Archive for Politics

All Stem Cells Go to Heaven?

October 5, 2011 / Admin / One comment

By: Derek Dyson

In March of 2009, as promised, President Obama lifted an 8-year ban on embryonic stem cell research that had previously been imposed by the Bush Administration. This ban stopped labs from developing new cell lines for research and effectively put American scientists a decade behind the rest of the world. This is because they were now forced to derive stem cells from other sources (skin cells for instance), which proved to be an arduous and inefficient method to accomplish a task that had already been done effectively (through the use of embryos) for many years. In August of 2010 a federal court halted Obama’s executive order, citing the “Dickey-Wicker” rule that Federal Funds cannot be used in any research that will lead to the destruction of human embryonic cells. Finally, last July the case was dismissed and federal grant money was again made available to American Colleges and research institutions.

When President Obama originally signed the Executive Order in 2009 he also ordered the White House Office of Science and Technology to “Restore scientific integrity to government decision making”.  Why exactly do we need to “restore” the scientific integrity of a nation that put a man on the moon and developed the Internet?  It’s no secret that scientific literacy in America is on the decline.  After all, more people in this country believe in ghosts than believe in (or understand) the concept of evolution.  In a society that is so dependent on science and technology, how (or why) are so many Americans completely out of touch with even the most basic of scientific principles? Why do so many Americans with a rudimentary understanding of something like climate change, adamantly disagree with an international community of experts on the subject?  I would certainly say that education is a big part of it, but I think more at fault is cultural bias.  A persons Philosophy (political and religious) is a likely determinant of their stance on many scientific issues. The problem with this is that science, more importantly the scientific method, is inherently unbiased and fully dependent on verifiable evidence. It’s dependent on the facts. When a person denies these facts because it interferes with their personal worldview, there is a logical disconnect between their beliefs and reality that needs to be addressed.  Religious conservatives and their stance on stem cell research is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Embryonic stem cells are basically builder cells found in human embryos at very early stages in development. The possibilities for these cells are limitless at this point, as many scientists predict major advancements in the cure of human diseases and other human insufficiencies as a direct response from the research in this field. Although close to 60% of Americans believe that this research is vital, many on the political and religious right have made attempts to stop advancements in the field altogether. This is because they believe the destruction of a human embryo is tantamount to murdering a human being.  In their minds, a human embryo is a life and presumably, among other things, contains a “soul”. On its outset this may seem like a valid and meaningful argument from their prospective.  As it turns out, it is anything but.

A majority of the people who oppose embryonic stem cell research assume that a human embryo (this is a female egg at the point when a sperm cell penetrates the wall of the egg) is the full equivalent of an actual human being, solely because it has the necessary genetic makeup to “potentially” become a living, breathing person.  This outlook shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of human development and an obvious lack of critical thinking. If the potential to become a human is the determining factor, their argument has no validity. Take for instance a fertilized egg (an embryo) sitting in a Petri dish at a fertilization clinic. If this fertilized egg sits in a freezer for years waiting to be used, is it a human that whole time?  Now lets say that one of those embryos (or more likely a whole slew of them) is injected into the uterus of a prospective mother with fertility issues.  If any of those embryos fail to implant into the uterus of the host female, then those embryos have absolutely no potential to become a human being. They will simply be flushed down the toilet (literally). To take this one step further, unless an embryo implants into the uterus of a fertile and healthy female and then extends onto a journey that will entail a myriad of other decisive factors leading to child birth, then that embryo will never actually become a fully developed human being.  If you are concerned with the lives of these embryos, then you should be outraged at how many of them are being flushed at fertility clinics on daily basis. Transversely, the current statistics concerning fertility and modern medicine should also outrage you to the point of taking political action.

A study done by the Presidential council on biomedical ethics in 2004 puts this whole issue into perspective. They found that of all eggs fertilized by sexual intercourse, only 49% will actually implant into the uterus of the female host. This means that half of all human embryos (potential humans or souls) are naturally aborted within the first month of fertilization. Of those that do implant into the uterus, only 67% will actually give rise to a human being, so out of 100 fertilized eggs only 49 will implant and of those 49 only 33 will result in a birth.  If a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a human being, then nearly 70% of all humans are murdered while in their mother’s womb. Ironically, if you believe that these embryos are “lives”, then this would make God the single most successful abortionist in human history. Especially when considering the thousands of years prior to modern medical advancements that have curbed these numbers. With this in mind, one would assume that The Right would be just as outraged at the vast number of naturally “destroyed” embryos as they are with the ones lost to stem cell research and to things like Plan B and medical abortions. One would assume that they would also spend millions of dollars setting up interest groups and lobbying congress to fund research on increasing fertility rates. As we can tell by their actions, Conservatives are not actually concerned with the large number of lost embryos or the potential humans they pretend to represent. What they are concerned with is a political stance.  One that is an outright attack on not only the advancement of science and reason, but also on human sexuality and the reproductive rights of women among other things.

Another way to look at the flawed logic of a stem cell research opponent, is to discuss the problems faced at a biological level if one believes that a human embryo is equivalent to a human being and therefore (for the religious) has a soul. Let’s take for instance the occurrence of biological twins. When twins are produced in a mother’s womb, a single fertilized egg is present (one soul). After fertilization, this single embryo can split into two genetically identical embryos. If the original fertilized egg contained the soul of that potential human being and then that embryo was to split into two separate embryos, which twin would receive the soul and which would go without? Most believers would arbitrarily answer “well god would give them both their own soul” presumably ending the argument with the infusion of divine intervention, but the complications do not stop there. Let’s now look at the occurrence of human-human chimeras. This is when two separate embryos are present in the womb (un-identical twins) that eventually fuse together to make a single embryo, containing the genetic makeup of two un-identical embryos. This leads to a human being that has two separate blood types or cells that contain XX chromosomes and XY chromosomes (many would recognize these people as hermaphrodites). Under the their system of logic, they would be forced to admit that this single person would be in possession of 2 souls (if only we were all so lucky). This may seem silly, but it is an accurate example of how simple logic cannot co-exist with an irrational belief system.

The issue of stem cell research is but one example of how the Evangelical movement in America has used its vast resources and political influence to adversely affect the lives of other Americans, ad hoc. With a constant and well-funded war on science (paraphrasing Chris Mooney) they have proven that their strongest assets are their vast numbers, enforced ignorance and corporate alliances. They effectively duped the American public into believing that stem cell research was un-ethical and subsequently set the field of research back almost a decade in the process.  They consistently push a religious conservative viewpoint into public policy and even attempt to do so in our public schools. State by state they attempt to combat the biological fact of natural selection and Darwinian evolution, by pushing unsubstantiated ideas through school boards and into our science classrooms.  They consistently attempt to stifle women’s reproductive rights by pushing an issue that, as I pointed out earlier, completely overlooks the almost identical “problem” of biological infertility.  By adding global climate change, the Israel/Palestine conflict and the AIDS epidemic in Africa to the list, it is easy to see that Conservatives, religious and political alike, are making decisions that adversely effect this world as a whole. With that said, we as educated Americans must take a stand. A stand against religion in political discourse, against corporate greed and inequality, and against any and all anti-science rhetoric at a governmental level.  As cliche as it sounds, our future and the future of our children literally depend on it.

Category: Politics, science / Tags: , , , ,

Barack and the Bible

October 4, 2008 / Admin / No comments

By: Derek Dyson

Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has recently come under fire from a leading Evangelical leader because of his stance on Biblical texts and the role that he believes these texts should play in public affairs.  As reported by the Associated Press, James Dobson (Evangelical Leader and founder of the Christian conservative organization Focus on the Family) has publicly decried Obama’s understanding of the Christian Bible as “confused theology” and a “fruitcake interpretation”, implying that the Harvard Educated Lawyer and otherwise highly intelligent man we know as Barack Obama has somehow failed to truly understand the content of this ancient book.  What could Barack Obama possibly have so wrong that Mr. Dobson seemingly has so right?  More importantly, how does a Harvard Educated politician who was raised in a purely secular and some would say borderline Atheist home, pander to the skewed views of the religious community in order to win over their much needed Evangelical vote?

In 2006 Obama gave a speech to the liberal Christian group “Call to Renewal” where he explained that it would be foolish to solely delegate morality to a book that continuously promoted the institution of slavery, yet condemned the eating of shellfish.  For these presumably logical statements and others like them, Dobson has attacked Obama’s faith and has taken a stand against what he sees as a liberal interpretation of the bible.  For Dobson the bible is the infallible word of god and should be read and understood accordingly.  If the bible (or god) says jump, Dobson asks nothing more but how high? Transversely if god were to say something like jump into owning other human beings and then gives you instructions on how and when to beat them, Dobson would again say….well what exactly would he say?

Well, if you are James Dobson and you are confronted with a question about any number of biblical inadequacies found between Genesis and Revelation you simply blame it on the Old Testament (a common low blow to the Jewish text that has been dealt endlessly for the last 1500 years or so).  This is the basic deflection tactic employed by most if not all religious extremists and biblical literalists when confronted with damning evidence on the subjects of not just slavery but also scientific discovery, morality, intolerance and countless other issues that seem to contradict our post-enlightenment sensibilities. So, is this an adequate explanation as to why god could be so horribly flawed on his views toward so many vitally important subjects of humanity?

If we were to only look at the subject of slavery and then were confined to James Dobson’s reasoning behind gods views on this subject, we would have to make some considerable assumptions.  First, when “god” says things like Leviticus 25: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves, it is important to understand that god only meant for this to ring true for the 198,000 years of modern human existence that predated the point where he changed his mind some 2,000 years ago.

After recognizing this much needed change of heart that god encountered (somewhat late in the game I might add), we must also assume that gods new book of morality and justice contains no passages that promote or even allow the institution of slavery.  So when versus like Luke 12: ….that servant, which knew his lord’s (masters) will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes, start popping up in the teachings of Jesus and the writings of his followers, teachings that obviously recognize the act of slavery and then fail to condemn it as morally deficient, we are forced to make yet another assumption.  Either god doesn’t mind if one human being owns another human being, or (on a somewhat lighter note) Abraham Lincoln was actually the second coming of Christ (for Americans only).  This would allow god to change his infallible mind once again and finally put him on the correct side of this important issue.  I added the second assumption only as a joke, but it would be somewhat ironic considering the Southern Baptists pro-slavery and eventual pro-segregation stance that was held throughout the civil rights movement.  Imagine, Southern Baptists so adamantly defying the will of Savior 2.0, unknowingly citing the manual from Savior 1.0 all the while.  Sadly, when you really think about it, this scenario wouldn’t be all that far fetched compared to some of the other things these people already believe.  So, either god told us in his divine book of morality that slavery has been and will always be an acceptable practice or possibly, just possibly, modern societies have overlooked the short comings of “gods laws” and have taken morality into their own hands essentially overwriting thousands of years of Bronze Age cruelty and human injustice.

This brings us to the final question.  If people of  faith are going to attack Barack Obama because he reads the Bible as he would any other book, objectively and reasonably, how could he possibly convince these same people (roughly half of the voting populace in the U.S.) to look beyond this  slight discrepancy and still vote for him despite the fact that he reads their moral textbook liberally?

In his most recent book the Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama explains how he was raised in a secular home.  His mother, an anthropologist and avid humanist and to a lesser extent his father an outspoken atheist, had both played a role in his upbringing.  He remained secular throughout childhood and into college, not officially “finding god” until he took a job with a Chicago Church after graduating from Law School.  Straight out of Harvard Law and ready to make a difference, he took this job because it was the best opportunity to help the struggling black community that he was likely to find. He eventually placed his faith in this church, not because it was leading him to everlasting life, but because it afforded him the opportunity to make a difference in his community.  To most this would seem like a noble cause. To most, fulfilling a lifelong dream and helping out those who are less fortunate would be viewed as anything but a fault, after all isn’t this exactly what Christianity is supposed to be about? But, for some this is not the case.  In fact, many Conservative Christians will fault Obama for this fact alone (well, at least the ones who aren’t already leading the “Obama is a Muslim” campaign of fear and intolerance) either of  which seems to be a little contradictory to the whole followers of Jesus scenario, but I digress.

In the end Barack Obama is a progressive, liberal Christian who sees merit in many philosophies, not just in those espoused by a highly Western and Christian ideology.  This biblical and religious liberalism flies in the face of many of the religious extremists who make up the Evangelical Right and threatens to diminish the political stronghold that they have held on Washington for the last 25 years. If men like James Dobson can attack a highly intelligent and prominent figure in American culture for being too logical or too reasonable on a subject that when taken literally is anything but reasonable, what do we as American citizens have left?  We have nothing but the same dogmatic fervor, religious intolerance and enforced ignorance that has been upheld by the current administration for nearly a decade and will presumably be extended into another eight year period of war mongering and diplomatic ineptness, unless the minds and voices of the American public can be changed.

Category: Politics, Religion / Tags: , , ,

Religious Conservatives and Sex

January 24, 2007 / Admin / 3 comments

By: Derek Dyson

Last night in President Bush’s State of the Union Address, he laid out his plans for the upcoming year. On the President’s to-do list were two public initiatives that I wish to look into with more detail, not as separate issues but as two very distinct issues that must coincide with one another to reach a common goal. These issues are public education and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. On the outset, one could easily see the correlation between the two subjects, but what I wish to bring to your attention is the blatant misuse of funds by the federal and state governments that not only deny proper education on the subject domestically, but also where it is needed most, on the continent of Africa. I will show how the stigma held by religious conservatives on subjects such as sexual intercourse coupled with the archaic views on contraception held by the Catholic Church have lead our government, through lobby groups and special interests, to all but ignore the problems of sexually transmitted disease as well as teen pregnancy. Knowing that this subject is very complex, I will attempt to keep this essay short enough to keep your attention while hopefully broadening your prospective on the subject.

Today in America at least 30% of our public schools rely on abstinence only approaches to sexual education, while close to 40% rely on an “abstinence plus” approach. Although abstinence is the only sure fire measure against sexually transmitted disease and teen pregnancy, it is by no means a viable option to sexual education. Our children need an unbiased approach to sexual intercourse that is free from the religious morality imposed by the Christian community. It may be alarming to some, but of our 50 states, all requiring sexual education in our publicly funded schools, 12 of these states mandate abstinence only approaches, denying funding for anything but. An abstinence only approach leaves no room for education on condom use or other safe alternatives to sexual intercourse. This approach is only backed by 15% of the American population based on a study done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, yet the Evangelical hold on our public policy has once again extended far beyond their populative constituency.

The stance held by religious conservatives on sexual education is irresponsible to say the least. This is very apparent in the small community of Owasso Oklahoma where I grew up. It is widely known that the local Baptist Church has a major influence on local initiatives, which along with an already highly conservative population, has all but ignored a fairly obvious teen pregnancy crisis. Although I was unable to obtain any official statistics on the subject, due mostly to the local high schools unwillingness to cooperate with me on the subject, the problem is well known throughout the community. I use this example only to illustrate this problem at a local level so I can then show its significance at the International level.

In 2004 the Bush administration appropriated close to 4 billion dollars towards the AIDS epidemic in Africa and then gave more than 200 million dollars of that funding to a small number of Catholic Charities to spend on humanitarian relief. This is ironic considering that the Catholic Church condemns the use of condoms, which are considered the most realistic and effective barrier for combating the spread of HIV by the International AIDS Alliance, and instead teaches (or preaches) their abstinence only demagogue under a guise of humanitarian relief. Do we as Americans believe that the Catholic Church should use our tax dollars to explain to the tribal people of Africa, who have been genetically programmed for the last 200,000 years to preserve their species and tribal heritage through reproduction, that they should no longer have sex because god doesn’t want them to? It’s fairly obvious that if the Bush administration were even remotely concerned with saving the lives of the millions of AIDS stricken natives of Africa, they wouldn’t waste the American tax payer’s money by sending to Africa a religious organization that refuses to acknowledge the use of contraception, then replacing it with the mid-evil and intolerant religious views of Thomas Aquinas, expounding that sexual conduct is immoral and full abstinence is gods true virtue. Teaching abstinence to tribal African cultures is like explaining to a two year old that chocolate is going to make him fat. He will hear you and probably understand you, but he won’t really care. Why is this? It’s because being fat isn’t a social concern of a two year old, just like adhering to the religious views of some fundamentalist Christian from America isn’t going to be a social concern of a twenty year old Kenyan man who will rely on his offspring to harvest next seasons coffee crop.  This is not rocket science, it is common sense, a virtue that seems to have left the minds of those who expound these beliefs.

Many on the religious right condemn Islam for its intollerance and injustice towards humanity, but religious fanaticism, textual literalism and intolerance are not issues that stop with the Muslim community. The Christian religious conservatives of this nation are hindering our personal freedoms, stifling important advancements in scientific and medical research, and imposing their belief system on the whole of the American public in ways that cannot be overlooked. If we as Americans continue to ignore this problem, controversies such as stem cell research, abortion or sexual education will no longer be of our concern.  This will instead be replaced with the concern of nuclear holocaust and a global war of religions. 

Category: Politics, Religion / Tags: , ,
  Recent Entries »
projectfreethought.org