Playing the Nazi card
I have actually read every e-mail that arrived here about Sunday's column on the promising but controversial field of embryonic stem cell research. All but one of the e-mailed letters were from opponents of this research and emerging therapy. (See an example below.) All of the e-mails professed belief that the fertilized egg -- smaller than the period at the end of this sentence -- is a human life that must not be destroyed, and several likened embryonic stem-cell research to human experimentations conducted by the Nazis.
Oh, well. It is as predictable as it is tiresome. It is the same argument we've heard from the anti-abortion crowd for years, except that here the argument is presented to stifle research into a promising field of medical science that could improve or save lives.
Opponents of the use of embryos in research -- even if many will be otherwise discarded from fertilization labs -- say this is a moral or ethical issue. Indeed. It was. Congress wrestled with it and decided that limited use of some embryos would be allowed to develop new stem cells. But Bush vetoed the legislation, and Michael Steele ultimately -- not a first -- said he supported the president in this matter.
The extreme and irrational embrace of fertilized-egg-as-human being is a view grounded in religious doctrine. We have separation of church and state for many good reasons, and this is one of them. The ideal should be a progressive and civilized society that considers the potentials of objective and responsible science -- not religious doctrine -- as well as a government that is informed by science and that acts in the best interest of the public welfare.
Listen, folks, thanks for your letters -- even the really long ones, and the ones that mentioned the Nazis. You have every right to vote for Michael Steele, and I'm sure you will.
One of many e-mails on Sunday's column:
Your column about stem cell research continually pits science against ideology. Every definition of ideology I checked says something about ideas, values, and beliefs, but no definition refers to God.
Science is something that supports our God-created universe. It always has. Science is not something that exists on its own, outside of "things that are created". Nothing that science can "discover" is ever a surprise to God, who made things that science simply finds, deduces, or realizes. Only God can make the embryos to which you refer. If you disagree with that, go find a scientist who can make one --- or for that matter, have a scientist make one blade of grass. But remember, nothing outside what God has created can be used. Kind of limits the scientists, don't it?
Those who speak against destroying something that only God can make from "scratch" that has potential to become a full human being are not against science.
I applaud Michael Steele for his directness in answers to this question.
Comments
Most people miss the mark totally on this issue. One can in good faith support embryonic stem cell research and not support government funded stem cell research. The fact is, the federal government has no place funding something that many people object to on moral grounds and has questionable constitutionality. It also has no place banning legitimate private scientifc enterprises from pursuing this research with its own money. Leftists cannot seperate this; to them, no government funding is synonymous with an outright ban. The right cannot make a similar distinction about the moral values. Reason loses.
Posted by: Adam Bargar | October 30, 2006 8:54 PM
Here's something I don't understand - why is it that someone who doesn't support stem-cell research must oppose it for religious reasons? It seems to me that the good science suggests that an embryo is a person in some sense, and therefore is worthy of our protection. Many people oppose stem-cell research on religious reasons (or are skeptical of its potential), and that's fine (I would consider myself one of them). But its not the only reason for honest opposition.
Posted by: Sam in Emmitsburg | October 31, 2006 7:26 AM
If the government has no place funding something that people object to on moral grounds then we need to stop funding war, capital punishment, "faith based initiatives", and anything else that a large number of people object to. Just because some people find something offensive is not a reason to stop funding it. Instead we let our representative democracy figure things out for itself. If we let one groups "morality" trump everyone's opinion then we have one messed up country.
Posted by: ebmd | October 31, 2006 10:58 AM
If it isn't too late to comment, I agree with Mr. Rodricks' column and go further.
What I dislike about Michael Steele's position on stem cell research is how he gets there. He makes no bones about the fact that he is an observant Roman Catholic, and reaches his political positions on abortion, stem-cell research and the death penalty because he is following Church Doctrine. I don't object to Roman Catholics running for office and have voted for many. What I object to is any political candidate basing his positions on the doctrines of his religiion.
In my view, the US Congress is a secular institution, as is the General Assembly of Maryland. Secular law should be based upon a careful analysis of information from experts; legislation and policy enacted by a secular body should not be based on the Bible based opinions of religious authorities.
I am Jewish. I do not believe that Rabbis nor priests nor ministers should dictate secular policy, and I do not believe that the General Assembly and the US Congress should dictate religious law. The two do not and should not mix.
If we are going to have politicians basing their views and making policy based upon the words of religious authorities, then we should abolish the Democratic Party and the Republcan party, and instead have the Jewish Party, the Catholic party, the Protestant party, the Moslem party, etc. Then, we can be just like Iraq, with clashes between Sunni, Shi'ites and Kurds.
Personally, I prefer separation of Church and State.
Arnold Schwarzeneggar (Gov. of California) is an example of a Roman Catholic politician who is able to make is personal religous views subordninate to the secular policy desired by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of his state.
Now, I don't mind if religious authorities exhort their parishioners to believe that, say, stem-cell research using embryonic stem cells is wrong. And, I don't mind if Cardinal Keeler, who is a wonderful person, comes to the legislature to testify about the Church's position on the death penalty. What I object to is simply this:
A politician saying, "I am a Roman Catholic. Therefore, I adopt the Roman Catholic view on a particular issue, and I am unwilling to recognize any secular argument or secular authority on the topic. My own personal religious feelings dictate my public vote." This is Michael Steele's stated position, and it is a view I abhor. I am quite sure that were they alive to day, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the founding fathers would agree.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Irwin Weiss | November 4, 2006 9:31 AM