Soon, Very Soon
A couple of interesting things happened today.
In the national news President Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill again on religious grounds. I don’t want to rehash the whole embryo as human discussion, but if you are interested check out one of my earlier posts on the subject.
First, researches almost unanimously agree that stem cells offer great promise in treating diseases which today have no effective medical treatment.
Second, regardless of how you feel about an embryo, the embryos in question were NEVER going to end up becoming babies. They were going to be discarded for any number of reasons. The couple already got the baby that they wanted or decided to stop treatment. The embryo was flawed and either stopped developing or began developing abnormally. The ONLY purpose for these embryos is research. If they were not provided for research, they would be discarded.
Third, the only people who can decide to provide the embryos for research are the couples who, with the help of the fertility clinics, created them. Whether or not you agree with the law, these same couples can decide to legally terminate a pregnancy, but the researchers who would use these donated embryos for valid medical research can’t get federal funding and may in some states be prosecuted.
Finally, the American people overwhelmingly support embryonic stem cell research.
The second item was in our local newspaper. A very popular and successful choir director resigned from the local community college because a person objected to what was sung at a recent graduation ceremony. It didn’t make any difference that the music was selected by the graduating class and not the director. It also doesn’t matter that the pieces are common at many graduations. What did matter is that the President of the College felt that there was potential liability.
Both of these outrageous events suggest that world is officially upside down.
How can President Bush impose his minority personal religious views on a country while a choir director is getting sacked because a college administrator fears that the school will get sued for the choir singing “Soon and Very Soon” and “To everything there is a Season”?
Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t we be sacking the President and supporting the choir director? Shouldn’t we have a President that seeks to build bridges between differing religious views and chooses what best serves the most people? Shouldn’t we also have a climate of reason and tolerance where choir directors can teach kids to sing beautiful old spirituals without fear of reprisal? That’s the way that it should work. Our leaders demonstrating in their actions that what we have in common is far more powerful than any difference.
I know that someday we’ll get all of this right. It just didn’t happen to be this day. But it will be happen someday soon.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
You know sometimes it seems like nothing at all is changing. I feel the same way about environmental things. But in very small increments things are beginning to change. Have you noticed that individual states are starting to take charge? It made the cover of Tme magazine. I can’t find the issue right now but I believe Bloomberg and Schwartzenegger were on the cover and it said something like “Who needs the federal government.” State policy can bypass a whole lot of white house ideals. Individual states are able to respond to the will of their particular people. State laws are much more customized that way if you think about it. Citizens need to drop their reps an e-mail about what’s on their mind, and more often, and reps that are listening need to move more quickly. The system works when it’s allowed to.
I always thought a free market system was a constant breeding ground for new ideas and entreprenuers. What were seeing right now is power used to stymy that system. I agree with you that change will prevail, but the frustration comes from the slow, slow rate of change. There’s a whole lot of power being used to slow progress. I got disgusted in one of my blogs because of lack of progress and said that the wealthy have taken over, they just haven’t put on their crowns yet.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I could not agree with your email more even if I wrote it myself. Sometimes it really feels like I’m watching a tug of war between two prosthelytizing extremist where the winner creates a world where we all think like them. I would love to see a free thinker come in and cut the rope. Just like I did to my younger sister when we were young so that way both sides would comically fall to the ground. I am concerned that if I enjoyed watching their fall that it would turn me into them.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Kevin and Ria,
Thanks for the great posts.
The beauty of a democracy is that we all get to vote and our votes control access to power and wealth. The voters can be manipulated, but those that chose to manipulate rather than govern ultimately fall prey to their own hubris. I can only imagine how intoxicating the atmosphere must have been in the Bush White House during the “Mission Accomplished” days. Fortunately, when you start believing your own press releases, the end is near.
In this case the end is going to be the 2008 election.
The challenge for the country is to elect someone who is going to repair he damage done over the past eight years rather than succumb to the same temptations that brought the Bush administration down.
I agree with Kevin that the tug of war needs to end. Whether it ends because someone cuts the rope or because both sides agree to stop tugging, I don’t know.
I have faith and pray that we will see a wiser election next year that we have seen for quite some time. There is much that needs to be done, and we have to learn how to talk with each other and compromise. Those currently in Washington are going to have to learn some new skills. Hopefully the American people will not only demand it, but hold those accountable don’t practice it.
Jeff
June 27th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Regarding the termination of the choir director - Dr. Nixon NEEDS to be challenged and suit brought against him by the instructor - even if the case is not winnable - make them pay for the lawyers to defend themselves. As a HR person who has had to do my share of terminations, I cannot for the life of me determine where Dr. Nixon was coming from. Michigan and most of the US is an “at will” state, so Dr. Nixon really doesn’t have to have a reason to terminate an employee. However, since he was offering petty explanations, they should at least be believable. As Christians, we see our right to express our belief in God trampled on almost daily. This isn’t even about someone expressing a religious belief! It was about a choir singing a beautiful song that happened to speak about God! How sad and disgusting is that?! Or, Dr. Nixon had a personal agenda and used the discrimination reason as an excuse - the director should do likewise - I’m assuming he is over 40….
As employees, we really need to be speaking to our lawmakers about rescinding the “at will” laws that make it very easy for an employer to give employees the heave ho - for no reason. Heck, even criminals have more rights in a court of law than hard working employees! People who oppose Unions should think about that.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Mary,
John wasn’t fired. He resigned.
I haven’t talked with him about this, but it seems clear from the article that he felt he didn’t want to be associated with an institution where the leader’s top priority appears to be avoiding legal action. I don’t think he is going to sue to get a job back that he doesn’t want.
The public outcry from this action has been virtually unanimous in support of John. So he can certainly take some comfort in that.
In my opinion, this is much more about the motivation and quality of our leaders. Like it or not, we live in a society where anybody can bring legal action against anybody else. If you allow your life to be run by that fear, you get the sort of outcomes we’re witnessing.
We need leaders who are willing to stand up for what they believe in. We don’t know all that Dr. Nixon did, but from what we do know, it appears that Dr. Nixon missed an opportunity to lead MCCC in an open discussion of what free speech and respect for diversity really means. In my opinion, it is not seeking to please everyone because that attempts to dilute rather than celebrate diversity (the failure of “politically correct”). It is facilitating the sort of communication which breeds understanding, appreciation for what we have in common, and respect for what we have in difference.
Jeff
June 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I don’t know all the details of stem-cells, but I agree that it seems as though there should be no moral conflict with the usage of them. However, as Ron Paul recently said:
“In Washington, these two camps generally advocate very different policies. The first group wants a federal ban on all such research, while the latter group expects the research to be federally-subsidized. Neither side in this battle seems to consider the morality surrounding the rights of federal taxpayers.”
he goes on to say:
“As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point.”
the entire article is here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul394.html
we’ve become so wrapped up in the arguments between democrats and republicans, we sometimes fail to realize that both sides are wrong.
I agree with you that Bush often imposes his personal beliefs on the country, and it needs to stop.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
JL,
Thanks for the additional information.
You’re right that there are really two discussions here. The first is whether or not we want this research to happen and the second whether or not it is appropriate to for federal tax payers to fund it.
Hopefully the American people are begining to tire of the partisan politics and are going to elect representatives commited to compromise rather than conflict. In the meantime, I agree with you that in many cases, both sides of most polarized debates are wrong because nothing is getting done.
Jeff