At the risk of stepping in on a well-written letter I should probably just leave as it is for the reader, I'll only offer that I largely agree with him and he has a slightly different flavor of my argument to some right winger friends the other day here in Cleveland. They were bent out of shape about news reports that Barry might use executive orders to reverse some of Shrub's decisions on stem cells (among others).
While I don't pretend to be a scientist, I appreciate and respect the viewpoint some hold on stem cells, but I'm disturbed about their terribly narrow definition of what constitutes a "respect for life." It seems to me that there are so many more egregious affronts to life and to pretend that abortion and stem cells constitutes the most important parts of it is either dangerously ignorant or cynical.
Sorry for editorializing so much...this stands well-enough on its own.
After briefly catching up on today's news, both online and in the local print, one thing jumped out at me as particularly disturbing. The article titles said it all: "Bishops Fire Shots At", "Bishops Warn", and the "Bishops Plan to Forcefully Confront" Obama over abortion. It became clear that the formal representers of our faith, who are meeting in Washington DC this week, are preparing to douse the embers of real progress on issues of social justice in favor of continuing to fight the old fight and of playing the old games.
Not only are the bishops pursing a faulty strategy of confrontation rather than partnership with the President-Elect, they fail to understand the sentiment and attitudes of lay parishioners from around the country--particularly young Catholics. Many of us see much more pressing issues such as poverty, injustice, war, and disease as much more urgent issues for the clergy--and the Church-- to be focused on. These are issues on which the Church can provide a valuable leadership role, and where there is broad consensus for action. The Church should be focused on the very real needs of people, rather than the political squabbles of yesterday.
Sincerely,
(Chode)
4 comments:
You see the same argument happening much more dramatically in the evangelical movement too. Look at Huck's speeches, and many of the other "new school" evangelical Christians.
In the minds of many, the RvW issue has been so beaten to death that both sides have entrenched their positions. But the 'Good' news is that there is a lot of common ground and work that needs to be done.
So lets get 'the low hanging fruit' outta the way rather than beating each other with the righteous stick.
----
Here is some additional feedback I received on the editorial:
It seems to me that poverty and
abortion are not unrelated. It is well-documented that abortions
rise as poverty rises, and vice versa, to such an extent that the
abortion rate rose during this most recent administration. Making it
illegal will not end abortions, though it will reduce them in
number--as will reducing poverty.
You see the same argument happening much more dramatically in the evangelical movement too. Look at Huck's speeches, and many of the other "new school" evangelical Christians.
In the minds of many, the RvW issue has been so beaten to death that both sides have entrenched their positions. But the 'Good' news is that there is a lot of common ground and work that needs to be done.
So lets get 'the low hanging fruit' outta the way rather than beating each other with the righteous stick.
----
Here is some additional feedback I received on the editorial:
It seems to me that poverty and
abortion are not unrelated. It is well-documented that abortions
rise as poverty rises, and vice versa, to such an extent that the
abortion rate rose during this most recent administration. Making it
illegal will not end abortions, though it will reduce them in
number--as will reducing poverty.
Why is it the responsibility for the government to fund R&D on stem cells? Is it the government's responsibility to pick up the tab on any R&D?
If something is viable, private industry will fund the R&D. It's not the position of the state, especially when there are so many other issues that need to be funded, to fund R&D.
My .02.
I've been framed, sometimes accurately, as a born-again lefty.
This is not necessarily the case.
And in this one, I have to agree with S.
If stem cells were the wickedgreat idea, sure to cure our ailments, that it's often described as, government money would be practically irrelevant.
People would be lining up around the block, with checkbooks out, waiting to invest in this.
I don't dispute the value of some government-funded, backing of the sciences, but some people (not necessarily Chode) would have us believe that without government funding, it's impossible to bring this research to fruition.
Post a Comment