March 2, 2005  
   

Dear Concerned Citizen,
by Dr. Nigel M. de S. Cameron
 

I wonder why? They would all have made great headlines. They are even true. And they give us some of the best news we have had in a long time.

Of course, at the same time they would break open one of the favorite stereotypes of the press: that anyone who opposes “therapeutic cloning” is a pro-life nut, and that the only reason President Bush opposes it is that he is under their power.

But Russia? Saudi Arabia? African and Pacific island states? Germany?

GERMANY?

What is this dirty little secret that the press has labored to keep quiet?

The legal committee of the United Nations General Assembly has voted for a declaration that calls on the nations of the world to ban all human cloning – for whatever purpose.

The vote still needs to be sustained in the full General Assembly, but because the legal committee is a committee of the whole (all the nations are represented) its own vote is big news.

After several years of proposals, delays, votes, and more votes, we have a decision. And it’s a very good decision.

True, “declarations” do not have binding force. In the first place, discussion focused on whether the UN could agree on a “convention,” which is a kind of treaty that nations sign onto (if they choose) and are then obliged to write into their own laws. But since conventions are voluntary (like the Kyoto convention on global warming: no-one is obliged to sign it), the difference between a convention and a declaration is not as big as its critics (like the UK) have already begun to claim. One of the most famous documents of the 20th century is the UN’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Make no mistake, this cloning declaration is big news. Because it tells the world that biotechnology is an ethical issue, and that the huge lobbying efforts of biotech companies and celebrities who want to clone human embryos by the millions for experiments and death has not succeeded. However, they have brought efforts to ban cloning in federal law to a stalemate. The Senate may yet pass the Weldon-Brownback cloning ban, though despite its huge success in the House it has been stalled. But there are other places where big biotech money does not get in the way of democracy quite so easily.

Another reason the UN cloning ban is big news is this: it includes a ringing declaration of the rights of women in the face of demands by corporate biotech and the customers they serve. And while feminist activists have often found themselves opposing pro-lifers on abortion at the UN, this time something strange has happened.

Some women’s rights campaigners have been glad to side with pro-lifers on cloning - for a simple reason. Advocates of “therapeutic cloning” always gloss over one key requirement of their planned embryo experiments: the eggs. Cloning makes embryos without sperm, but it does not make them without eggs.

It has been calculated that it could take 100 human eggs to get one human embryo clone for an experiment. That means it will take hundreds of millions of women to provide the eggs needed for “therapeutic cloning” to provide the one-on-one medications that have been promised – for example, in the notorious speech of Ron Reagan, Jr., to the Democratic Convention last fall.

Women’s advocates may not oppose embryonic stem cell research using spare in vitro embryos, but they are very unhappy about having women super-ovulate so they can be the egg factories for experimenters, biotech corporations, and wealthy consumers wanting their "own personal medical toolkit".

That’s one reason why Judy Norsigian, famed editor of the pro-choice healthcare book Our Bodies, Ourselves, signed the rebuttal to California’s Prop. 71 (which allocated $6 billion to cloning and stem cell research). It explains why around the world many nations that allow abortion do not want to allow biotech corporations to buy poor women’s eggs wholesale.

So feminists have been pressing to control these new technologies, and the UN Declaration passed by the legal committee includes a clause that sets out their concern: in section (d) "Member States are called upon to take measures to prevent the exploitation of women in the applications of life sciences".

If and when the American press does get around to reporting on this vote in the United Nations, it will have to come clean on the whole story.

I wonder how many California voters who backed Prop. 71 knew that “therapeutic cloning” is a serious crime in many parts of the world? And I don’t just mean Catholic countries where human life is taken more seriously than in others. I mean in Canada. And Australia. And Germany, where they know a thing or two about unethical science.

Even FRANCE!

Last July France made “therapeutic cloning” a felony. Do it there and you will get seven years in jail.

Strange bedfellows at the UN have blazed the trail for cloning bans around the world. Let’s work to get this news out in the media of our communities.

Responses to: Making Room for Faith

Thank you for the positive and provocative opinions expressed in Making Room for Faith. I find it good reading. It is gratifying to see thoughts expressed that are too often removed from the public arena. In Mr. D'Souza's article of 2/25/05, he commented that Islam has "never had religious wars of the type that nearly destroyed Europe". Maybe I've been brainwashed by my history classes. I had two reflections: 1. I'm presuming he meant between Islamic sects, because in its early years Islam had a reputation for conversion by the sword. 2. In addition, I'm sure that the Shia might take issue with the statement after the attacks from what seems like Sunni inspired insurgents on those worshipping on the recent Shiite holy day. It did feel like a religious war, even though it was probably as political as the "religious" wars that "nearly destroyed Europe." - D. G.

Keep up the good work. Very provocative responses to complex issues. - P. G.

I am not sure what your agenda is, but I found the free headline publicity you gave Bill Maher obnoxious and offensive. No thanks. - P. T.

I find your articles rather pusillanious (author's spelling) and limiting to a free-thinking society. Your rigidities are rupulsive (author's spelling), and I request that you remove me from your emailing list. - S. B.

I enjoyed reading MR. D'Souza's article on the new freedoms of Iraq. I wholeheartedly agree with him that we Americans, and the world, must allow the Iraqi people to govern themselves and work in a peaceful way to instill basic human rights and equality. While it is wrong for the Muslims to use law as "an instrument of Muslim goals and pushing everyone else into the background", is it not also wrong for American "evangelicals" to use law as an instrument to achieve Christians goals? As a Mennonite pastor, I find it more and more difficult to align myself with mainstream Christianity in America. We are so focused on making America a righteous place in the courts and in through the passage of legislation that we may very well be abandoning the lost and ignoring the poor. I am not pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, or any other lifestyle that is in direct opposition to the life that Christ lived. But the Christian church as a whole is getting a bad name because of a few power hungry individuals who think that it is more important to protect our right to worship than it is to reach out and save the lost. Christ never said being his follower would be easy. - M. F.

The writer of this article does not have much a grasp of the facts of history. - D. W.

Dinesh D’Souza has written a thought provoking article in “Making Room for Faith”. Based on his definition I would be considered a secularist, in spite of the fact that I am a minister who is a progressive Christian. I also support the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. To compare the activities of the secularists (this organization and others, like the A.C.L.U.) as “no less intolerant and monolithic than anything the Iraqis are contemplating,” is a misrepresentation and inflammatory. It is the work being done by these organizations that keeps a check on any religious domination of our Government and insure religious freedom for all. As a minister in a large denomination, I don’t want the government in my church and I don’t want any church or religion in my government. Yes, on a personal level I like seeing “In God We Trust” on our currency. I would like to have prayer in schools and the ten commandments posted in the “public domain.” But based on historical evidence, there is nothing scarier than having a government dominated by religion. In reality, we can never eliminate “religion from America’s public domain.” Every elected Senator, Representative, and hired employee of government, bring with them their religious faith. Thank God for the secularists. - A. M.

In response to the article about Bill Maher and his early childhood experiences, we must remember that he is free to fabricate (lie) about anything he wants. I spent 18 years in the entertainment business and I know that the quickest way to get publicity is to stir up controversy and to do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In addition, Bill Maher is part of the Hollywood crowd and with that said, I rest my case. - B. Y.

I read your piece on freedom of religion; tolerance in Irag verses the lack of freedom and tolerance in this country. What I see is conservatives and Christians representing freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq, and liberals, like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hollywood and our judicial system wanting Christianity, and any form of support for the view of our founding fathers, suppressed in this country. Even though it seems to be two sides of a single argument or issue, it is actually more complicated than that. - D. L.

You people have no idea the Arab mentality. You also have no idea what the founding fathers meant when they wanted church and state separated. We aren't one big happy family of faith. The reason for this being that there is only one way to the Father and that is through the Son. No Jesus - No God. - J. K.

I read your email, about Islam in Iraq and your mentioning about the history and how there were tolerance with judiasim and christianity. I would suggest that you read more history books ( not written by muslim authors) about treatment of christians and the muslim invations of other countries and forcing people to convert to Islam because they had three options, either being killed or convert or pay the ( gizia), basicaly money. Obviously people who had no money had to convert. Look at Turkey were the apotles spread christianity what is aleft of it it is all islamic country same with Iraq , syria and now you can see what is going on in Lebanon. Shia are different than sunni in their tolerance with other minorities, if christianity can manage there is no room for judiasim at all. why don't you ask the christians who are fleeying why are they so frightened? I am telling you the truth christians are looking up to america to protect them because they are feeling the coming days are not going to be easy on them. - S. A.

Bill Maher is right. - S. V.

Law can only condemn it can never justifiy and a faith that lives by a law is not a faith because faith is being sure of what you hope for and curtian of what you can not see. Satan has 3/4 of the world in his back pocket and he has done this by deception. I just wish I could get people to see this, Jesus was right when he said many or called but few are choosen. The many that reject the Bible and its teaching will someday be judged by the same words they have rejected when they stand before God. What is strange to me is no other religion in the world has ever had a God that would die for them and he always imposes heavy burdens on them and yet the God that created everthing does not do that and they reject him. - T. S.

Thank you so much for the diffrent emails you send out. I really appreciate the messages they hold. You go the extra mile and its noticed. Thank you once again for going from ordinary to extrordinary! - T. G.

As I read it, many Christians are unhappy with Kayne West and what he sang during the Grammy's. Too bad for the Christians to disapprove however like it says, Jesus said, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” Mark 2:17. Christians might disapprove of the method however if it reaches lost souls Christians can't reach, then maybe this is the kind of cloud which Jesus could return in. - C. S.

You have it right on principle but not on fact. You mention nowhere that Islam imposed special taxes and other discriminations on Christians to the effect than the overwhelming majority of Christians in the 7th c. shrank to a dismal minority. One other way to Islamize communities is that whenever somebody marries a muslim, s/he must become Muslim and in any event the children must become Muslim. When this was not sufficient, there were frequently razzias and other (anti-charia) activities. In the 11th c. a Muslim conqueror destroyed completely the Iraqui Church (which had great missionary activities to China and India, where there are still Communities surviving in Kerala). Has the author of this article ever heard of wars between Sunnites and Shiates? I wish the author of this article live in the south of Egypt where Christians are continuously harrassed. Obviously you have never read any Journal on Eastern Christians; And I read one that is very "pro-Arab>". Finally, we may say Darfur is merely one way Islam Nationalist Tribalism destroys whatever is not conform to main Stream. The discussion about Islam runs deep: why is it that the Arab civilization began to stagnate in the 12th c. Because the Christian element had been reduced to insignificance?. Or because the Turkish and the Mongol (Muslims) had imposed their rule on Islam? According to Islam, the Quoran had been dictated in Arabic by God to Muhamed. No change is conceivable. Christ never dictated any text, but the Church put 4 gospels into the Canon so that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, each age can continue to develop Our faith (as John Henry Newman emphasized.). It is sad to read such non sense. - F. W.

I would like to see an article or interview that includes Mase without leting him get away with statements such as Kanye West being a modern day John the Baptist. I need him to come from the scriptures that he claims tp preach, and show me principles concerning him applying the Word of God with what he is doing currenty. I understand he is trying to be a light, but he is blending in with the world. Even Fat Joe made a comment about Mase not knowing what a shame to Christ that statement would mean. I stress that groups such as Crossmovement, Flame, Lecrae, Coreyred, and Precise, J-silas, R-swift, and a host of others are recognized for their true commitment to Christ without watering down the Gospel to appease to world. MASE STEP IT UP BROTHA!! Share the TRUE, and BIBLICAL plan of salvation to Kanye, Puffy, and the rest of your New York click. We are supposed to be in the world, but your appearance shows that you are of the world. Be separate, and come from among them. You could really be using your resources to bring real "Holy Hip Hop" to a dying world who needs to do more than Breath, Stretch, Shake, and Let It Go. - K. K.

I am a practicing Christian. I am also a person who respects the faiths and practices of others. When I hear people call me a secularist because I support the separation of church and state I get really steamed. Let us not forget that the founding fathers had come to this place to be free of being told how to practice their faith.In some cases they had been prevented by "the majority" from practicing their "minority" version of Christianity. When we allow state institutions (schools are a part of government) to establish prayer "formats" or to offer a particular form of worship as part of the daily routines we include the faith of some and exclude the faith of others. I suppose one would would be satisfied if your particular brand of worship is included in the officially sanctioned faith practice. What about those who are not in the "majority"? The true test of real democracies is how the rights of the minorities are protected. Americas founders had been at times forced to pay for the Church of England and put up with its status as the established religion in various colonies whether or not they were members of the church. To protect it citizens from the unfairness of imposed religious financial or political support of a church that was not their own, the framers of our constitution put in place the rights we still have today. The freedom FOR religion is also a freedom FROM the religions of others forced upon the unwilling or those of differing beliefs. I'm sure the 10 million or so Muslims in this country would not be particularly thrilled to be forced to "Pray in the Name of Jesus." Thanks to Jefferson and the authors of the constitution, they don't have to. Just because I believe in the rights of others to be protected from imposed beliefs of a faith not their own does not additionally mean that I don't believe in or want a moral society. I resent the implication. Of course I want a society that cares about the rule of law and ethical practice. Conversely, I am proud to live in a land where the rights of minority peoples to practice their faith without majority pressure and intimidation are constitutionally protected. I am a Christian. Though the majority in this country shares my faith, a significant portion of our people do not. It is their right to not practice as I do. When any governmental agency or statute insists that they should it MUST be resisted. Interference in the faith of the minority is what freedom FROM religion (imposed by the government) is about. Freedom of religion is about about creating a place where differences can be accepted. Freedom FROM imposed religion allows that space to be created. Is that secularist? NO. It is in the tradition of accepting those who are different from us (tax collectors, Samaritans, etc.). Allowing people their own way to God is the most American and the most Christian thing we could and must all do. - S. C.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
 
• China: A Cloning Paradise
• Risks to women in embryo cloning
• UN committee approves international declaration against human cloning
• UK to defy UN over cloning ban
• Legal Committee Recommends UN Declaration on Human Cloning to General Assembly
 
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Dr. Nigel Cameron
Nigel M. de S. Cameron, former provost and distinguished professor of theology and culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, former dean of the Wilberforce Forum (Wilberforce.org) and director of Colson's Council for Biotechnology Policy. He also serves as chairman of The Center for Bioethics and Culture (thecbc.org). He is a consultant in ethics and public policy, and in his specialist field of bioethics he has given congressional testimony and represented the United States at the United Nations.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.