We have been advised by some list members to exclude politics and religion
from the pure subject of stem cell research.  I regret to say that If I do,
I must simultaneously and automatically exclude the subjects of Stem Cells
and research.

I am grateful to Ron for this historical perspective on the subject although
it does not improve my tolerance of negativistic ignorance which I attribute
to refusal to accept the facts of modern life.  I am not totally convinced
that some components of mankind have yet adapted to the use of opposable
thumbs, but there is a bona fide opportunity with the advent of the XXI
century.  This orthodoxy and rigidity of religion does not exonerate any of
those in current practice, but perhaps I ought to check with my rabbinate
before I go on further.

Michel Margosis
  'Carpe Diem'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peyton, Ronald" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:38 AM
Subject: Historical Roots of Opposition to Stem-cell Research


> As an ordained clergyman, I am perplexed and dismayed that religion, which
> exists primarily to support, encourage and enhance life, would instead be
> used to inhibit research which could lead to the enhancement and
prolonging
> of life, and yet is done in the name of standing up for life!  Since when
do
> we elevate the importance of potential life (stem cells) over that of
> actual, produced life - existing, breathing, walking, talking human
beings?
>
>
> Since religion exists to lessen suffering in the world, I can only
conclude
> that any religion that would discourage research that could lead to
> lessening humanity's suffering (i.e., stem cell research that could lead
to
> cures for diseases that lead to tremendous suffering and eventual death),
> can only be a false religion in that it is advocating the very opposite of
> that for which religion exists.
>
> It saddens me when sufferer's are made to feel guilt for desiring a cure,
> feeling they must choose between health and their eternal salvation, or
when
> people are made to feel selfish for desiring life, i.e., the editorial
> Camilla referred to where the author accused sufferer's seeking cures of
> being selfish and self-serving and that their "primary motivation is the
> betterment of self."  Since when was bettering oneself and seeking life
and
> health something selfish and sinful?
>
> I am reminded of the words spoken by one who many opponents of stem cell
> research claim to admire, worship and follow:  "I am come that they may
have
> life, and have it more abundantly."  If seeking life (and seeking it more
> abundantly in one that is free of disease, suffering and death) is a form
of
> selfishness, then it is a selfishness that the originator of Christianity
> himself approved of and advocated, and wished for his followers.
>
> The idea that denying and devaluing one's body and health makes one
somehow
> more spiritual and less selfish has its roots in neoplatonism which made a
> cleavage between the spirit and the flesh and led people to believe that
to
> nourish and enhance the spirit, they had to denigrate and deny the flesh.
> Hebraic thought never made such a separation.  Judaism had a wholistic
view
> of man, teaching that the spirit and body were to be respected, honored
and
> cherished as gifts of God.  They were viewed as one, not split apart and
> pitted one against the other as did neoplatonism.
>
> Understanding the history and rise of neoplatonism within Christianity and
> it's continuing influence to this day will help people understand why
> stem-cell research that hold such promise for humanity are controversial
> even in our "enlightened" 20th century.  Unfortunately, early Christianity
> moved away from its Judaic roots and instead of viewing man wholistically,
> embraced neoplatonism in the form of what became known as the contemptus
> mundi (contempt for the world).  Denying the body and anything physical
was
> thought to enhance the spiritual.  Thus, a diseased body was to be ignored
> rather than healed, since the flesh was itself "evil," and thus by
ignoring
> it's physical needs, the spirit within would be nurtured and prepared for
> heaven.
>
> The human body and its basic desires and emotions were denigrated.  Rather
> than viewing the body and its desires as an expression of spirituality and
a
> gift of God, they were looked upon with fear and disdain, as something
that
> would hinder spiritual growth.  An example is the natural desire to
partake
> of food that is pleasing to the palate.  Eating food not only sustains
life,
> but adds to life's enjoyment as the taste buds are both tantalized and
> satisfied.  Because of the influence of neoplatonism upon the church, food
> became viewed as good if used solely to sustain life, but was viewed as
> feeding the "lower nature" if eaten for taste and enjoyment.  Based on
this
> neoplatonic line of thinking, Beurrier assured his listeners at
> Saint-Ettienne-du-Mont that the Lord "never ate any food for its flavor,
but
> out of pure necessity."
>
> The contemptus mundi, based on neoplatonic roots, in many respects became
> the church's central message.  This led to monasticism and flagellants,
who
> to this day in some countries during Easter whip their backs raw until the
> blood runs down the street, believing they are imitating their Lord and
> enhancing the spirit by literally destroying the flesh.
>
> The following taken passage taken from Angelo Torini's book, Brieve
> Collezione Della Miseria dellal Umana Condizione, illustrates the church's
> continual education toward self-hatred and self-despisement:
>
> Lothair (1, VIII, 1): "Look at the grasses and the trees, they produce
> flowers, leaves and fruit, but all that you produce are nits, lice, and
> worms.  The former give out oil, wine and balm, but you, you exude saliva,
> urine, and dung.  The former emanate pleasant odors, but you give off an
> abominable stench."
>
> Torini (XVII, 17-19):  "What fruit do we bear?  The pleasant and useful
> fruit that we produce and to which we give birth are nits, fleas, lice and
> worms.  These are created by our bodies and in our bodies, and they are
> continually born there.  What aromatic spices and useful gums do we
produce?
> The snot, spittle, and stool that continually exude from the different
parts
> of our bodies.  Which is why the blessed Bernard says: 'O man, if you stop
> to consider all which passes through and spills out of your mouth, nose,
> ears, and all the other orifices of your body, you will realize that there
> is no dung heap more foul.'"
>
> No wonder St. Ignatius Loyola wrote "I am but a dunghill," (Ignatius of
> Loyola, Scripta de sto Ignation, vol 1., p. 379 of the Monumenta historica
> societatis Jesu) and the Carthusian monk Ludolph of Saxony went so far as
to
> state "Man is worse than the devil himself." (Ledolphe de Chartreaux, La
> Grand vie de Jesus-Christ, vol 3, p. 79).  The contemptus mundi exerted
its
> influence well into the eighteenth century, which is attested to by an
> eighteenth century hymn titled "Against the World" which contains the
> following stanza:  "This body of decay deserves nothing but contempt."
>
> If the body and its desires are so evil, disgusting, nasty, and
> reprehensible that it only serves to enhance the "flesh" to the detriment
of
> the "spirit," then why should we have any concern at all for our physical
> health and well-being?  We should ignore it and just focus on the "inner
> man" and prepare for heaven by denigrating and denying the "outer body."
> Such pessimistic thinking based on pagan neoplatonism is what has been
> ingrained within people's thinking for centuries (by the church no less!),
> and is why we're where we are at today when something as wonderful and
> promising as stem cell research that could relieve much of humanity's
> suffering is not quickly embraced, but instead becomes a matter of debate
> and controversy.
>
> Luis de Leon wrote "Life is a dangerous voyage, and should be equally
> despised.  Since we are born in order to die, and since the ultimate end
of
> life is death, an early death can only bring an early end to our
> suffering...It would have been best to have died at birth, and better
still
> never to have lived."  (Obras, vol. III, 22 Exposicion de Job, XIV, 2, p.
> 48).  With such pessimistic thinking of mankind that dominated Western
> Christianity from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century, is it any
wonder
> we're still suffering from it's baleful influence, and being denied
> potential cures that are practically there for the embracing, if only
those
> influenced by neoplatonism would get out of the way!
>
> Ron (Chicago)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn