Churches joining stem cell showdown

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-553-1146

Churches joining stem cell showdown

By Jo Mannies and Tim Townsend, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 29, 2006

The biggest Baptist church in Jefferson City will host a rally Monday night that is the first shot in what some portray as a three-month holy war over Missouri's November ballot proposal to protect all forms of stem-cell research allowed under federal law.

Religious groups on both sides are expecting national attention and aid.

"Missouri is seen as a key state in this battle," said Don Hinkle, editor of The Pathway, the official publication for the Missouri Baptist Convention, among the denominations opposing the ballot measure.

Monday's rally - which begins at 7 p.m. at the Concord Baptist Church - is the first of five events to be held at churches around Missouri over the next few weeks to galvanize religious opposition.

"We're beginning to flex our muscles a bit," Hinkle said.

Monday's speakers include two national figures: conservative commentator and politician Alan Keyes and the Rev. Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, a national religious group.

St. Louis Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke is slated to join them at a rally on Aug. 28 at the Life Christian Church, 13001 Gravois Road.

All four of Missouri's Roman Catholic dioceses are joining several of the state's largest Protestant denominations - including the Southern Baptists, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Assemblies of God - in opposing the ballot proposal, which they say would allow human cloning.

The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, the group promoting the ballot measure, cites wording that bans human cloning.

The coalition - which includes universities, medical centers and patient groups - points out its own support from religious groups. Still, some of its allies lament the possible religious confrontation.

Former U.S. Sen. John C. Danforth, an Episcopal priest and honorary co-chairman of the coalition's campaign, said he understands the national focus on Missouri.

"We are a bellwether state. Our state is a microcosm of the country," Danforth said. "I think that people in politics will look at this and think, 'What happens in Missouri is important, and telling.'"

But Danforth added that he'd prefer to keep religion out of what he sees as a scientific matter.

"It's very important that this issue not be addressed as one religious view against another," Danforth said. "It's important that it be resolved on the basis of other considerations."

Several religious leaders on both sides of the issue offer similar words of caution.

"It's a mistake to look at this as a purely religious issue," said the Rev. Charles E. Bouchard, president of Aquinas Institute of Theology and an opponent of the ballot proposal. "At the moment of fertilization it becomes a life issue, and any reasonable person can ask when life begins. You don't have to be a believer."

Fight 'may get too ugly'
Still, others say that religion is the foundation of much of the debate over embryonic stem-cell research.

Orvin T. Kimbrough, executive director of Interfaith Partnership of Metropolitan St. Louis, said, "If religious people are concerned about any issue, it's a religious issue. At times our communities agree to disagree, and this may be one of those issues."

The fight focuses on embryonic stem-cell research, which involves early-stage fertilized embryos - such as those left over from fertility treatments - and a procedure known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer, also known as SCNT. Under SCNT, the nucleus of an unfertilized embryo is removed and replaced with the nucleus from another cell.

Supporters say the research can lead to cures of debilitating diseases, such as Parkinson's. Opponents say it is immoral and unproven. That fight has led to numerous efforts in the Missouri Legislature to ban SCNT and embryonic stem-cell research. The coalition is seeking a constitutional amendment to protect in Missouri any such research allowed under federal law.

But some religious leaders worry that the battle may get bloody.

"They have dubbed it a 'holy war,'" said the Rev. James T. Morris, pastor of Lane Tabernacle CME Church in St. Louis and a supporter of the ballot proposal. He is among a group of African-American pastors who have been traveling around the state promoting it.

"I know there will be a lot of debate in the coming months, but I hope it doesn't get too ugly," Morris said.

But the rhetoric has already taken on a sharp edge.

The Rev. Suzanne Meyer, pastor of First Unitarian Church of St. Louis and a supporter of the measure, compared the opponents of embryonic stem cell research to scientific naysayers of past generations.

"We can think about the notion that disease was God's punishment for sin, or even when the Pilgrims saw smallpox as God's way of eradicating the Native American population," she said. "We now regard those concepts as ludicrous."

Decades from now, she contended, "We'll look back at the theological arguments against embryonic stem cell research and regard them as ludicrous and as reprehensible."

In the opposing camp, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Missouri Baptist Convention say they're using church publications and the public to inform their members about the churches' opposition.

Maggie Karner, director of life ministries for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, said the message is that "it is ethically and theologically unacceptable to destroy the life of one innocent human being for the life of another."

David Masci, a senior research fellow for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a nonpartisan policy group, said both sides are simplifying their messages for the masses.

"Folks in favor tend to talk about miracle cures and those against talk about destroying life," he said.

Danforth and Keyes exemplify both approaches.

Danforth poses a rhetorical question: "If a building was burning and there was a Petri dish in one room and a 3-year-old in another, which would you save? ... There is no moral equivalence between cells in a dish, never implanted in a uterus and a child."

Said Keyes in reply: "What is in that dish is humanity, and that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is its development."

Although much of the religious debate has focused on rival Christian ethics, local Jewish leaders have become increasingly vocal.

Rabbi Susan Talve of Central Reform Congregation in St. Louis supports the ballot proposal. "I believe we are mandated with a moral obligation to save lives and relieve suffering," she said. "And I believe that those who oppose this act out of fear, not out of love."

Religious groups donate money
In recent weeks, several religious groups against the measure have weighed in with financial help:

The Missouri Baptist Convention has donated $100,000 to the main political group opposing the measure, Missourians Against Human Cloning.

The Knights of Columbus, which is affiliated with the Catholic Church, has donated $200,000 to help pay for opposition TV spots produced and aired by the Vitae Caring Foundation, an anti-abortion group based in Jefferson City.

Coalition chairman Rubin said he was concerned that the religious groups' donations and spending had yet to show up on any campaign-finance reports. Missouri law requires that such money-raising and spending be reported.

Meanwhile, opponents cite the $12.3 million that the coalition already has spent to woo the public in favor of the proposal. Said the Missouri Synod's Karner: "They're flooding Missouri voters with direct mail with fanciful language."

At Concord Baptist Church, the Rev. Monte Shinkle is preparing for an overflow crowd Monday night. Although the sanctuary holds 850 people, a nearby meeting room can accommodate 250 more, who can watch the speakers on closed-circuit television.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.