Veritas Rex

Barack Obama on his faith

Q&A: Barack Obama

"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

A worthy read from Christianity Today about Barack Obama and his faith.  Makes me wonder.  If McCain gets the nomination of the Republican Party, and Obama the nomination of the Dems, how much of the religious vote will go to Obama?

Q:  You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?

A:  I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

Is Speaker Bauer Afraid of the ACLU of Indiana?

People have said a lot of things about Pat Bauer over the years, but “paralyzed by fear” is not one that I have heard.  In fact, Speaker Bauer can have quite a gruff and tuff persona.  Yet, with the Hinrichs v. Bosma case decided, the prayer tradition of the Indiana House of Representatives should be restored…yet, it hasn’t been.  So I have to ask myself, why? 

In the Senate, things are back to normal.  Sen. Kruse prayed in the name of Jesus to open up the session as countless others have done before him.  Yet, the House stands paralyzed.  Speaker Bauer reads different versions of the same censored prayer every day.  Usually, the House members would take turns inviting someone from their district to volunteer to lead the prayer.  This led to a diverse group of religious leaders, and others, praying according to the dictates of their conscience.  Now we have Speaker Bauer praying based on the advice of the PC police.  Do we really want government censored prayer opening up the people’s House? 

In fact, I would argue that what is currently going on in the House is more an establishment of religion than what was going on before the ACLU of IN continued their assault on Christianity and free speech.  Let’s not allow the ACLU (Anti Christian Liberties Union) of Indiana to scare us away from doing what is right. 

While I’m on this topic I must highlight my friend Yaqub Masih.  He will be leading a prayer vigil for a reinstating of the prayer tradition in the Indiana House on Friday Feb. 8th from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Indiana Statehouse Chapel, room # 432, which is located on the fourth floor of the Statehouse.  All are welcome.

Additionally, he will be hosting a time of prayer and fasting at his church, Abundant Life International Church  from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. On Saturday February 9, 2008.  They meet at Lamb of God Church 5565 N. Moller Road (corner of 56th& Moller) Indianapolis, IN 46254.

For information please call Pastor Yaqub Masih at (317) 490-5804 or email him at ymasih@cnonline.net

Jim Wallis on the role of faith in politics

Jim Wallis was on the Daily Show recently (video below).  For those of you who aren't familiar, Jim Wallis is a progressive Christian political activist whose caused quite a firestorm on the right.

I've not read a lot of his work (check it out here) although he appears everywhere- particularly when the New York Times wants to declare the religious right dead (like they did last year by pointing out that non-religious right Rudy Guiliani was the FOR SURE victor in the Republican party). 

Personally, I don't have any problem with Christians like Wallis who are less concerned with social issues and more concerned with environmental problems.  Everyone has his/her passions. 

I used to have a professor in college that would constantly remind us that nearly every political or philosophical argument could eventually be whittled down to a disagreement between World Views.  In other words, my conclusions about society and politics are driven directly from the basic belief that there is a God and he is in control.  If you don't agree with me on that, it's going to be hard to agree on everything else.

That's why I appreciate Wallis.  Because we agree on the basic principles.  I can see myself having a fruitful conversation on the issues.  So my disagreement with Wallis is not on Christian grounds- its political.  He's pursuing the same end- bringing more people into a closer relationship with God.  It's only when he jumps into the political world that we disagree.

So check him out.  I've also found a great video here.  He can get my blood boiling sometimes, but he's got a lot of good to say as well.

Update from the Statehouse

The General Assembly has been moving along at a fast pace, and it's hard to keep up-to-date on the status of legislation.  So here is a brief report on some of the activity that has happened so far today in the Senate.

Senate Bill 146 passed the Senate today 39-9. The bill requires that pregnant women considering an abortion be given information about the possibility of fetal pain and when life begins. 

The Senate also passed a constitutional amendment to cap property taxes. The amendment must be passed now by the House, and then again by both the Senate and House that are elected in this November's general election.

To no one's surprise, the Senate also voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, more commonly known as SJR 7. To become part of the Indiana constitution, the proposed amendment must be passed by the House this year, and then approved by voters in the November general election.

To many people's surprise, 6 Senators changed their vote on Senate Bill 3, a bill that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense medicines against their conscience if they believe the medicines will lead to abortion or assisted suicide. The bill stalled last week with a tie vote of 24-24 but today the vote was  30-18 in favor.  Senator Drozda has been working to get this legislation passed for years, and we congratulate him for leading this effort in the Senate.

Stay tuned for more developments...

Dangers of Hate Crime Legislation

With hate crimes legislation moving to the full Indiana House, it is timely to look at the potential dangers of such a policy.  The potential abuse of such policies on individuals who disagree with homosexuality has been a problem in different places around the world.  Here is but one example from Wisconsin:

Additionally, hate crimes legislation promotes unequal justice under the law.  Under such a law, a criminal who assaults someone, simply because they hate their victim and feel pleasure in seeing him or her suffer, would be punished LESS severely then a criminal who assaults someone because of their sexual preference.

A more common sense approach to fighting crime would be to raise the penalties for the crime itself, across the board, not picking and choosing politically correct aggravating circumstances to reward certain groups and punish others.  However, it seems that some proponents of hate crimes legislation do not care about equal justice for all, just a select few.

Want an Economic Stimulus? Fire Congress.

As we debated ways to stimulate the economy this month, one way not being considered is to give relief in the form of government de-regulation.

From the Heritage Foundation.

By itself, last month's energy bill will make food, cars, gasoline and even light bulbs more expensive. Washington is also the culprit behind high medical bills and health insurance, washing machines that have doubled in price, and our wonderful, more-expensive "lo-flo" toilets that don't flush right.

All this is on top of what red tape already costs us. A 2004 government report admitted that federal regulations cost our economy at least $1.1 trillion each year. That's $3,666 per person, so multiply that by the number of people in your household. And remember that's before the 2007 energy bill. And in addition to taxes.

Instead we are giving handouts.  I'll take mine happily- believe me- but couldn't we benefit long term by just getting rid of some regulations and government spending.

It's not even on the table.

Preview of President Bush's Final State of the Union Address

     The President's State of the Union address each year kicks off the legislative season, and is an exciting time for those who serve or work Capitol Hill. The White House also previews (cynics would say 'spin') some key Presidential address themes for some of us working in the public policy world.  Among the themes The White Houses stressed in today's conference call ahead of the 9 p.m. EST address:

• The President will direct Executive Branch agencies to ignore non-legislative earmarks via Executive Order he'll sign tomorrow.
• Urge Congress to move stimulus package quickly (no extra issues).
• Urge Congress to make tax cuts permanent.
• Problem of inner-city school closings, especially faith-based schools, with a special $300 million program along the lines of DC Choice and a White House summit.
• Added support for military personnel, veterans and military families.
• Special emphasis on the President's level of personal energy and activity in his final year in office.
• A strong statement that a prosperous future awaits the American people as we work together.
• Strong tools for the intelligence community.

      In light of this last comment, I'm reminded of a funny joke the President tells on himself: "I have plenty of critics who accuse me of not listening.  But when I do listen, many of those same folks insist I get a warrant."

      Share any comments you have about the address tonight with Rex readers.

Christian vs. Christ Follower

Here's a great series of videos by a Naperville, IL Community Church.  They seem to be doing a series on Christian vs. Christ Follower.  Here's my favorite.

Hat Tip:  Revolution in  Jesusland

One simple, quiet word

It’s right under our noses.

Gay marriage advocates are throwing up so many smokescreens about domestic violence and business competitiveness and the heartstrings of people in love in their quest to have Indiana courts grant gay marriage, it’s hard to hear that simple, quiet word that begs for clarification in SJR 7, Indiana’s proposed constitutional amendment.  That word is “require”.

Oh, they point to other state’s amendments when it is convenient.  Last year, Ohio wasn’t sure theirs would hurt domestic violence protections and ours was “similar” so we shouldn't pass ours.  Now that the Ohio Supreme Court has said theirs won’t hurt domestic violence protections, suddenly ours is “different” than theirs and, thus, still can’t be trusted.  Say what??   So why do legislators fear THOSE one words...but don’t hear the one word that is actually in Indiana’s bill?  Require.

See for yourself.  Ohio’s amendment:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Wow – that’s pretty severe. It even hits at local cities in towns in the state.  No wonder they worried whether it might hurt domestic violence provisions.

Since we’re talking severe, take a look at Michigan’s:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

To think that the Michigan voters directed that.

Now here is Indiana’s proposed amendment, SJR 7:

Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.  This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

See it there, in the second sentence?  If this passes, Indiana couldn't’t REQUIRE – which means force – other types marriage.  It takes nothing away, from businesses that offer benefits today, for example, but it just couldn't’t require anew.  That would be a protection to Hoosier businesses.  And it doesn’t even mention anything about future generations of children – boy is Michigan’s economic development future in trouble!

If SJR 7 passes, it simply means that Indiana courts couldn’t REQUIRE anything....but it says nothing about what the legislature could GIVE.  That might even include civil unions someday, although I suspect some in the Indiana General Assembly would prefer a court to REQUIRE such things so that they don’t have to take the political heat at the polls.  Judges are much more insulated from voter retribution than are legislators.

The authors of SJR 7 directed it squarely at the courts so that we don’t have another prayer lawsuit where one judge makes the decision for everyone.  Or another Massachusetts, where the court ordered the legislature to create gay marriage.  Or even Alaska, where the courts ordered the Governor, who refused, and then the legislature, who also refused, and a dog fight between the three branches ensued!

In Indiana, the legislature, not the courts, should make these decisions, and SJR 7 will protect us from any future judge’s renegade desire to REQUIRE it.

Ode to that poor little quiet, misunderstood word “require”.

The Stem Cell Debate Settled?

From tothesource.com

University of Wisconsin's James Thomson is a remarkable scientist.  In 1998 he sparked the "great stem cell war" by deriving the first stem cell lines from human embryos.  Ironically, last November, as that political and cultural conflagration blazed, Thomson—along with Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka—poured water on the flames by turning ordinary skin cells into embryonic-like stem cells (induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs) that may have the same properties scientists believe are best to treat the most serious of human afflictions. 
                   
To understand why this breakthrough is so culturally, as well as scientifically important, we need to recount the political turmoil caused by Thomson's original embryonic stem cell breakthrough. Embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is intensely controversial because embryos must be destroyed in order to derive the cells  This is morally wrong, opponents argue, because it destroys human life and reduces the moral status of embryos to that of a mere natural resource.
                   
Proponents disagree.  They argue that already born people count more than microscopic organisms and moreover, that embryonic stem cells are the key to creating "regenerative medicine," a technique that uses cells and other body substances to restore function to diseased or injured body parts.  Pro ESCR advocates also promised to use only "leftover" embryos from IVF treatments that "are going to be thrown out anyway," arguing that since these embryos were doomed in any event, society might as well get something good out of them.
                   
The big fight began, as so many political brouhahas do, over money. Proponents wanted more than a free hand for researchers to conduct these experiments—which was never in question.  They also demanded that President Bush provide bounteous federal funding.  But Bush refused to be pushed.  In August 2001, he announced that he would only allow federal funding for ESCR on stem cell lines already in existence as of August 9, 2001.
                   
Proponents of ESCR were enraged, not just because of the financial restrictions but because of the clarion message Bush sent through is policy that human embryos matter morally.  To break the presidential will—and win the greater moral debate—biotech lobbyists mounted a brilliant political campaign to sell ESCR as promising imminent hope for cures, a message that resounded through the culture as mega celebrities such as the tragically paralyzed Christopher Reeve and Parkinson's disease-afflicted Michael J Fox demanded that Congress overturn the Bush policy. 
                   
Indeed, funding ESCR became so politically popular that both Republican and Democratic-led Congresses passed bipartisan legislation to overturn the Bush policy.  Bush vetoed these bills, but as election year 2008 dawned, his approach seemed to be in its death throes as embryonic stem cell research looked to be a sure political winner for the Democratic Party and its eventual presidential nominee.
                   
A second front in the great stem cell war broke out over human cloning.  Dropping their earlier promise to limit ESCR to leftover IVF embryos, scientists began to claim that "therapeutic cloning" was the real key to developing regenerative medicine because it would permit the creation of patient specific, tailor made embryonic stem cells taken from embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer—the same cloning technique used to make Dolly the sheep. But with Bush in the Oval Office, promoters of human cloning knew that no money would be forthcoming for that effort.  Indeed, it was all they could do to prevent human cloning from being outlawed.
                   
As these controversies raged, Big Biotech decided to do an end run around the federal rules and get what it wanted from the states, opening a third front in the intensifying stem cell war.  California voters passed Proposition 71, which authorized the California to borrow a whopping $3 billion over ten years ($7 billion including interest) to fund research.  Worried about losing biotech jobs to California, other states rushed to fund the research too.  Then in 2006, Missouri voters narrowly passed Amendment 2 in Missouri creating a constitutional right to conduct human cloning research in a conservative Bible Belt state. The pro ESCR/cloning forces seemed on the verge of winning the debate in a rout. 
                   
But as 2007 drew to a close, those paying close attention noticed a subtle shift.  After nearly ten years of intense study—and nearly $2 billion in funding from private and public sources financing the experiments—no ESCR cures were on the horizon.  On the other hand, little reported by the mainstream media—but touted widely in alternative information outlets such as tothesource—adult stem research was advancing at an exhilarating pace, including the commencement of early human trials to treat conditions such as spinal cord injury, diabetes, and heart disease.
                   
Evidence of this change in public attitudes came in early November. New Jersey voters unexpectedly refused to pass a $450 million bond measure to fund ESCR, stunning the political and media establishments.  Could it be, advocates on both sides of the controversy wondered, that Big Biotech's embryonic stem cell circus barker-call of CURES! CURES! CURES! had begun to wear thin?   
                   
That's when Thomson and Yamanaka dropped their big iPSC breakthrough bombshells. While work remains to be done to perfect the technique, such as finding ways to introduce necessary genes into the cells without using viruses—and important to pro lifers, to reprogram cells without using DNA derived originally from aborted fetuses—IPSCs have transformed the political environment in ways unthinkable only four months ago. 
                   
The Bush policy, once on the verge of being overturned, is now almost surely safe for the balance of his term. Embryonic stem cell research is now rarely discussed.   Most importantly, iPSCs—if they pan out—have the potential to provide everything that therapeutic cloning advocates promised—patient specific, tailor made, pluripotent stem cells—without the moral contentiousness sparked by creating or destroying human embryos. 

Does this mean that the controversy is over?  Not yet.  Scientists still want to conduct ESCR to investigate pluripotency. But the Bush approved lines should be fine for that.  Some researchers also insist on continuing the drive to conduct human cloning—the crucial technology to permit genetic engineering, fetal farming for organs, and reproductive cloning.
                   
But most people want none of these brave new world technologies. They simply want Uncle Charlie's Parkinson's disease treated or their little Amy's diabetes alleviated.  And with adult stem cells and eventually iPSCs, looking as if they may bring efficacious regenerative treatments to clinical settings, we may have happily arrived at the "beginning of the end" to the great stem cell war.