value of human life has been removed and disregarded for the sake of “scientific progress,” why couldn’t the same argument he is making for “science” eventually be used for what many now consider unethical boundaries?
Scientists in Nazi Germany performed many experiments on Jews in concentration camps in the name of advancing “science,” some of the results of which have been banned from being used or taught in the medical community, because of the unethical way in which they were performed. Yet many of their “experiments” were in order to find treatments and cures for diseases, which is the same argument being used for the justification of embryonic stem cell research. The Nazi ideology had so far dehumanized the Jewish people in the German culture that these horrific experiments were allowed and encouraged.
How far have we fallen as a culture, when the majority of Americans (according to some polls) no longer consider these helpless embryos as human, and their lives can be taken simply to bring possible benefits to those who are stronger and have voices that can be heard?