Is the Governor of Virginia "Anti Science" Too?
This escaped my notice until it was brought to my attention by a regular SHS reader. Last month, Tim Kaine the Governor of Virginia, signed into law a bill that prohibits the state from funding embryonic stem cell research. From the story:
Where's Madam House Speaker howling about how the Governor of Virginia is anti science, because it is:Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has signed a bill into law banning the use of some state funds for embryonic stem cell research. The move puts the DNC chairman at odds with President Obama, who signed an executive order earlier this month reversing the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells. [Me: They just can't get it right, can they? Bush restricted federal funding, he did not ban it. But loyal SHSers know that.]...
The governor signed another piece of legislation Monday aimed at promoting "science and technology-based" research and development in Virginia. It contains language inserted by the General Assembly that would prevent a state fund from providing dollars to organizations or businesses that undertake "research in Virginia on human cells or tissue derived from induced abortions or from stem cells obtained from human embryos."
Kaine's support for the legislation is not surprising: He is a staunch Catholic who has long opposed using taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research. But the platform of the Democratic Party, now headed by Kaine at Obama's behest, describes embryonic stem cell research as "research that could save lives."...The bill signed Monday allows funding for non-embryonic types of research
"a situation where it's faith or science--take your pick. We're saying science is an answer to our prayers."Oh, that's right: Kaine is a Democrat. I forgot: Only Republicans can be anti science.
Labels: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Virginia Ban on Funding.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 12:00 PM
21 Comments
21 Comments:
Irregardless, Kaine sucks because he has done NOTHING about his state's endorsement of futile care policy. He, like Rick Perry, is a huge hypocrite,only Perry is a pro life hypocrite and Kaine is a pro choice hypocrite. FC violates both philosophies.
SAFEpres: The minute I saw Virginia, I thought of futile care policy. Actually, from what I've seen, Catholicism has found a way to endorse futile care theory, via the way a "guardianship" organization under the auspices of a diocese claims in writing that the Vatican's current policy allows removal from life support "if the person does not wish to be a financial burden to his or her family or to the community." All the way back to its doctrine that non-human animals do not have souls and hence condoning of their use in scientific experimentation, I find the way the Catholic Church has gone, and goes, about things in such respects, and its corrupting influence on and involvement of the course of the history of science in terms of the things it condones, not good. Thus I'm not surprised that a staunch Catholic governor would go one way on embryonic stem cell research and the other on futile care policy. Disgusted, but not surprised, and I know that many devout Catholics are forced to be in a state of terrible anguish as a result, while others carry on with the hypocricy and destructive policies.
And the latter are having a terrible effect on health care policy when it comes to the right to life of the elderly and the disabled.
Which doesn't do much for the right to life movement re those not yet born.
Well, the Catholic Church's official position is not pro-futile care, to the point that I would say that the diocese citing Vatican rules about a person being allowed to forgo life support is mistating the Vatican's position on that issue, either to serve that diocese or community's agenda, or because they do not understand that Vatican's position.
All of that aside, KAINE and PERRY SUCK!!:)
SAFEpres: I had a longer response that you would find illuminating, and the format malfunctioned. Suffice to say, there is NO excuse for it, the Vatican is ultimately responsible, no wonder "forgiveness" is part of the theology, someone who stands outside the sphere of authority of the church is free to call the entire institution on it, a Vatican that knows about it, as it does, and has done nothing about it, nor even apologized, is a Vatican that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, the war against the culture of death can't be won with that going on in the world, and no wonder a devoutly Catholic governor has tolerated futile care in his state, which is one of the first in the nation to endorse it officially. Which is where we came in on this.
Well, this isn't the point of the post, but it is worth discussing. I don't think his Catholocism is relevant. His actions are. I wasn't praising him so much as showing that there are different standards at play here for judging actions.
As to futile care: I have, behind the scenes, yelled (to be frank) at people in certain position of influence about the position that some Catholic institutions have taken. I am assured these are not official positions. The CC, from the outside looking in, has strived to work so hard on what the faithful should do and be able to refuse medically, that I am not sure that the powers that be (however that works) have gotten around to an official position.But it sure would seem to me to violate Catholic moral teaching, and I am told by some, again behind the scenes, that it definitely does.
But the Catholic confusion, if you will, is a problem in stopping futile care, no doubt.
But let's not turn this into a critique of the CC. Thanks.
In fact, and I mean no offense to you, SAFEpres, any excuse for or explanation of it only further casts light on the institution's hypocricy, which is far more profound than equivocation. Nuns could slap kids' hands with a ruler and the Vatican can't and doesn't keep track of its dioceses or do anything about a diocese disobeying its doctrine and causing the death of someone who isn't even Catholic? The institution is too big? That's an excuse? There's no excuse for it. If it's too big and has gotten to the point where those under its auspices violate its doctrine, it's time it folded up its tent, which is the last thing it wants to do, even if its tent being in place costs lives which it claims to be sacred. The Vatican was notified of the situation by many -- and did nothing. Moreover this diocese is in the most heavily Cathoic region of the United States, and one of its largest, and the current pope has since his days as a cardinal been keenly aware of this bishop, who is old enough to have learned Vatican doctrine thoroughly and to whom many devout Catholics appealed and protested and pleaded for the person's life to no avail. When the Vatican sent a cardinal over here in November to remind the dioceses' parallel organization that they are supposed to follow and teach the doctrine of the Church, it did it, according to a Catholic publication in California, in response to one of them having been involved in an abortion in Maryland, but no mention of the ending of the life of an elderly person (with substantial and desireable property, by the way), which was not the first such event here. How many dioceses are running amok, not understanding the Vatican's doctrine or serving their own or "their communities'" agendas, anyway? The "right to life" person at the diocese didn't return my calls for weeks until the state council of bishops, which I'd contacted, as I subsequently did the pope's representative in Washington, D.C. (and they told me they had just brought him the fax) and other appropriate high-level branches of the church in Washington in New York (the Vatican was contacted direct, for heaven's sake, and by many), told her to, and then she tried to convince me that I should be ok with the murder, asked me about my plans for after it, would I be staying in town, etc., and even asked me how I planned to be with the victim "in Christ" at the time, when I'd just told her I'm not Christian, and was quoted extensively in the large local Catholic newspaper soon after the murder endorsing "living wills," documents the real reason for which she'd told me, verbatim, is to get rid of the elderly and the disabled to save costs. There is no excuse for these people, and even to offer an explanation for it is to play along with the hypocricy of the institution. It's not acceptable, it's not forgiveable, and even to give a correct explanation of it is to demean oneself. It's like saying that hospitals kill people and exercise futile care theory because that is the nature of institutions. To have the right to BE an institution, an institution has to do what it says it exists to do. If it can't get it right, its having its tent up is destructive.
Correction: Above, it should read "parallel organizations" (plural). Apparently, the Vatican's concern is that a whole bunch of dioceses are out of line. How did it let that happen in the first place? And where's the apology? I mean where are the apologies (plural)? How many dioceses can be so dumb that they don't understand, or so corrupt that they have agendas, or so misguided that they reflect their "communities" rather than Vatican policy, and how did they get that way, if there is clear Vatican policy? If there were clear Vatican policy, they wouldn't and couldn't be out of line. It's not "only human"; it's inexcuseable, unacceptable, and unforgiveable, regardless of anything.
And in closing, the organization under the auspices of the diocese, a diocese whose standard line is "many people are unhappy with them" ("and we will be addressing this systemic problem in the coming months and years, but not in time to save your mother's life," said the diocese's right to life official to me, yes, she said that, and "no, the bishop won't help," she also said), though the bishop could have saved the life with a simple phone call, and which has an annual budget of almost fifty million dollars, has taken in recent months to spending money that could be given directly to the poor people it claims to help on constant nauseating tv and radio ads every five minutes in which it brags about how many lives it has touched (no mention of those it has ended, and the families and loved ones it has destroyed), shilling for more money and trying to burnish its image. If the Vatican had the integrity to have a pure policy, rather than the one these people proffered in print, citing what sure looked like official Vatican policy, these people wouldn't even have their jobs under the auspices of the diocese by now, and the Vatican itself would have made sure through proper channels that they were arrested, testified against them, etc. What's obvious may be easier for someone on the outside who was not taught not to question the institution to see, but it's there to be seen, unequivocally.
Lanthe,cowardly anti catholicism gets really old and benefits no one!
Anyone who doesn’t “get” that the CC teaches the dignity of human life from conception to natural death doesn’t WANT to know.
The teaching on natural deaths allows the patient to make the decision not to be compelled to use “extraordinary means”, i.e., life support, renal dialysis, etc. The key word is EXTRAORDINARY. (FYI, feeding tubes are not extraordinary)
My own mother, a devout Catholic, finally refused renal dialysis in her already terminal cancerous state. Consequently, she died a “natural death” about 2 months later.
Here’s a great place to self-educate on these teachings in relation to what the church actually teaches, not what we THINK it teaches by the disobedience of some of its members (which by the way, has been going on since the days of Jesus):
http://www.ncbcenter.org/makingsense.asp
While I totally respect this isn’t a Catholic ethic’s blog, do know that had it not been for the “Big bad Catholic Church”, we would have been down the slippery slope and into the sea long ago. The big truth that few want to admit when it comes to human life issues is that we were well warned by whom else but the CC, in Humane Vitae, a prophetic encyclical that the world shunned.
The CC tried to warn why going against “nature” in birth control would lead us exactly to where we have come. FYI, Catholicism is based in natural law.
So if ya ‘gonna blame’, blame the “pill.” No pill, no Roe v Wade; no abortion, no euthanasia; no euthanasia, no ESR: and of course, the horrors (consequences) that still await, most likely fetal farming and “baby products” next.
In our selfishness, (self included), WE are to blame, not the CC. Like it or not, we did it to ourselves.
As for Kaine, he's a "pro-abotion", so called catholic. Doesn't that say enough? If we don't respect life in the womb, we won't respect it anywhere else. Consequenly, all related motives become "self serving." One never needs to look beyond the obvious bellwether, respect for life in the womb.
Since there's no ESC research of any note being done in Virginia it seems to matter little whether or not the governor panders to the flat-earth crowd. As I recall, his co-religionists in the Italian home office got around to accepting Copernican theory a few centuries later than most other folks. So maybe he really believes that two- and four-celled embryos have "souls." Hey, people are free to believe in all kinds of weird things. That's what makes America great.
History Write: If you keep denigrating religion here you are off this site. You can disagree all you want with my perspectives or anyone else's. But since we don't discuss religion here, please control your disdain. Thank you.
Forget history, how about a bit of common sense?
If Kaine allows “abortion”, it’s impossible on any “theological” level for ESR (or anything else life related), to hold up. Even if his decisions on other life issues are “ethical”, that doesn’t mean they are done for ethical reasons.
Ethically speaking, if one is for abortion, one cannot be “ethically” against ESC.
Nice try on more bigotry against the CC; but on THAT note, history WOULD prove you wrong, however this isn’t the board for Catholic apologetics; just debunking your illogical bigoted assumption.
If you were the sage in Catholicism you would like us to belive, you would understand why, "theologically", killing the unborn BEFORE ensoulment is more of a tragedy than killing an "ensouled" human life.
Let's not make this about Catholicism. Kaine removes himself (self excommunication) from any "Catholic argument" by his support of abortion.
"Since there's no ESC research of any note being done in Virginia it seems to matter little whether or not the governor panders to the flat-earth crowd."
It's a scientific fact that our world is an oblate spheroid. It's another scientific fact that human embryos are human beings, whether they have "souls" or not.
Sorry Wesley, but YOU are the person who first raised the subject of Mr. Kaine's Catholicism ("...support for the legislation is not surprising: He is a staunch Catholic who has long opposed using taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research.") But I suppose webmaster rank has its privileges.
History Writer: No, it was from the story. I kept it in as context for my point about the double standard at play. Besides, religion in these matters is the obsession of media and Madam Speaker. It permits them to escape dealing with the ethical issues presented.
That aside, you have made other gratuitous jibes about people of faith in other posts. Thank you for foregoing.
OK, no religion. We'll play in your ball park.
History Writer: Muchas gracias, amigo.
Wesley: Sorry -- I was posting as you were posting your first comment here, which I didn't see until now.
pdill: I'm at a loss to see how I've been cowardly here. I happen to be in agreement with the theological position of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of life, by the way, and without even being Catholic -- up to the point where it says that non-human animals do not have souls. I know what that position is pretty well, having been associate editor of The Human Life Review years ago. I've also seen my own mother, who wanted to continue to live, and wasn't concerned about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in terms of "ordinary" or "extraordinary" means, and had not been raised to feel, as a non-Catholic, obliged to have the permission of that church in related respects, murdered before my eyes, when she was aware but helpless, on the decision of "guardians" operating under the auspices of the local Catholic diocese, who have a deal going with a local hospital, and who ignored the objections of her own, non-Catholic, priest that it was against her religion to remove the life support she wanted to continue to have, and in fact regarded her as Catholic. I don't regard the CC as so necessary to humanity that such things can be excused, but then I'm not Catholic and have not been raised to believe that it is. I know what you mean about the slippery slope, but I disagree; I have more faith in humanity than that, and consider its pre-Christian achievements its greatest ones, and that it is demeaning to humans to regard them as needing "permission" and to be "taught," as if they, among other things, can't figure things out on their own, and I object to the role the CC has played in the history of science, and continues to play in the world of "bioethics and health care" today, and to its bifurcation and the effects thereof. I'm not talking religion, in which I could not possibly be less interested, here; I'm talking how did we get the death culture and what do we need to understand in order to fight it. Euthanasia long preceded the pill, by the way, and one can't blame the pill; it didn't invent itself; a doctor who had had to marry a woman he'd impregnated and wanted other men not to have to be similarly obligated invented it; blame the women stupid enough to take it, and the men who want them to take it. I don't think that people that stupid and that selfish deserve to be taught anything, or to reproduce; it's having given too much credit to the wrong people, and having lost the guts to look evil in the eye and stare it down, and to call a spade a spade, that has given us the death culture, which has thrived on the bad being considered as worthy, deserving, and redeemable as the good, and I think that when people start getting "taught" things, we end up with people without the courage to think for themselves, and with others losing the freedom to live. We're seeing that happen in political terms right now.
Hi, Ianthe-
I'm not offended-I understand how frustrating it is when people and institutions act in ways that are contrary to what their philosophies or beliefs teach. It seems like in this debate there have been Catholic and religious people on both sides-I just thinking that the official position is to oppose futile care law, not endorse or support it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home