A problem of definitions.

The front page on cnn.com yesterday read something to the effect of "Obama moves to separate politics and science". Apparently he is doing this by removing President Bush's restriction on spending federal money on embryonic stem cell research. It's a strange world we live in when effectively forcing people to pay for things to which they have a moral objection can be called "taking politics out of it". Up is down. It's pretty clear at this point that the government assumes the liberal position to be the neutral position and the conservative position to be the biased, ideological position. In reality, everyone is biased - it comes with the territory of being human. The neutral position, truly separating politics and science, was President Bush's position - he didn't prohibit the research, but he also didn't subsidize it. If there's any real promise in it, it would have found private money - the money that chases success rather than failure (which is what most government money subsidizes).

Of course, I think the government should prohibit it and criminalize it, because it's profoundly immoral and constitutes murder. (Reply to objection 1: Of course the government legislates morality - that's virtually all they do. Name me a major law that doesn't have a moral undertone. And they should, to the degree that it's required to protect the freedom of other people, including the unborn.) Which brings me to a "discussion" on talk radio last night, in which the host defended embryonic stem cell research ruthlessly on the basis that it "might" help people be cured of diseases. To the objection that you can't do evil that good may come of it, he repeatedly denied the personhood of the embryo; even conceding that point for the purposes of debate, he then stated, "but that's just research". He would have blended in well with Dr. Mengele's crew. He failed to see the disconnect between his argument and the argument of those who advocate aggressive tactics in the war on terror, especially the fact that while the latter would attack murderers in the name of self-defense, he would murder in the name of self-preservation. I really don't think it's hypocrisy as much as a lack of basic philosophical understanding. Today's world equivocates on the meanings of even the most basic terms, which has rendered meaningful discussion and debate on fundamental issues virtually impossible. That is why we've been reduced to a sound bite culture and why Congress votes right along party lines on almost every important bill. This is why people can accept all the premises of an argument but reject the conclusion. And this is why I believe there is no hope for our country to be reformed before we hit rock bottom. God has hardened our hearts and he will allow us to be destroyed like Pharaoh and all his chariots and charioteers. Hopefully we hit rock bottom soon, so we wake up and turn back to God as the source of our rights and the object of our responsibility.