This annoys me. In 1971, Dick Van Dyke starred in a movie called Cold Turkey. It was a comedy about a dying town attempting to win a prize sponsored by a tobacco company that was betting against any town remaining "smoke free" for a certain length of time. Van Dyke…
An evangelical acquaintance recently wrote me a letter arguing that the pro-stem cell research proposal (Missouri Amendment 2) A) is geared to financially enrich its sponsors, B) that it will invite reproductive cloning and C) that poor women will result in poor women selling their eggs. She urged me to oppose the Amendment and oppose various promising forms of stem cell research.
For information on the proposed amendment, see here.
Even before receiving this letter, I knew that my acquaintance believed that a one-minute old fertilized human egg in a Petri dish is a baby that deserved full legal protection and priority over the children with horrible illnesses who occupy hospital beds. My acquaintance indicated that she was part of an organized effort to defeat Missouri Amendment 2.
I am not thrilled with my response (see below), but I couldn’t think of anything better. If anyone has any ideas as to a more effective way to deal with those who oppose stem cell research on religious grounds, I’m all ears.
—
Dear [Acquaintance]
I realize that you feel hurt and attacked by my previous email. In this e-mail, I will attempt to put our recent exchange of e-mail in perspective.
The technology for making insulin is currently based on recombinant DNA techniques; the human gene which codes for the insulin protein is cloned and then inserted in bacteria. I want you to assume for a moment, though, that my religion holds that both the cloning of genes and recombinant DNA …
Here is a video of the latest bit of fundie propoganda, airing in Missouri, where voters will soon have the opportunity to vote "yes" to allow the full range of stem cell research. These anti-stem-cell actors and athletes should be made to walk through hospitals and hospices. They should be made to…
Debate goes on, seeming forever, about the issue of religious belief in a secular society. The validity of sacred texts becomes grist for the mill and sides line up over What Would Jesus Do bumper stickers. We see competing fish on cars–Darwin fish with feet in answer to the unembellished christian fish symbol, then a bigger fish labeled Truth swallowing the diminutive Darwin fish, and on and on.
What is really at issue here hasn’t got one thing to do with who believes in god or evolution. Belief is a self-contained, private matter. The issue that gets lost in all the polemic is very simple: behavior.
Those who would sap the poison from the “inerrant word” crowd are defending their assumed right to live the way they want. One might argue that belief in god doesn’t really limit people, and as far as it goes, that is true. If you, as an individual, choose to believe in god, then you have elected to reform your life according to the tenets of your new faith. You may adopt whatever modest or byzantine traditions and habits you wish. After all, you have chosen this, you get to do it.
What you don’t get to do is tell everyone else to behave accordingly, and that’s where the meat of the issue lies.
Because fundamentalists–and we’re talking about fundamentalists here for the most part, of any stripe–do not adopt such an extreme view of faith out of intellectual curiosity or even spiritual need. They …
What kinds of voters are we? It’s hard to tell by looking what kind of candidates we elect. After all, we usually only have two viable choices; we often hold our noses and vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Many potential candidates never appear on the ballot, thanks to our horrifically corrupt political system, a system that requires a candidate to have corporate money in order to seen as viable by the corporate-owned media. It is a ludicrous and vicious circle.
Even acknowledging the severely limited choices we have at the polls, how well do we vote? Do we prepare ourselves carefully before entering the voting booth? Do we work hard to expose ourselves to a wide range of perspectives before voting or do we fall prey to the availability heuristic, voting on the basis of highly suspect political ads and intellectually vapid local “news”? Do most voters take time to carefully deliberate on the long-term risks and benefits of the political positions touted by the candidates? Apparently not, based upon the ubiquity misleading attack ads that invite unreflective scorn rather than a deliberate consideration of the issues.
Another bit of evidence suggesting that many of us vote without enough preparation occurs whenever citizens vote for lesser known candidates and issues. On numerous occasions, people have admitted to me that they voted for or against a particular candidate (or issue) about whom (which) they knew nothing at all. In Missouri, this happens all the time when circuit judges seeking …