Imagine the Quaker
an erstwhile mirror site for weblog on newquaker.com
archives | newquaker.comSaturday, September 18, 2004
Terrible peace. During the week, the Bush administration reaffirmed what we knew all along: that its peace strategy consists of imprisoning or killing those who oppose the interests of American freedom. Acting pre-emptively remains the rule. The President said as much in a speech before the National Guard in Las Vegas on Tuesday. There he said: "We will strike the terrorists abroad so they can't come here and hurt us. (Applause.)"[1] And in his Radio Address today he said: "Three years after the attacks of September the 11th, our nation continues to confront the threats to our security. We're acting to protect the homeland, to track and disrupt terror networks across the world, and to hold to account the sponsors of terror. We're staying on the offensive, striking the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."[2]
In the meantime, it seems those macho energies won't be enough to keep us from having to "face them here at home." While we're busy over there, we've completely ignored our domestic security interests over here. Time Magazine is reporting that our southern border remains wide open to invaders intent on crime or terror:"In any event, the numbers sugggest that tens of thousands of criminals, quite possibly hundreds of thousands, treat the southern border as a revolving door to crimes of opportunity. The situation is so out of control that of the 400,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered to be deported, 80,000 have criminal records—and the agency in charge, the Homeland Security Department, does not have a clue as to the whereabouts of any of them, criminal or noncriminal, including those from countries that support terrorism."[3]
Still we are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that we can fulfill the Bush administration's $480-billion dream of imposing an American-style freedom in the Middle East, thereby creating an immediate stability there and bringing our soldiers home in a kind of "peace with honor," to quote a former Republican president with similar, twisted goals.[4]
1. Speech to National Guard in Las Vegas, Nevada, Tuesday, September 14, 2004.
2. President's Radio Address, September 18, 2004, Charlotte, NC.
3. "Who Left the Door Open?" Time Magazine, September 20, 2004.
4. In his Radio Address today, President Bush said that "Our long-term security—the safety of our children and grandchildren—will be served when the broader Middle East is home to stable, democratic governments that fight terror." A similar remark, with the token peace-with-honor bromide, was made in his speech to the National Guard: "So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We'll help new leaders to train their armies, move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they deserve. (Applause.)" I've commented before on this administration's tragic return to the need for "peace with honor." Adding to the brutal sadness of this is the Bush administration's commitment to avoiding any collaborative efforts. Said Bush to the National Guard: "I will never turn over America's national security decisions to leaders of other countries. (Applause.)"
posted by Merle Harton, Jr. 6:14 PM
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Embryonic stem cells promise medical science solutions to a gathering of intracticable human diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, heart disease, and many others. What stands in the way is the belief that the use of embryonic stem cells is a moral wrong—and so the debate, like that over human fetal abortion, gathers its own inertia within the body of public-policy loyalists. It is a debate, like that of abortion, that seems straightforward, as it marches forth with the same conceptual inventory—person, child, life's beginning, etc.—but it cannot be won until those on each side of the debate agree on the true value of human life.
In human stem cell research a human egg is fertilized (or cloned) to form an embryo. The embryo divides, becomes a blastocyst, and develops stem cells. These stem cells can be removed, grown in Petri dishes, and create pluripotent cells that can then be turned into any of more than 200 tissues in the human body. Adult stem cells are tissue specific, so have limited potential; embryonic stem cells result in genuinely undifferentiated cells, capable of existence as any specific human tissue the scientist chooses. This research on human embryos is young, only since 1998, and has not produced anything beyond the promise.
From the standpoint of natural science, human life is merely another biological form, so immediately there is no common ground between natural scientists and those who oppose the harvesting of human embryos. And it is true that, in contemporary taxonomy, there is no outstanding moral difference between using the embryo of a human and that of an aardvark: both are organisms and both are mammalian life forms. Whether to use one or the other is simply a practicable, utilitarian matter.
Nothing can change the outcome of the debate until there is common conviction that the difference between human and animal rests ultimately on the fact that we are created in God's image, and so there is that of God in each human being and not in any animal. This isn't to say at all that we therefore have free reign with everything in the animal kingdom, for as stewards of the Father's creation we have equally important duties at this station. My point is that nothing in the debate—whether it's embryonic stem cell research or abortion—turns on the nature of person, soul, child, life's beginning, blah, blah, blah. Humans are unique in the universe. By virtue of our divine origin there is an outstanding moral difference between using the embryo of a human and that of an aardvark.
posted by Merle Harton, Jr. 10:59 AM
© Merle Harton, Jr. All rights reserved. Biblical references are NIV® unless otherwise noted.
