Perpetual Punishment

According to Christian religious tradition, perpetual punishment is what you get when you go to hell for sins not forgiven in this world. With the prevalence of the Religious Right in many state legislatures, is it any wonder that our prison populations are swollen as sentences are lengthened and more life sentences without parole are given to repeat offenders. The idea of eternal damnation, not only in the after-life, but in this life as well through a variety of means, is proposed for beyond the prison. Eternal probation is created for sex offenders who must register and exhibit a brand on driver's licenses and Web pages regardless of the nature of their crime. Some people would like for Michael Vick to be kept off the football field even though that's the only skill he has to make a lucrative living. He paid the civil penalty for his dog-fighting crime, yet some folks would ban him from football forever. Even pathetic Squeaky Fromm, the would be assassin of Gerald Ford, who has served 30-plus years in prison for her transgression, will be released from jail but will remain on probation until her natural life expires. How did the idea that punishment should be forever get in the heads of the self-righteous? Where is forgiveness? Where is rehabilitation? Well, at least the mob isn't demanding the gallows nowadays. Let's hope this trend abates or our society and civilization will revert to medievalism.

God's Will

No man knows the will of God. That's the conventional wisdom. It's a trait of God, being omniscient and unfathomable in knowledge and wisdom. At least, that's the way I understand it, according to what I've heard in church. That no man knows the will of God is also behind the idea of a prophet, one who speaks for God. The significant prophets have generally recorded most of their pronouncements of the will of God. Rather than attempt prophecy, some religious persons spend a goodly amount of their time trying to determine the will of God through study and interpretation of scripture. After all, if the Bible is the word of God, shouldn't his will be expressed therein? However. since "To err is human...", biblical scholarship and interpretation may not correctly produce the will of God.

The prophetic and biblical record on embryonic stem cell research and abortion are non-existent or less than meager. Being virtually without a source of information as to the will of God which remains indiscernable, wouldn't it be something if embryonic stem cell research and abortion were both sanctioned by the will of God. God is merciful. Would God not permit the discovery of life-saving cures? God is loving. Would God not love a woman who decided not to continue a pregnancy, an act that would be a matter between her and her God, to be decided on a case by case basis, according to the circumstances? Sometimes, an abortion would be good for the woman and sometimes for the nascent child. If God is merciful and loving would he not give a soulthat is said to enter the body upon conception and interrupted by abortion, a second chance at life.

The problem with the Religious Right's opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion rights is that it is entirely subjective, based on their religious beliefs, which have no more validity than the religious beliefs of others who have a different interpretation of God's will. Who's right? We will never know. This is the over-riding reason why the government has no business in prohibiting or regulating stem cell research or abortion.

In the Stem Cell Debate

RSam Brownback, Kansas Republican Senator, commenting on President Obama's decision to rescind the Bush ban on federal funding of expanded research on new lines of embryonic stem cell research, as reported in the KC Star (3/10/09) said, "If an embryo is a life-- and I believe strongly that it is life-- then no government has the right to sanction their destruction for research purposes."

First, what does Brownback mean when he says, "If an embryo is a life...", and then in the same sentence changes his reference to the degree of animation of an embryo by saying, "... I believe ... it is life."?

The presence or absence of an article gives the word 'life' two different meanings. 'Life' preceded by an article suggests a defined existence. 'Life' without the preceding article suggests a general condition. So, which is it? Is the embryo, possessing 'a life', a human being in the fullest sense or is the embryo with 'life' a group of undifferentiated human cells, which, being capable of cell division, is considered as living. Life is the subject of biological studies. Study of 'a life' is the subject of psychology, sociology, anthropology, psychiatry, and other similar disciplines, none of which deal with the behavior of human embryos, if such even exists.

If an embryo is a human being, why doesn't it appear on the family tree? Why wouldn't any compensation for reproductive purposes received on its behalf be considered as taxable personal income? Why wouldn't disposing of an embryo be considered as an unlawful taking of a life? The answer to the preceding questions is evident: a human embryo, while alive, does not have a life. An embryo is not a human person.

Second, since embryos are not people, when the stem cells that constitute the early embryo, technically referred to as a blastocyst, are used in research, destruction of 'a life' does not occur.

The use of inflammatory language is a characteristic of religious zealots. Violent themes are the stock in trade of religious zealots in the self-styled 'right-to-life' movement, because they intend to appeal to the emotions of persons who are uninformed about embryonic stem-cell research.

CNN's Compassion Forum

"Compassion Forum" is a misnomer. Rather than asking the Democrat presidential candidates questions about caring, just, humane behavior toward those in need, the topics queried were about the religious views of the candidates vis-a-vis current social, economic and political issues. Since when does religion have a lock on compassion? The news media is resplendent with ignorant persons who postulate catch phrases like "Compassion Forum" without a full understanding of its implications. Atheists, agnostics, and secularists who are believers in a higher power or unbelievers, as the case may be, have the same ability to claim compassion as a personal virtue as does a religious person. The odd thing about the media's interpretation of compassion is that somehow they involve it in issues like evolution, abortion, secular government, and literal interpretation of the Bible, all hot button items for fundamentalist voters. So, would CNN please tell us why, other than to reveal their lack of scholarship, they chose to call their grilling of candidates about religion a "Compassion Forum"?