Archives

Vatican opposes Obama’s stem-cell intentions

President-elect Obama has said that upon taking office, he will reverse President Bush’s executive order limiting federal spending for embryonic stem cell research. The Vatican announced Tuesday that it will oppose any changes in the order, thus setting the stage for one of what surely will be many early controversies for the new president.

The order, issued in 2001, limits federally funded research to using only stem-cell lines that were available at that time, thus effectively stopping any new embryos from being used. Scientists have complained that the available lines are often inadequate for new, meaningful research.

Most Americans, and a majority of Congress, want the order reversed. Congress passed legislation to do so both in 2005 and 2007 but could not muster the votes needed to override the president’s veto.

On one level, this debate revolves around one of the basic questions in ethics: Does the end justify the means? The end that scientists hope to achieve is the relief of human suffering, and no one debates the worthiness of that goal. The controversy is about the means – the use of donated embryos that, by virtue of the donor’s instructions, will never enter a uterus.

Key to the debate is the question of what the embryo is. At the extremes, some hold that embryos are just like any other human cells, and there should be no limits on what scientists can do with them; others hold that an embryo should be assigned the same value as a full human person, so nothing should be done to an embryo that wouldn’t be done to a person.

Ronald Cole-Turner, a Protestant professor at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says the many positions in the middle of these extremes lead to more complex thinking about the ethical guidelines under which embryonic stem-cell research should proceed. He is not categorically opposed to the research but urges that it be done within limits, such as:

• Requiring that the research be done under federal license that mandates prior review of the project, full disclosure of the protocols to be used and a full report of the results.

• Using only the number of embryos needed for the research.

• Limiting the purpose to include only research in human embryology that cannot be done using embryos from other species, or for research that leads to compelling medical advances.

• Defining the funding, intellectual property and commercial factors so that no person, corporation or nation profits financially from the donation, research upon or destruction of a human embryo.

Cole-Turner notes that it makes no sense to try to draw ethical limits using publicly funded research versus privately funded research as a dividing line. Regardless of where the money comes from, the ethical issues are the same.

Cole-Turner’s last principle seems to argue for expansion of publicly funded research to help limit over-commercialization. Pharmaceutical companies would disagree with Cole-Turner, of course, and can offer some compelling arguments for their position. This suggests that full, vigorous, worldwide debate of the issues needs to take place.

As President-elect Obama rescinds the order, he should consider initiating a new, inclusive public forum for discussing the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research. We need a broad working group – including the extremes and the middles – to develop consensus around the issue and to address new issues as the research continues to unfold.

Religious leaders unite to oppose Prop 200

Whenever priests, ministers and rabbis find common ground, it makes sense to listen to what they have to say. In Arizona, members of all these groups have come together to renounce and oppose Proposition 200.

Prop 200 is labeled the Payday Loan Reform Act, but the “reforms” originate from the industry itself. What’s more, payday lenders have paid more than $13.3 million to convince you to approve the measure. This is the fox building, not just guarding, the henhouse. What’s more, the industry is trying to outfox you by creating the illusion that some public advocates somewhere are behind the measure.

The overarching intent of Prop 200 is to repeal a sunset provision in the current statute authorizing payday loans. Under the provision, payday lenders in 2010 will return to the 36 percent cap rate that applies to all other types of lenders in Arizona. If voters pass Prop 200, lenders will be permanently authorized to charge annualized percentage rates approaching 400 percent.

The religious community of Arizona is calling this practice for what it is – usury, the lending of money at an exorbitant rate of interest. Religious leaders oppose it because it victimizes the poor, who enter into these loans only to find themselves saddled with high interest rates and ongoing payments they can’t escape. The U.S. Congress made sure our soldiers would not fall victim to the practice by prohibiting payday lending to members of the military.

Through the Arizona Ecumenical Council, Christians of many persuasions, as well as the Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix, have spoken out in opposition to the measure. Learn more about what they have to say at www.200isnoreform.com .

In the spirit of this multifaith effort, make sure you study this initiative carefully, and help vote it down on election day.

A welcome respite from the Culture Wars

The nation is down to the final weeks of the presidential campaign, and one voice has been noticeably subdued. We haven’t heard nearly as much this year from the nation’s religious conservatives.

A few religious issues have emerged. Focus on the Family’s James Dobson let it be known that he believes Barack Obama’s reading of the Bible is “distorted.” Dobson also indicated he couldn’t vote for John McCain because McCain didn’t support traditional marriage strongly enough. Dobson, however, became more comfortable with the Republican ticket once it added Sarah Palin, a fundamentalist Christian.

Catholic Joe Biden’s bishop in Wilmington, Del., said he would not allow Biden to speak in Catholic schools but has stopped short of refusing communion to Biden because of the candidate’s unwillingness to oppose public policy permitting abortion.

Obama had to distance himself from his long-time minister, Jeremiah Wright. The issues involved, however, were not really spiritual but rather ones of patriotism and national pride.

These skirmishes notwithstanding, religious leaders generally have been quiet, and the issues they have raised haven’t had much staying power. The culture wars of recent elections, often fought from religious outposts, haven’t ignited the same passions this time around.

In part, this is because the religious right doesn’t have a candidate it can rally behind strongly, like President Bush. Palin was McCain’s offering to the right, and it has made the GOP more attractive to them, but it’s not the same because Palin’s not running for the top job. For most of the religious right, Obama and Biden are anathema, but religious leaders’ attacks on the Democratic ticket haven’t gained much ground.

Religious conservatives are losing their impact because people are wrapped up in issues far more basic than those of the culture wars. Abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and the like ignite passions. But none of them has as much day-to-day, personal impact as fear of economic calamity and national collapse.

The moratorium on the culture wars is a good thing. It can help us stop being suspicious of each other and start helping one another. And in most people’s religious traditions, that’s a far healthier place to be.

Living in Religious Times

Not too long ago, many Americans had a checklist for determining someone’s trustworthiness that included a box for “person of faith.” If that box could be checked, it was seen as one indication that a person was solid – involved in one of the world’s major faiths and concerned about pursuing truth, justice, mercy and a purpose beyond advancing himself or herself.

It didn’t mean the person was perfect – mature people of faith understand how far they fall short of that mark – but it usually was thought to mean that he or she tried to approach life with humility, a spirit of service and a desire for excellence in thought, word and deed.

Somewhere, we lost that positive association with people of faith. In the Middle East, we saw wars and terrorist activity stemming from supposedly religious roots. At home, we saw Christians battling one another over basic life issues such as stem cell research, abortion and homosexuality. Everywhere, we’ve seen distrust build as people of the religious left and right traded a sense of humility for a conviction that they were on the side of heaven and those who saw things differently marched with the devil.

Still, a lot of good being done in our state and nation can be traced back to religious motivations. Head down to St. Vincent de Paul or the Salvation Army, where people of faith are touching lives with simple gifts of clothing, food and a helping hand. A visit to a synagogue, mosque or temple would find plenty of people helping other people deal with life’s problems.

All of which is to say that religion, in all its manifestations, is a dynamic force in our society and shouldn’t be ignored. As the name of this blog suggests, we live in Religious Times, and it’s time for more media to acknowledge it, report on it intelligently and try to help people understand how religion is affecting society for better and worse. The Zonie Report, through this blog and longer articles, will explore the impact religion is having in Arizona and the nation. Along the way, we’ll look for your thoughts. If there are any ideas you want to see pursued, send them along to peter.faur@gmail.com. I’m interested in hearing from you.