I hope people will read Don's comments on religion. I want to add that as
an agnostic arguing with those committed to a faith, the argument seems to
be about the "required beliefs" of religions - virgin birth, non-traditional
death/resurrection, rites and practices . The question most important to
Christians is "has she been saved?" not "is she kind?". It seems to me
these arguments are about things non-essential to living this life.
Certainly the religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research has set
us back in our quest for health. I normally would not care what someone
else believed, but I agree with Don that when my health is affected, it
becomes my business to question the religious beliefs of those who make
public policy. And this is something you are not supposed to do today.
Ray
# 184 Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - CONDEMNED TO HELL FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH?
A spokesman for the Catholic Church recently condemned supporters of
embryonic stem cell research-including scientists, politicians, doctors and
women-to burn in Hell for all eternity.
"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors, and researchers who
eliminate embryos (and to the) politicians that approve the law," said
Cardinal Alfonso Trujillo, the Pope's right hand man on family policy.
("Excommunication is Sought for Stem Cell Researchers", Elizabeth Rosenthal,
New York Times, July 1, 2006).
This is a major mistake, and I am not going to stay quiet about it.
A lot of folks say religion should be above criticism: a private matter
between God and the believer. Where that separation of church and state is
maintained, I totally agree. The founding fathers in their wisdom left
religion out of America's government, and that is as it should be. But when
that separation breaks down, there will be problems.
Matters of faith are nobody's business, until they affect public policy. I
do not mind if my neighbor privately believes in little men from Mars; but I
can object if he wants to live my life based on his anti-Martian doctrine.
There, his private beliefs infringe on me as a citizen, and I have the right
and responsibility to talk back.
I am an American, and free speech is central to the practice of democracy.
But the main reason for not holding my tongue is that I support research for
cure. Should I keep silent while an organization tries to block research
which might save my sister from cancer, my son from paralysis? Shall we not
protect our families?
I believe in God, and cannot believe He would be against research to save
lives and ease suffering.
As for my religious background, I was born and raised Protestant
(Presbyterian and Southern Baptist) but married into Catholicism. As a
condition of marriage, I had to agree that my children would be raised
Catholic.
Conservative religion, therefore, is practiced by those among whom I was
raised, and by those I live with now. I have had to put up with it all my
life. Mostly, I just shrug and grit my teeth, when the talk turns to matters
of a theological taint. My father, for instance, was a missionary for his
faith, and loves a chance to push his side; my wife is an active Catholic
and a deep believer, although also a strong supporter of our research; to
prevent hurt feelings, I generally try to just avoid the subject.
But when conservative religion attempts to dominate public policy?
Remember how the Church tried to deny John Kerry communion, because he
supported a woman's right to choose? When George Bush asked the Pope for
some help with Catholics who voted "the wrong way" on abortion, he knew what
he was doing. The controversy which followed was hugely beneficial to the
religious right, and undoubtedly helped elect the current President.
Now another election is upon us, and it is not a surprise to see religion
used as an attack again.
It is not any single faith, of course; no one has exclusive rights to the
foolishness franchise. Wherever there are people, there will be mistakes;
that is why Eberhard Faber died a rich man, master seller of erasers.
Sometimes it was the Protestants who acted crazy. In South America, for
example, the native Americans figured out the bark of the cinchona tree
(later called quinine) would keep off the debilitating disease malaria. The
Catholics said okay, cool, let's do it-and stopped suffering from malaria.
But the Protestants said, oh, no, if the Catholics have it, we don't want
it-- and kept on having malaria.
Protestants, too, were against the use of anesthetics for women in
childbirth, because the Bible said mothers were supposed to bring forth
their children in pain. One argument helping to defeat that nonsense was a
Biblical one: God Himself put Adam to sleep, before extracting a rib to make
Eve-but it wasn't until Queen Elizabeth had her eighth child and demanded
anesthesia that it finally was accepted.
Because the Catholic church is older and bigger, it has had more opportunity
to make changes, and- when wrong- to do more damage.
And the leader of this gigantic organization, the single richest
property-holder in the world?
It is not logical, perhaps, but I have to admit, I do not like the new Pope.
He seems very intelligent, but cold.
When I think of Benedict XVI, I remember a photograph of him whispering in
Pope John Paul II's ear, attempting to influence him.
Pope John Paul, I liked. Although I disagreed with many of his policies, I
felt that he cared about me, that he genuinely loved people.
Benedict XVI reminds me of someone who could justify the Spanish
Inquisition, in which Jewish people were tortured and killed (and their
money stolen) in the name of a gentle religion. To save their souls, the
reasoning went, their bodies had to be ripped apart, and their property
taken. From such kindness, may Heaven protect us!
Now whenever politicians are considering a major change, they send a
subordinate out first, to test the waters. If people get too angry, the
leader can blame the subordinate, and withdraw or modify the original
position.
When Cardinal Trujillo spoke against stem cell research, I believe he was
doing so as a test case for Pope Benedict: a "trial balloon" to see how
people felt about applying eternal damnation to embryonic stem cell research
supporters.
Have we learned nothing from the past?
Remember the Church's law against dissection, which stopped internal
medicine's development for about three hundred years. How many people died
needlessly because of that ban? That was the church in action, a religious
decree, enforced by several Popes.
One of these, Bonifacio VIII, was famous for imprisoning the previous Pope
in a narrow cell until he died. As one of the excommunicable sins is
violence against the Pope, did not that mean that the allegedly infallible
Bonifacio had in fact done something wrong?
Can anyone seriously deny that mistakes have been made by the Church?
In the days when priests were the ultimate political power, they carried
whips with them, so they could beat conveniently. They also had people
tortured and/or killed, like Joan of Arc, whom they ordered burned to death.
When "witches" were slaughtered (perhaps by the millions, we are not sure of
the numbers even now) was that not a mistake?
When cats were killed (as familiars of witches) rats multiplied, and disease
spread.
Bathing was considered a sin because it washed away baptism.
Vaccination was considered against religion, and people died of small pox.
The church let rich criminals buy their way out of punishment, (it was
called indulgence buying, and was a reason the Protestant church broke away)
was that not an error?
When Pope Pius XII stayed silent about the Holocaust raging around him
before and during World War II, saying nothing while millions of people
were incarcerated, tortured, and incinerated by the Nazis, that too was a
mistake.
And now, for the Church to turn its back on the suffering of hundreds of
millions?
To condemn women to hell for donating embryos from IVF clinics, due to be
trashed anyway?
To excommunicate scientists, politicians and doctors trying to cure
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, paralysis, diabetes and more?
That is backwards; the Church is supposed to protect people, to ease their
misery, not use vast political power to try and block our hopes for cure.
I urge the Pope to think carefully before committing the Church to such a
policy.
Blocking research which might save lives is more than a colossal mistake; it
would be a crime against humanity.
By Don Reed www.stemcellbattles.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
