Manifesto Calls on Ethics and Law to Rein-In Biotechnology

Statement - On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research...

One of the great hallmarks of American law has been its solicitous protection of the lives of individuals, especially the vulnerable. ...–one of the great achievements of the modern world–is founded on the conviction that when the dignity of one human being is assaulted, all of us are threatened.

Current law against funding research in which human embryos are harmed and destroyed reflects well-established national and international legal and ethical norms against the misuse of any human being for research purposes. Since 1975, those norms have been applied to unborn children at every stage of development in the womb, and since 1995 they have been applied to the human embryo outside the womb as well. The existing law on human embryonic research is a reflection of universally accepted principles governing experiments on human subjects–principles reflected in the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and many other statements. Accordingly, members of the human species who cannot give informed consent for research should not be the subjects of an experiment unless they personally may benefit from it or the experiment carries no significant risk of harming them.

...the Supreme Court has never prevented the government from protecting prenatal life outside the abortion context, and public sentiment also seems even more opposed to government funding of embryo experimentation than to the funding of abortion. The laws of a number of states–including Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah–specifically protect embryonic human beings outside the womb. Most of these provisions prohibit experiments on embryos outside the womb.

Human Embryo Research After the Genome …The Orwellian terms "pre-embryo" and "potential human being" no longer have any scientific validity.

The genome is simply the sum of hereditary information for the species. Written in the molecular language of DNA and organized into genes, the genome encodes all the instructions the organism needs to synthesize cellular building blocks and develop from an embryo into a unique, mature individual with a beating heart, sensitive fingers, and a brain that even in toddlers vastly outclasses the most advanced computers. Although microscopic in size, the human genome is enormous in its information content. Its 3.1 billion nucleotide base pairs are arranged along a double helical strand of DNA that, if removed from a single cell and stretched out, would measure more than five feet long, but only 50 trillionths of an inch in thickness.ⁱⁱⁱ If written out as a book, the human genome would take up the equivalent of 200 volumes the size of a Manhattan telephone book at 1000 pages each. It would take 19 years to read aloud without stopping, at 5 bases per second, the entire sequence of the genome within the nucleus of the human embryo.^vv

…If the embryo were not so busy, he or she might take a moment to wink at the thousand scientists who labored for 15 years to sequence the complete human genome. Hailed as "a massive project on a scale unparalleled in the history of biology,"ⁱⁱ and at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the Human Genome Project has yielded a staggering volume of data. The only problem is that science knows how to read only a small portion of the genome. The underrated human embryo can read it all.

We seek a wide-ranging review of the patent law to protect human dignity from the commercial use of human genes, cells, and other tissue

Tell that to the people trying to develop working organs for implantation so that we don't have to rely on donors.

Leave science to the scientist nothing good comes of getting stupid lawyer/pols involved.

Youth flocked to the Nazis and Communist causes and some observed the incredible "susceptibility of university-trained people in Germany to totalitarian appeals." Twenty five percent of the Nazis SS were Ph.Ds. Richard Vetterli and William E. Fort, Jr., The Socialist Revolution (Los Angeles: Clute International Corp., 1968), p. 88.

comment?

Which branch of the SS? There weren't enough Phds in Germany for that to be true. Probably mostly empirical subjects and not all scientist are Phds anyway.

Mostly non empirical subjects I meant.

Tell that to the people trying to develop working organs for implantation so that we don't have to rely on donors. posted by anobjectivist Actually, there is no pro-life conflict with the research to develop human organs from adult human stem cells. It is the artificial conception of individual human lives and growth-for-harvesting that is repugnant.

Studying adult stem cells, it is very likely that scientists will discover how to 'back up' differentiated stem cells to less differentiated pluripotent cells, then bring the cells forward again growing specific tissues and organs. The creation and killing of embryos, for their body parts--their stem cells--is being pushed because it is deemed by the devious scientists as 'easier' to reach the goal of controlled cellular differentiation. Such scientists care not one whit for whether the embryo is an individual human being at a natural age along a lifetime continuum begun at conception; they would use any age for their tissue sources if allowed. But they will dissemble to the uneducated public, claiming all manner of hollow reasons why the embryo should not be thought of as an individual human life ... simply because they want to kill and harvest from those individual human lives. To allow such by our tacit acceptance (the way we've allowed 42,000,000 individual human lives to be slaughtered on the altar of convenience and expedience along the highway which leads from in vitro fertilization to partial birth infanticide) of individual life created for harvesting purposes (therapeutic cloning) will be the final slide into CANNIBALISM. What a wonder modern man has become, eh? Cannibalizing from the youngest individual humans to serve the older, larger individual humans. Disgusting. And astonishing that so many Americans are in favor of this final degeneration into cannibalism.

You know I don't really feel like arguing but studying and using embryo material is not cannibalism, especially when the embryos come from a willing participant, and were fertilized outside of the human body.

We are the only creature that is capable of self study and there is no reason why we should not continue to do so.

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.
Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.
When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.
Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.
Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.
The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.
A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.
The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...

The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks. In this essay, your webmaster gives a comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others.
The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights".
A Woman's Right Over Her Body? -- by Stephen Schwarz, Ph.D. In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body.
Unplugging a Bad Analogy -- by Doris Gordon. In this essay, Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars -- by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle.
A Fetus is NOT a Parasite -- by Thomas L. Johnson, Ph.D. In this piece, chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson attacks the popular misconception that a human fetus is the equivalent of a biological parasite.
Begging the Question -- by Edwin Viera. In this brief essay, Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...

I Was Once a Fetus -- By Alexander Pruss. In this essay, mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss offers an identity based argument against abortion.
The Real Problem with Abortion -- by Mark McNeil. In this essay, Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

While it is commonly assumed that the moral atrocities associated with the Holocaust were the exclusive domain of Adolf Hitler and his loyal henchmen Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler and Albert Speer, this was only the final act, as it were, of a narrative whose beginnings are traceable to the turn of the century. Indeed it would appear, as authors as diverse as Alexander Mitscherlich, Robert Jay Lifton, Michael Burleigh, and Wesley Smith have documented, that the path to medical evil was prepared "long before Nazism was even a cloud on the German horizon." One of the tragic legacies of social Darwinism, rooted in the presupposition of biological determinism, is that it assisted in giving justification--frequently couched in the language of "compassion"--to the elimination of lebensunwertes Leben, life that is unworthy of living, or, in the language of Darwinists, life that is simply unfit.

In addition to the ascendancy of biological determinism, an important step in legitimizing the killing of the weak, the infirm, the terminally ill, and the incompetent was the shift in ethos among medical doctors and psychiatrists several decades prior to WWII. Historian Robert Proctor has argued persuasively that the Nazi experiment was rooted in pre-1933 thinking about the essence of personhood, racial hygienics and survival economics and that physicians were instrumental both in pioneering research and in carrying out this program. In fact, Proctor is adamant that scientists and physicians were pioneers and not pawns in this process. By 1933, however, when political power was consolidated by National Socialists, resistance within the medical community was too late. Proctor notes, for example, that most of the fifteen-odd journals devoted to racial hygienics were established long before the rise of National Socialism.

Few accounts of this period are more thoroughly researched than Michael Burleigh’s Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany ca. 1900-1945. Particularly important is Burleigh’s discussion of psychiatric reform and medical utilitarianism during the Weimar period. During the years of WWI, it is estimated that over 140,000 people died in German psychiatric asylums . This would suggest that about 30% of the entire pre-war asylum population died as a result of hunger, disease or neglect. Following the war, evidence indicates that a shift in the moral climate had begun. In the Spring of 1920, the chairman of the German Psychiatric Association, Karl Bonhoeffer, testified before Association members at the GPA annual meeting that "we have witnessed a change in the concept of humanity"; moreover, in emphasizing the right of the healthy to stay alive, which is an inevitable result of periods of necessity, there is also a danger of going too far: a danger that the self-sacrificing subordination of the strong to the needs of the helpless and ill, which lies at the heart of any true concern for the sick, will give ground to the demand of the healthy to live.

According to Burleigh, Bonhoeffer went on in the 1930s to offer courses that trained those who in time would be authorized with implementing sterilization policies introduced by the National Socialists.

Already in the 1890s, the traditional view of medicine that physicians are not to harm but to cure was being questioned in some corners by a "right-to-die" ethos. Voluntary euthanasia was supported by a concept of negative human worth -- i.e., the combined notion that suffering negates human worth and the incurably ill and mentally defective place an enormous burden on families and surrounding communities. It is at this time that the expression "life unworthy of being lived" seems to have emerged and was the subject of heated debate by the time WWI had ended.

One notable "early" proponent of involuntary euthanasia was influential biologist and Darwinian social theorist Ernst Haeckel. In 1899 Haeckel published The Riddle of the Universe, which became one of the most widely read science books of the era. One of several influential voices contending for the utility of euthanasia, Haeckel combined the notion of euthanasia as an act of mercy with economic concerns that considerable money might thereby be saved.

Further justification for euthanasia in the pre-WWI era was provided by people such as social theorist Adolf Jost and Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Wilhelm Ostwald. According to Ostwald, "in all circumstances suffering represents a restriction upon, and diminution of, the individual and capacity to perform in society of the person suffering." In his 1895 book Das Recht auf den Tod ("The Right to Death"), Jost set forth the argument–-an argument almost forty years in advance of Nazi prescriptions–-that the "right" to kill existed in the context of the higher rights possessed by the state, since all individuals belong to the social organism of the state. Furthermore, this was couched in terms of "compassion" and "relief" from one’s suffering. Finally, the right to kill compassionately was predicated on biology, in accordance with the spirit of the age: the state must ensure that the social organism remains fit and healthy.

Andrew C. Ivy, M.D., asked in 1946 by the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association to serve as a consultant at the Nuremberg trial of Nazi physicians who had been indicted for "crimes against humanity," reflected on his difficult experience with the following observation:

It was inconceivable that a group of men trained in medicine and in official positions of power in German governmental circles could ignore the ethical principles of medicine and the unwritten law that a doctor should be nearer humanity than other men… [W]e had assumed that the sacred aspects of medicine and its ethics would certainly remain inviolate.

Although, according to Ivy, "fewer than two hundred German physicians participated directly in the medical war crimes," it became clear to Ivy that these atrocities were only "the end result" of the "complete encroachment on the ethics and freedom of medicine" by those in positions of influence.

Put as simply as possible, you're wrong. Every embryo, no matter where conceived, is an individual human lifetime begun. The stage of being an embryo is one of a myriad of natural ages for the individual along the continuum of that individual human lifetime. To conceive then kill and harvest the body parts of the individual humans thusly conceived is cannibalism as surely as if you ate their body parts in order to treat your medical malady. Wake up. Therapeutic cloning is cannibalism.

I don't want to hear any bashing of Imperial Germany. The Kaiserreich was a light unto the world if we had let them win WWI there'd be no communism, nazism, radical islam would be contained under an Ataturkized Ottoman Empire, in the 1st world war America was on the wrong side. The German bashing won't fly with me.

Nazi Propaganda (Pre-1933 Material)

Homosexuality and the Nazi Party …While the neo-pagans were busy attacking from without, liberal theologians undermined Biblical authority from within the Christian church. The school of so-called "higher criticism," which began in Germany in the late 1800s, portrayed the miracles of God as myths; by implication making true believers (Jew and Christian alike) into fools. And since the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. As Grunberger asserts, Nazism itself was a "pseudo-religion" (ibid.:79) that competed, in a sense, with Christianity and Judaism.

From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades by powerful social forces. By the time the Nazis came to power, German culture was spiritually bankrupt. Too often, historians have largely ignored the spiritual element of Nazi history; but if we look closely at Hitler's campaign of extermination of the Jews, it becomes clear that his ostensive racial motive obscures a deeper and more primal hatred of the Jews as the "People of God."

Confessions of a Former Bultmannian This article is taken, by permission, from the "Author's Introduction" of Eta Linnemann's book, Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?, translated by Robert W. Yarbrough, published by Baker Book House, 1990. The book paints a dark picture of the current state of much biblical scholarship. As one who spent years embracing and propagating the most radical dimensions of higher criticism of the Scripture, Dr. Linnemann's testimony carries a sober warning to all who are uncritically enamored of this approach to biblical studies.

"Why do you say 'No" to historical-critical theology?" I have been confronted with this question, and I wish to state at the outset: My "No!" to historical-critical theology stems from my "Yes!" to my wonderful Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the glorious redemption he accomplished for me on Golgotha.

As a student of Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs, as well as Friedrich Gogarten and Gerhard Ebeling, I had the best professors which historical-critical theology could offer to me. And I did not do too badly in other respects, either. My first book turned out to be a best-seller. I became professor of theology and religious education at Braunschweig Technical University, West Germany. Upon completing the rigorous requirements for a university lectureship,[1] I was awarded the title of honorary professor of New Testament in the theology faculty of Philipps University, Marburg, West Germany. I was inducted into the Society for New Testament Studies. I had the satisfaction of an increasing degree of recognition from my colleagues.

Today I realize that historical-critical theology's monopolistic character and world-wide influence is a sign of God's judgment (Rom. 1:18-32). God predicted this in his Word: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Tim. 4:3). He also promised to send "a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie" (2 Thess. 2:11). God is not dead, nor has he resigned. He reigns, and he is already executing judgment on those who declare him dead or assert that he is a false god who does nothing, either good or evil.

About a month after this, alone in my room and quite apart from any input from others around me, I found myself faced with a momentous decision. Would I continue to control the Bible by my intellect, or would I allow my thinking to be transformed by the Holy Spirit? John 3:16 shed light on this decision, for I had recently experienced the truth of this verse. My life now consisted of what God had done for me and for the whole world--he had given his dear Son. I could no longer brush this verse aside as the nonbinding, meaningless theological assertion of a more-or-less gnostic writer.[3] Faith can rest on God's binding promise; speculative theological principles are of merely academic interest.

That is why I say "No!" to historical-critical theology. I regard everything that I taught and wrote before I entrusted my life to Jesus as refuse. I wish to use this opportunity to mention that I pitched my two books Gleichnisse Jesu . . . [4] and Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, along with my contributions to journals, anthologies, and Festschriften.[5] Whatever of these writings I had in my possession I threw into the trash with my own hands in 1978. I ask you sincerely to do the same thing with any of them you may have on your own bookshelf.

Amazon.com: Books: The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical ... This is one of the best analysis of Higher Biblical Criticism available. Two evangelical Biblical scholars (Thomas & Farnell) tackle this issues quite ably. They begin by discussing the roots of Higher Biblical Criticism and the trends it has undergone up to the present day. Moreover, the authors do in fact cover B. Spinoza's influence on the overall issue, something that many books of this kind neglect (Spinoza could be considered one of the "father's" of Higher Criticism). Furthermore, the authors deal with the philosophical rub of higher criticism (i.e. philosophical hermeneutics) as well as the areas of source criticism and redaction criticism. Another positive aspect of the book is the fact that these authors discuss the well known Biblical scholar Eta Linnemann (former student of Rudolf Bultmann - I had the privilege of hearing her speak on these very issues). Linnemann has some of the strongest refutations of Higher Biblical Criticism still in print today. Lastly, these authors discuss the inroads of higher criticism into evangelical circles and the dangers and problems that it causes in the areas of apologetics, the gospel, preaching, and especially hermeneutics. While the topics at hand can be somewhat difficult, these authors have brought the issues back down to earth and written in such a way that a wide ranged audience will be able to enjoy the contents. This is a definitive work in this area, and a must read for evangelicals (and/or other Biblical conservatives) who find men like J. Crossan, M. Borg, R. Funk (the current adherents to many of the issues of Higher Biblical Criticism) and others intimidating. I highly recommend this book.

Biblical Criticism on Trial: How Scientific Is "Scientific Theology"?

Table of Contents
1. The Lost Gospel of Q: Fact or Fantasy?

2. Another Look at the Synoptic Problem

3. Pauline Authorship and Vocabulary

4. "Inauthentic" New Testament Writings: Scientific Findings or a Witch Trial?

5. The Quantitative Structure of the New Testament Vocabulary

About the Author
Eta Linnemann taught New Testament at Philipps University, Marburg, West Germany until her personal spiritual crisis and conversion. Later she became a missionary teacher of native pastors at a Bible institute in Batu, Indonesia. She lectures on historical-critical theology throughout Europe and North America.

Robert Yarbrough has translated a number of German works of special interest for English-speaking evangelicals. He has taught at Wheaton College and Covenant Theological Seminary and is now on the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Theologians Under Hitler The figure of Adolf Hitler stands alone in modern history as a symbol of evil. In hindsight, the evils of Nazi Germany are obvious. But what led many good, intelligent people to follow National Socialism and serve as its apologists? And how could three of Germany's greatest Protestant theologians: Paul Althaus, Gerhard Kittel, and Emanuel Hirsch, support Hitler?

This documentary will explore the paradox of three great theologians- whose work still stands today- who supported Hitler during the Nazi era. It will examine difficult questions about the Church's ability to recognize evil, both yesterday and today, and will contrast these issues with Christian figures, such as Bonhoeffer and Niemoller, who did indeed stand against evil.

The producers are working with Robert P. Ericksen, author of "Theologians Under Hitler (1985 Yale University Press)," the definitive work on this subject, and will be seeking out and interviewing students, friends, and family members of the subjects of this documentary.

This program is currently planned to fit the PBS guidelines for a one-hour documentary. We plan to produce this program in high-definition video.

May I ask what homosexuality and the Nazi Party has to do with cloning?

"We don't want to bring more defective people into the world,"

Humanity’s rapid technology growth coupled with its rejection of basic morality in favor of utilitarianism will soon reach a new depth. I pray and hope that I am wrong but (imho) the Pandora’s box is now open and those with the “moral authority” have neither the will nor spine to attempt to close it. While it is a good document, it is tantamount to handing someone Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation when they already have one foot off the cliff. Too little MUCH too late.

Yeah I know the SA was a bunch of homos what does that have to do with cloning?

I was fortunate enough to hear Sandi Rios speak about the Manifesto, today in Austin at the Family Friendly Legislative Day.
I hope that the Manifesto gets more attention than it has been getting and by the general public.

Stress the "non-abortion issue" phrase!! (even though humans are humans where ever they are.)

What was it that Jesus said, 'What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me', to paraphrase? Individual human life is a continuum, with a starting point at conception.

POSTS 4,11,14-16 are all related to the degeneration of German theology/philosophy, prerequisite to the environment which allowed Nazism to flourish.

POST 15 is the title of the link where the excerpt was taken. Read the excerpt & ignore the title.

If you are unable to dispense with the title of the link in POST 15, read this extended version:

EXHIBIT A...

Paul Tillich, (August 20, 1886-October 22, 1965) was a famous [perhaps the most famous theologian of the 20th century] German-American theologian who represents the radical end of mid-20th century movement called Neo-Orthodoxy. Karl Barth (1886-1968) would represent the "conservative" end of this same movement.

However, thanks to Reinhold Niebuhr (1893-1971), Tillich was able to obtain a teaching post at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Tillich soon learned English and he became an American citizen in 1940. Subsequently Tillich held professorships at Harvard and the University of Chicago.

Paul Enns writes that, "To those familiar with traditional theology, Tillich's Systematic Theology is like a museum of Picassos. While some of the subjects have an oddly familiar look, the perspectives are often startling and strange. His whole approach has a highly abstract quality. The Bible is rarely quoted, and only occasional reference is made to the classical theologians.

Critics have argued that Tillich's position is scarcely distinguishable from pantheism. Tillich also taught that sin was estrangement from one's true self, and that God is a person's "ultimate concern."

...the key to Tillich is to understand his guiding hermeneutic -- the movement called Existentialism. "Modern existentialism," argued Tillich, "was born as a protest against Hegelian essentialism." Indeed, the modern Existentialist movement goes back to at least the melancholy Dane, Søren Abby Kierkegaard (1813-1855), whose writings were not widely known outside Denmark prior to 1918.

Tillich...adds that "you cannot understand people like Schleiermacher or Ritschl, American liberalism, or the Social Gospel theology, because you do not know that against which they were directed [sic], or on what they were dependent."

Perhaps the most important theological thinker of the age of Romanticism was Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Schleiermacher was an influential Reformed minister who preached at Trinity Church in Berlin. He has been called "the prince of the Church;" "a Herrnhutter (Moravian pietism) of a higher order;" and the father of classical liberal (German) theology.

Tillich states that because of his interest in the philosophical concept of eros, "it is no mere coincidence that Schleiermacher was the great Romantic translator of Plato." Schleiermacher, writes Tillich, is indeed "the father of modern Protestant theology."

Thus, Schleiermacher was willing for religion to wave all claims on anything belonging to either the realm of science or ethics/morality. In return, Schleiermacher wanted religion's "cultural despisers" to recognize religion as "something human in its own right and of its own kind."

Tillich charges that thanks to Schleiermacher's theology, the churches of German during the 19th century became empty as "neither the youth nor the men were satisfied with [mere] feeling."

With the rise of the Church Growth Movement, and the popularity of content-less "praise choruses" with in many modern Evangelical Churches, this is an interesting commentary! Perhaps Tillich, as an historian of Christian thought has something important to teach us!

E. THE UNIVERSAL SYNTHESIS: GEORG W.F. HEGEL

Tillich is correct when he states that "neither Marx, nor Nietzsche, nor Kierkegaard, nor Existentialism, nor the revolutionary movements, are understandable apart from seeing their direct or indirect dependence on Hegel."

To this list I would add Hitler and the Nazis [the fruit of right-wing Hegelianism], and Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot, etc. [the fruit of left-wing Hegelianism]. Hegel, who died in 1831, spawned the ideologies that led to the deaths of perhaps 200-300 million people during the 20th century.

On the theological front Hegel spawned the thought of "Life of Jesus" critic David Fredrich Strauss (1808-1874); NT critic F.C. Bauer (1792-1860) [THESIS = early Jewish-Christian communities and Petrine thought; ANTITHESIS = pagan, Greek and Pauline thought; SYNTHESIS the Johannine community; and the work of OT Higher Critics such as Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).

Tillich points out that while it is true that biblical criticism had existed since the time of deism and the Enlightenment, "a new element was introduced by Hegel." This new element was Hegel's notion that "history is a process [the Hegelian dialetic]." This process provided the intellectual foundation for the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis [the Higher-Critical Method].

Virtually all contemporary theology is based on the Bible understood via the Higher-Critical Method. Hegel is important because without the dialectic of Hegel the entire system of Higher-Critical Method crumbles. Indeed, ideas have consequences. Like Tillich, with Hegel, the line between theology and philosophy is typically difficult to discern.

For Hegel, all reality moves in the now famous Hegelian triad [the Dialectic] of "Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis." Tillich then adds that this "distorted image of Hegel" is "the usual caricature." He adds that once he taught Hegelian philosophy in Frankfurt "I spent the whole academic year, four hours a week, and got through only half of the material." The point Tillich seeks to stress is the that old "Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis" Hegelian triad fails to do justice to this profound system. This is one of the reason I hate Hegel. Whenever I run into a Hegelian they always try to pull a elitist Tillich.

Hegel's writing is incomprehensible. Hence, it lends itself to caricature and misinterpretation. Then, Hegel's arrogant disciples turn around and blame normal readers for their inability to understand Hegel's "true meaning." The "distortion" is on Hegel's end, not on the receiving end of the transmission!

Applied to Christian theology Hegel's system has been described as "a grand declaration of the metaphor of the Incarnation." Hegel, with his mystical and speculative idealism, sought to answer the Enlightenment by elevating theological truth beyond history.

In the process, Hegel's system became "the work of a radical immanentist." According to Grenz and Olson, "this immanentism {pantheism] is Hegel's most important and lasting contribution to contemporary theology."

B. THE "BACK TO KANT" MOVEMENT

During his university training Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) was influenced by Schleiermacher, Kant, and the Hegelian NT scholar F.C. Bauer. Ritschl taught at the University of Gottingen from 1864 to 1889. His teachings and writings influenced the entire pre-WWI generation of Protestant pastors and teachers. Tillich notes that "it was the Ritschlian school which introduced Kantianism into theology." Following Kant, Ritschl set up a distinction between scientific knowledge [which describes only the way things are], and religious knowledge which deals with the way things ought to be. In philosophy this is concept is known as the Is/Ought, or the Fact/Value Dichotomy.

According the Ritschl, again following Kant and sounding like Schleiermacher, conflicts and misunderstandings arise within the secular academic community "when people fail to observe this distinction between theoretical knowledge and religious knowledge." Like Kant and Schleiermacher, Ritschl sought to protect religion by moving it above and beyond secular knowledge. Tillich states that end result of the Ritschlian movement in theology was development in two key areas; "scientific [historical] research and the moral principle or experience of the ethical personality." That is, Biblical Higher Criticism and ethics.

In the end, Ritschl --and the other 19th century Liberals-- were bitterly attacked in the early 20th century by Neo-Orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner.

C. ADOLF VON HARNACK

During his lifetime Harnack's writings were very controversial. However, because he enjoy the support of the German government Harnack was protected from more orthodox critics within the state Evangelical {Lutheran-Reformed State Church].

Harnack taught that "the kernel of authentic Christianity could only be discovered when it had been separated [by trained German scholars and critics of course!] from the husk of cultural forms that NT documents and Church traditions had cloaked it in." Harnack, reports Tillich, rejected Hellenized dogmatic theological terms such as ousia and hypostatis as elements foreign to true Christianity.

Thus, for Harnack, the husk was centuries of Greek philosophy and later "Roman Catholic tradition and darkness" that had been stripped away by the Protestant Reformation. The highest and most advanced form of Christianity was of course the German Evangelcial Church [a Lutheran-Reformed amalgamation formed by the Prussian Union of 1830.]

With his book What is Christianity? (1900) Harnack helped popularize German Classical Liberal theology with the clear proclamation that "true Christianity" is "the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the infinite value of the human soul."

In the end, 19th century German Liberalism --with it's optimistic anthropology and unlimited faith in human progress and the immanence of God-- failed. WWI and the bloody 20th century exposed the fatal weakness in their naïve theological system.

8. KARL BARTH

Like Tillich himself, Barth was influenced by a renewed interest --prior to WWI-- in the writings of Danish Lutheran theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard's themes of the Transcendence of God who speaks to the individual in a divine moment of encounter became the foundation on which Barth and the other Neo-Orthodox thinkers began their theological deliberations.

Thus, Barth found a relevant message for his parishioners in the transcend Word --and not in the theological and philosophical religious speculations of the 19th century Liberals. Thus, in 1919, with his famous commentary --The Epistle to the Romans [Der Romerbrief]-- Barth rejected the old German Liberal theological establishment ideology based on human centered theology, "theology from below," and instead demanded its replacement with "theology from above."

On Barth's famous book, Tillich writes that it is "a book of great prophetic paradoxes; it was received in Germany and in all Europe as a prophetic book."

Tillich adds that with Barth's commentary on Romans, "here began the fight against the use of the word `religion' in theology." Barth stressed the wholly otherness of God, and the centrality of God's revelation impacting concepts such as sin, eternity, salvation, Christology and the Gospel.

Neo-orthodoxy is interesting in that most of its champions --such as Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Tillich-- had been educated in the great German universities. For example, Barth studied under Adolf von Harnack in Berlin and Wilhelm Herrmann (1846-1922) --a great Ritschlian at Marburg, "under whom [at the time] many Americans [also] studied."

Neo-orthodox theologians accepted the Enlightenment as a given. They also accepted the liberal conclusions of Biblical Criticism. At the same time, Neo-orthodoxy rejects the culture of liberalism which arose out of the emphasis on natural theology and the German state churches. The central focus of Neo-Orthodox criticism was liberalism's attempt to make the Gospel of Christ more reasonable and palatable to the modern mindset --a trend that had gone on since Schleiermacher's attempts to reach "the cultural despisers."

With his Neo-Orthodox breakthrough, Tillich writes, Barth also sought to save "Protestantism from the onslaught of the neo-collectivist and pagan Nazism [so-called `German Christianity']." Later, Tillich writes that Barth eventually saw "the movement headed by Hitler is a quasi-religious movement which represents an attack on Christianity."

As a Lutheran pastor --with several aging WWII German army veterans in my two congregations-- I appreciate Tillich's insights when he points out that Nazism was a "neo-pagan," "quasi-religious movement," and that it was an anti-Christian false religion. Some of my people here in Rhinebeck still refuse to make this vital admission!

In addition, most secular historians [such as William Shirer] fail to make this vital quasi-religious connection to the Nazi movement. Establishment secular historians tend to cling to the anti-Semitic hypnotic gangster theory of Hitler. This dangerous theory assigns all of the blame on Hitler as an historical aberration.

In addition, Tillich rebukes Barth for not challenging the Nazis sooner that he did. The ugly secret of the rise of Nazism is that it was not the product of Hitler alone. National Socialist ideology arose in the vacuum created by the theologically bankrupt German state churches {Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic --depending on the region in Germany]. Germany Liberal theology, Higher Criticism, and apostasy emptied out the churches and caused the people to turn toward neo-pagan religious alternatives. Like many in his generation, Tillich himself seldom attended church! The point is, Germany, leading up to WWI, abandon historic Christianity and turned toward the false gods of Neo-paganism, nationalism, atheism, the occult, eastern mysticism, and Marxism, etc.

Tillich fails to make the connection between Rationalism, German Liberalism, Higher Criticism, and the new Neo-Orthodoxy and the destruction of the faith of the average German Christian.

Perhaps the most freighting aspect of this is that our country is presently going through the same cycle with the rise of the New Age Movement and related Neo-pagan alternative religions. Indeed, there are many ominous parallels here!

EXHIBIT B Briggs rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and, among other things, believed that in questions of faith the Bible is not the final and only authority. He taught that human reason possesses the same authority as the Scriptures. Briggs imbibed these new doctrines while studying in Germany. He confidently proclaimed:

The Presbyterian Church as a church tolerates contra-confessional doctrines... in large numbers of its teachers and pastors... The Westminster System has been virtually displaced by the teaching of the dogmatic divines. It is no longer practically the standard of faith of the Presbyterian Church. The Catechisms are not taught in our churches, the Confession is not expounded in our theological seminaries... There have been so many departures from the Standards in all directions, that it is necessary for all parties in the Presbyterian Church to be generous, tolerant, and broad-minded.[26] (italics mine)

Hungarian Protestantism for now well over one and half centuries has been under the influence of liberal German theology. It is for this reason Sándor Makkai lamented in 1916: "There will be no Hungarian theology until we cease reciting the German theology."

Although the liberal viewpoints were already present by the turn of the 20th century and thereafter increased in strength, the ultimate thrust in their spread was brought about by the visits of Emil Brunner and Karl Barth and the growing respect for the viewpoints of their "disciples." Let's just see what Barth says in connection with the Word and the Bible?

If God has not been ashamed to speak through the Scriptures with its fallible human words, with its historical and scientific blunders, its theological contradictions, with the uncertainty of its transmission and above all with its Jewish character, but rather accepted it in all its fallibility to make it serve Him, we ought not to be ashamed of it when with all its fallibility it wants anew to be to us a witness; it would be self-will and disobedience to wish to seek in the Bible for infallible elements.[47] (italics mine)

A brief critique of Barth was translated into the Hungarian language and summarized thus:

Is the Word of God the Bible for Karl Barth? First of all we must answer this question with a plain "no". According to him the Word of God is not separated from God... The Bible, according to Barth is a human work. Historically, it is like every other book which appears on the market, entirely conditional... Revelation and Scripture according to him are two different things.[48]

Furthermore, "since Scripture according to Barth is not in a direct way but indirect way the Word of God... we are not at all assured that when we read the Word of God we are in reality hearing the Word of God and not something entirely different."[49] (italics mine)

Jenő Sebestyén, who was a professor at Budapest, was the only theologian who wrote articles against Barth saying that we have nothing to learn from him. Sebestyén spoke of Barth as someone who misrepresented himself as a Reformed theologian. As a representative of Historical Calvinism he writes this in an address entitled "Is Karl Barth Reformed?":

Since from the beginning we have preached that we do not believe in the German theology which, long ago betrayed the spirit of Reformed theology, naturally, from the beginning we were distrustful of every kind of future theological trend emanating from Germany, thus mistrustful of Barth too... If we want to learn Reformed theology from foreigners then we will not go to the school of Barth.[57] (italics mine)

The SS was overwhelmingly Catholic anti semitism and Nazism had very little appeal (beyond Hitler being percieved by the old junkers as the only man who could stop the communist without the trade unions they controlled going into a general strike) in Protestant Northern Germany. Your theory doesn't hold.

if we had let them win WWI there'd be no communism, nazism, radical islam would be contained under an Ataturkized Ottoman Empire, in the 1st world war America was on the wrong side. 13 posted on 02/11/2003 8:38 PM CST by weikel

Your theory doesn't hold. 23 posted on 02/12/2003 1:26 PM CST by weikel

Your post 13 is THEORY!

SS was overwhelmingly Catholic anti semitism23 posted on 02/12/2003 1:26 PM CST by weikel

Simon Wiesenthal Center Multimedia Learning Center Online

The Catholic flock of Europe had been split by the war. Catholics were fighting on both sides and calling upon the pope for succor. Moreover, 42 percent of the SS and much of the Nazi leadership were at least nominally Catholic. The Church had ample evidence of the threat posed by Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism to its existence. The Communists and the Nazis had demonstrated considerable ability to "persuade" millions of believers to abandon the Church.

….many priests, nuns, and laymen hid Jews in monasteries, convents, schools, and hospitals and protected them with false baptismal certificates.

In addition to active help, many clergymen also protested the mistreatment and deportations of Jews as violations of divine and human laws. The Catholic pastor of St. Hedwig's Cathedral in Berlin, Bernard Lichtenburg, prayed publicly for the Jews until his arrest and death on the way to Dachau. The rescue work of priests of all Christian denominations is well-documented in postwar literature.4

From the Protestant side, the basis for opposition to nazism was developed in the 1934 Barmen Theological Declaration approved at the first synod of the United Evangelical church (or Confessing Church) in Germany. Its aim was to counteract the errors of the so called "German Christians" (those Christians who positively identified themselves with the Nazi programs on religious grounds) and the Reich church government.

The Confessing Church in Germany also provided temporary asylum for Jews, becoming, in effect, stations on an underground railway leading to the safety of neutral Switzerland.

Despite the different interpretations, a few directions seem clear: (1) an overwhelming majority of Christian clergy acquiesced in the destruction of European Jews; (2) church leaders were unable to mount a successful effort against the Nazis. This bears serious reflection for the continuing struggles which the churches face in the contemporary world; (3) the church's self- understanding and its own sufferings under the Nazis were far too isolated from the sufferings of non-Christians, Jews in particular, to whom suffering meant death. Why did the churches raise the issue of Nazi murder of "baptized" Jews to the exclusion of the Jewish people at large?; (4) the churches were far too connected with the dynamics of German society to really stand in Judgment against it; (5) the Jewish Question could not be adequately addressed because of the long-standing theological tradition of anti-Judaism in the churches. This tradition must be obliterated once and for all by the post-Holocaust Christian community; (6) the churches, which will never regain the kind of control over society they once had, must reflect anew on how to combat totalitarian power. Where are their primary resources in such a context?; and, finally, (7) the churches' fear of communism blinded them to all other forms of totalitarian oppression. Is there danger of repetition in our day? Our Secularist Democratic Party (Long, Important Analysis)

CATHOLIC LEAGUE Pius XII and the Holocaust

More fact for you.

Liberalism B.B. Warfield observed of Liberalism near the turn of the century that it was Rationalism. But a Rationalism that was not the direct result of unbelief. Rather, it sprang from men who would hold to their Christian convictions in the face of a rising onslaught of unbelief which they perceive they were powerless to withstand. It was a movement arising from within the church and characterized by an effort to retain the essence of Christianity by surrendering the accretions and features that were no longer considered defensible in the modern world.¹ The rising tide of unbelief that confronted the founders of Liberalism was the Enlightenment.

Kant was not an atheist. He postulated the existence of God, but denied the possibility of any cognitive knowledge of him. It was man's conscience that testified of God's existence, and He was to be known through the realm of morality. Kant published another work Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone which set forth his conception that religion was to be reduced to the sphere of morality.

Hegel saw historical evolution in terms of a pendulum swing between opposites (thesis-antithesis) which resolved themselves (synthesis) in a position that was higher than either of the opposites. The synthesis then became a new thesis in the upward pull of the historical process.

Hegel held sway until the catastrophe of 1914, World War I. His philosophy of history gave the structure adopted by the emerging schools of biblical criticism, as well as the mental cast to the entire century.

Hegel's philosophy is the philosophy of self-confidence.⁵ The optimistic slogan that characterized the late nineteenth century Liberalism, "Every day in every way we are getting better and better," reflects that optimism.

Schleiermacher's theological program proceeded under three premises (1) The validity of the Enlightenment criticism of dogmatic Protestant Orthodoxy, (2) Romantic Idealistic philosophy gives a better soil in which to ground the Christian faith than the shallow moralistic rationalism of the Enlightenment, (3) Christian theology can be interpreted in terms of romantic idealism and thus allow mankind to be both Christian and modern while being intellectually honest.

Schleiermacher turned the traditional theological method on its head. Rather than starting with any objective revelation, religion was seen at its core as subjective. Experience was seen as giving rise to doctrine rather than doctrine to experience. Theological statements no longer were perceived as describing objective reality, but rather as reflecting the way that the feeling of absolute dependence is related to God. It is this experience which is seen as the final authority in religion rather than the objective revelation of an inerrant Scripture. He says "Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech.."

Ritschl himself asserted (with Kant) that man could not know things "in themselves" but only on their phenomenological relations.⁸ Since man had no categories by which to perceive God in the world, knowledge of Him fell outside the realm of the "theoretic" (scientific/empirical). Since Ritschlianism was strictly empirical, the value of historical study was elevated as a means by which one could discover God's revelation in history: the person of Jesus Christ.⁹

The truth communicated in this revelation was not "theoretic" (scientific) but "religious." Such a distinction divorced faith from reason. According to the Ritschlians the two realms had to be kept entirely separate.¹¹ Religious truth was no longer to be found in objective, verifiable propositions but in the realm of the subjective experience, in "value judgments". These "value judgments" were of a different nature than scientific knowledge. They gave no definite objective propositional knowledge, rather they set forth their subjective value for the individual.¹²

Although it professed to meet Christ in the pages of Scripture, it denied any knowledge of His preexistence, His atoning death, or second coming. Although Jesus was afforded the title "Son of God" and had divinity ascribed to Him, these were but titles of honor, communicating no ontological reality. Such knowledge was beyond the realm of experience.¹⁸

In Germany, comparative religions took the form of the History of Religions school which studied the religions of the nations surrounding Israel and concluded that Israelite religion had taken elements of the surrounding pagan beliefs and placed these within a structure of monotheism. For example, Israel's tradition of creation and the flood were said to have been borrowed from the Babylonian Genesis and the epic of Gilgamesh.

The History of Religions school was hostile to Ritschlianism for Ritschl's lack of sensitivity to the historical background of both Christianity and Judaism. It held that Biblical faith in both its Old and New Testament expressions was not distinct and a result of supernatural revelation, but represented humanity's evolving conceptions about God and religion.

Harnack represents the apex of Liberal theology.

Specifically, the Gospel was seen as having nothing to do with the Person of the Son. It dealt with the Father only.²⁴ In this understanding, Jesus' preaching demanded "no other belief in his person and no other attachments to it than is contained in the keeping of his commandments."²⁵ Any doctrine of the Person of Christ was totally foreign to His ideas. Such doctrine lay not in the teachings of Christ Himself, but in the modifications introduced by His followers, especially Paul.

In his brief but important work, What is Christianity?, Harnack distilled the essence of Christianity as, The Fatherhood of God, The Brotherhood of Man and the infinite value of the human soul. The kingdom he contended was an internal affair of the heart.

Walter Rauschenbusch spent eleven years in the "Hell's Kitchen" area of New York city ministering among the German speaking immigrants. Here he saw poverty, injustice and oppression. This led him to rethink the implications of the gospel and articulate A Theology of the Social Gospel. His premise was that

The social gospel is the old message of salvation, but enlarged and intensified. The individualistic gospel has taught us to see the sinfulness of every human heart and has inspired us with faith in the willingness and power of God tot save every soul that comes to him, But it has not given us an adequate understanding of the sinfulness of the social order and its share in the sins of all individuals within it. It has not evoked faith in the will and power of God to redeem the permanent institutions of human society from their inherited guilt of oppression and extortion. Both our sense of sin and out faith in salvation have fallen short of the realities under its teaching. The social gospel seeks to bring men under repentance for their collective sins and to create a more sensitive and more modern conscience. It calls for the faith of the old prophets who believed in the salvation of nations.²⁷

While Rauschenbusch was relatively conservative in his theological outlook, those who took up his mantle saw the message the gospel and the task of the church as working to end human suffering and establish social justice.

The term modernism was first used of a movement within Roman Catholicism and pointed to a mentality that was similar to Liberal Protestantism. However, in the United States the term came to be applied to the radical edge of liberal theology (beginning c.1910) . Whereas earlier liberalism was a kind of pathetic salvage movement trying to save the essence of Christianity from the ashes of the Enlightenment, Modernism posed a direct challenge to evangelical Protestantism and fostered a full scale response in the form of Fundamentalism. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the American religious scene was wracked with the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Progressively effected were Congregationalism, Episcopalianism Northern Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist bodies so that by about 1930 many of these bodies were seen to have been "taken over." This pitted those defenders of historic Christianity against the rising tide of a new "theology" that rejected the normative status of the Bible and even of Jesus Christ . In this Modernism signaled a step beyond Liberalism.

As a movement Modernism embraced the Enlightenment, an optimistic view of history based on the radical immanentism of God which saw the Holy Spirit as operative within both nature and culture perfecting them. This concept marked a direct dependence on Hegel's philosophy history. The division between secular culture and the sacred were seen as invalid because the Holy Spirit was seen as operative in both realms making "the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Modernism emphasized autonomous human reason focusing on humanity's freedom and self determination and it gave a religious authorization to modern efforts of man to improve his lot by relying on his own inherent goodness. The radical power of sin and evil were minimized to the level of inconvenience. Truth was seen in the latest findings of science rather than in any supernatural revelation or in any historic person. In this Modernism represented a step beyond Liberalism.

In the U.S. Modernism as a movement found its impetus from Shailer Matthews and the Chicago School (University of Chicago). Matthews used a sociohistorical approach to religion arguing that religion is functional in that it helps people to make sense of the environment in which they find themselves and that theology is "transcendantlaized politics" arising out of the church's interaction with its particular culture. This meant that Christianity had to be "modernized" in every age in order to remain a live option for each new generation.. As a movement Modernism went into decline in the 1930s under the attacks of Neo-Orthodoxy but key ideas found revival during the radicalism of the 1960s.

While it is a good document, it is tantamount to handing someone Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation when they already have one foot off the cliff. Too little MUCH too late.

Especially with the Senate Demoncrats kicking at the other foot.

You been working on LANDRIEU?

House Judiciary Panel Passes Human Cloning BanThe 19-12 party line vote for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act moves the measure to the House floor for debate the week after next, when lawmakers return from the President's Day recess.

The bill resembles legislation that passed the House last July on a 265-162 margin. That measure died in the Senate.

The cloning ban may get a boost from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who has been a vocal critic of human cloning and opposes all forms of it. But competing, watered-down bills are also vying for approval, and may have better odds in the Senate, where the stricter House measure stalled.

Another bill has also been introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback, D-Kan., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., which bans human cloning and human somatic cell nuclear transfer.

"Human cloning is one of the most immediate threats to the dignity of the human person," Brownback said as he introduced a manifesto signed by 30 scientific, political and religious leaders insisting on a total ban. "With many in the biotech industry working to perfect human cloning techniques, life is becoming increasingly instrumentalized and devalued."

Weldon said that he thinks the Senate would pass a ban on reproductive cloning, but may be willing to compromise on a moratorium for now on other types of cloning.

"I think what's going on is a strategy to just let it die in the Senate and not even allow it to come up for the vote," Weldon said. "That's the likely thing that would come out if you can't pass a complete ban in a Senate, which I think would be very, very unfortunate. That's like sending out a signal that cloning is ok in America and I don’t think the American people want that … it constitutes a terrible, moral and ethical path for us to go down."

Especially with the Senate Demoncrats kicking at the other foot.
Yes-exactly!

Re: LANDRIEU, we are doing what we can. (We really tried our best to unseat her last Dec.! It was a very painful loss.)

"I think what's going on is a strategy to just let it die in the Senate and not even allow it to come up for the vote," Weldon said. "That's the likely thing that would come out if you can't pass a complete ban in a Senate, which I think would be very, very unfortunate. That's like sending out a signal that cloning is ok in America and I don’t think the American people want that … it constitutes a terrible, moral and ethical path for us to go down." I'm really starting to wonder, Remedy, when the American people are shown that therapeutic cloning is cannibalism, will they repudiate it?... I am losing heart on this one, since it appears that even if the American people understand that TC is cannibalism, it is okay with them if it cures the medical malady of some favored actor or politician or family member. When even Orrin Hatch cannot stand on the side of repudiating cannibalism, to what base level has our nation degenerated?

I'm really starting to wonder, Remedy, when the American people are shown ~~that therapeutic cloning is cannibalism~~ the horror of P.B.A, will they repudiate it?...

I wouldn't wager on repudiation of cloning when:

S.C.O.T.U.S. remains in business. [ STENBERG v. CARHART :Justice Scalia, dissenting. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people-where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it-] Partial Birth Abortion Ban HR 4965, Passed 8/06/02, 151 OPPOSED - bottled up by Senator Daschle in the Senate. Democrats continue to obstruct Court nominees to the point of filibustering while we are about to go to war… No outrage.

"to what base level has our nation degenerated?"

Since I haven't said it in the last 24 hours... this whole subject/thread further illustrates the absolute need to start educating Christian School students ASAP. It is not possible to reverse this with the adults of today.

THE MISSING KEY OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT