December 7, 2006

"Teen rebellion - a Western export?"

Last spring I wanted to write an article for catapult exploring whether teen rebellion was a uniquely American phenomenon, or if not uniquely American, then at least a phenomena that seems to reach its fullest expression here. I decided ultimately that I did not have the time to really do justice to the topic, though I am currently writing a short story that explores some of these themes.This article from BBC News, though, begins to tackle it. It indicates that though there seems to be some biological basis for teen rebellion, which theoretically should apply universally, that the American variety is particularly potent for various sociological reasons and is eagerly embraced and emulated across the world.

What do you think about teen rebellion and America? A question that also intrigues me is whether we as a culture tolerate, indeed, even celebrate teen rebellion in our popular culture and media and view it as a simply a natural, even necessary, stage of growing up? Some of you New City readers who have had contact with immigrant teens, how do you see these issues playing out in their lives?

Posted by jackdas at 2:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 8, 2006

And I Say Unto You, Behold, the Ovaries are Red Unto Harvest. And the Biotech Companies Begin to Draw Their Wages.

OK, so that is a little bitter and shrill blog post title. I was quite disappointed last night when I saw the gap closing on the lead that the "No" votes had in the Amendment 2 vote. I pretty much could guess the conclusion and went to bed. I am not a Republican, but do tend to vote that way for lack of pro-life Democrats. And, no, I do not want to have a discussion here about why being a one issue voter is a bad thing. I am working on that. However, I don't absolutely mind the House going Democratic. I think the Republicans need to be taken to the wood shed a bit.

And so, Missouri is stripped of its ability to use the normal arm of governing in a representative democracy, the elected legislature, to craft laws promoting or regulating embryonic stem cell research. And let me say here that I am not a supporter of the bills that restrict it in draconian terms.

And so, as a society we attempt to sluff of more of our creatureliness, to grasp for power and control which, I believe, is not ours to wield. We seek to be less contingent, less dependent. We seek to be more the captain of our souls. No, we seek even more, to be the arbiter of whether to grant life or death to other souls.

Still, congratulations to and blessings upon all those who made this race so close, and I wish would have joined them more. Being outspent 10 to 1 (see "earlier story"), they still managed to make this vote so close. It was a wonderous coalition of people from many denominations, not to mention pro-life and pro-choice people working together in some cases.

And, finally, after driving to work today in a rather despondent mood this morning, I was cheered by reading a post-election blog post by Renae (who goes to my church but whom I haven't met yet), that despite this loss that, indeed, "God is bigger than the Boogie Man."

Posted by jackdas at 1:12 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

November 6, 2006

Amendment 2

This is a rather late plea to have you, those of you who are Missouri voters that is, consider voting "No" on Amendment 2 tomorrow. There are several compelling reasons to do so:

1) First the ethical ones. In a previous post on this blog I have decried the problem of the large number of frozen embryos in this country, partly due to indifference by the church. This amendment is not concerned with those embryos, but is about the more promising use of embryos created through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. I say "more promising" because a significant hurdle is overcome through this procedure. The embryo that is created is an exact genetic clone of the person who donated the nucleus i.e. the stem cells derived from this procedure, which would then be used in therapies, would not be viewed as foreign cells and consequently not rejected by the recipient of the therapy.

Some would say that such embryos, not produced by the union of an egg and sperm, are not human in the same way as all those frozen embryos (even though those too are being eagerly sought for research). However, by the terms of the proposed amendment itself, this embryo is a human organism at an early stage of its lifecycle. That is why the amendment is at pains to insist that such embryos must be destroyed after 14 days, that they must not be implanted into uterii.

Admittedly, I do not know if it is currently the case that such embryos can simply be implanted and, Presto, there develops a normal human. Yet, despite sucesss or failure in this endeavor, which almost everyone is agreed should never be attempted, the natural course this embryo heads toward is the formation of a human fetus, if even only a malformed or weak one. This, I believe, highlights the fact that such embryos are not markedly different from the frozen ones left over from fertility treatments. Instead, chillingly, they are the results of attempts to recreate that natural process using the mechanisms and materials that nature itself uses, to specifically create genetically identical embryos. More chillingly, these embryos are created only to be destroyed to benefit others.

Incidentally, I think the process by which Dolly the sheep was cloned is helpful in understanding this issue. Amendment 2 supporters want to protect not the right to clone a human individual that would be fully developed, but only one that would reach the blastocyst stage so that his or her cells (yes, the embryo would be gendered...each of its cells woub be either XX's or XY's) might be used to establish stem cell lines.

2) SCNT is not currently illegal in Missouri. This amendment is designed to ensure that it might never become so. It is worth considering that for an Amendment to be made to the Missouri constitution only 50% of the populace must agree to it (a ridiculously low threshold in my opinion), but it takes 66% of the population to overturn it. So, if this Amendment passes, its effects will likely be long lasting.

3) There is some concern that this Amendment might create a demand that may lead to the exploitation of some women. This issue is significant enough that a coalition of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" [quotations theirs, which is interesting in and of itself because they are allowing the self-designated names for each of these camps to be used] have joined together to form Hands Off Our Ovaries and have a issued a manifesto.

Posted by jackdas at 2:42 PM | TrackBack

July 18, 2006

400,000 Frozen Embryos

This morning on the way into work listening to NPR, they were predicting that the Senate would pass a bill expanding stem cell research, as indeed it has. I have begun to part company with President Bush on several of his policies, however, I am very pleased that he has promised to veto this bill. There are other feasible options for stem cell research that do not involve the destruction of a human embryo. And even if there were not, or even if the other options do not prove as optimal, there are some costs that are too great to pay. I say this not having a relative struck down by a disease that might be mitigated by stem cell therapies, but I hope my position would remain the same even if I did.

What struck me the hardest this morning, though, was the fact that the story mentioned that there were 400,000 embryos that were in storage as a result of being extras in fertility treatments. I have not really been paying attention, but where was the church when such procedures were being considered, procedures which involve the procurement of a large number of eggs, which are fertilized, sorted for hardiness and gender, I believe, and then which are planted in batches so that some or one of them will be successfully implant. These are all statistical measures to raise the chances of success. This is why fertility treatments sometimes result in multiple births, like the septulets (?) in Iowa several years back. The family was very thankful to God for their miracle children, and yet they had already had a child before the treatment.

Well, what happens to the extra embryos? Well, they are frozen and then destroyed when not wanted anymore. Unless, the supporters of stem cell research say, they are used to generate stem cell lines, then they can be put to a life affirming use.

I do not buy that argument, but what troubles me most is that somehow fertility treatments do not receive greater scrutiny and censure in the church, or at least this sort. The pain of infertility and misscarriage is somewhat closer to my heart, and still such treatments are not warranted and cheapen life, even while attempting to meet a noble goal. There are some costs that are just too great, and there are other options, two of them are named Matthew and Emilie, my lovely nephew and niece from Guatemala, now residing in San Antonio with sweet Maddie.

I apologize for the shrill nature of this post, but the situation is very sad.
________

Here is an excerpt from and a link to an editorial that rather makes the case more eloquently.

“[T]he president and his supporters have, perhaps unwittingly, called into question the practice of IVF.”

And just why should it be the task of Christians to baptize the current practice of in vitro fertilization in this country? It is very strange that Christians should be exceedingly alert to the dangers of technological control and mastery in some realms of life, yet so uncritically approving here.

Why should we not raise questions about the routine production of more embryos than will be implanted, or about the selection of certain embryos (and selection against others) when deciding which to implant? Should Christians simply acquiesce in the view that reproduction is a private project aimed at producing a child “of one’s own,” and, increasingly, a child of a certain (desired) sort? One wonders what we will think, then, when we bring these children of “our own” for baptism and are asked to relinquish them.

Posted by jackdas at 11:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 27, 2006

Catholiscism, contraception, abortion, pornography, the environment, C.S. Lewis, separation of church and state, Islam, and pizza

This story has got it all.

Posted by jackdas at 1:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 15, 2006

NPR on Speed Dial

Well, to be more specific it is actually the local affliate, KWMU, which is on the speed dial. This morning on a local show called St. Louis on the Air they had some scientists discussing stem cell research. It was not a show about the ethics of it, but rather the science of it. Of course, and perhaps by necessity, all of the scientists were for stem cell therapies, including using embryonic stem cells or perhaps especially using embryonic stem cells.

I decided to call but had to wait for about 10 minutes until they gave the number again. With about 20 minutes left in the show the guy who answered my call indicated that there would likely be time to get me on. I told him, though my question touched on ethics, I wanted to ask about just how embryonic stem cell lines are derived. As I nervously waited to get on I formulated my question to respect what I felt were the implied limits of the discussion:

This question is ethically motivated, but what I am interested in is the science of how embryonic stem cells are derived. If President Bush's restriction on stem cell lines were reversed, where would scientists get the embryoes? At what stage in their life cycle are they harvested? And how are cell lines established?

I felt the question was fair in that I would acknowledge my bias and their responses would serve as a sort of disclosure. It is very likely I would not have gotten my question out as fluidly as written above, and I may have struggled against interjecting opinion, only I never got my question out at all because the show ended.

I struggled a bit. The guy said there were 5 people before me, did I count them off correctly? Did they deliberately ignore my question when they saw it on the board? Perhaps. Probably not. It is very likely that it was simply for the lack of time. My reactions were interesting to me, though, because, well, they were reactionary and suspicious. It was helpful to realize and acknowledge this, and let it be a lesson in my process to approach disourse less polemically, and hopefully, consequently, more effectively.

So that is the story of how NPR is on my speed dial. I know some of you are scratching your head saying "NPR, you listen to NPR?" Yes, I know its reputation in some circles. Yes, in response to an angle on a story or a tone, I still sometimes, though rarely, label it "National Poophead Radio" (I haven't been able to come up with anything less juvenile and more witty yet). For the vast majority of time, though, I listen to my benefit.

But the story of that largely good, somewhat dysfunctional relationship will have to wait until another post.

Posted by jackdas at 7:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 2, 2006

Of Blasphemy and Secularism

Many, many years ago I read an article which made the case that Europe is a time bomb waiting to explode. The author noted the negative population trends of white, mostly secular, Europeans and the positive population growth of immigrant and guest worker populations in European countries.

Why this mixture makes for a time bomb is based on the views held by these different groups, or perhaps more importantly by the decision makers and opinion shapers of each community. On the one hand, many European countries are extremely, one might say militantly, secular. France is the most egregious offender in this regard, going so far as to ban headscarves for women in secondary schools.

And on the other hand, while many Muslims, from Lahore to Toronto, accept a pragmatic and conciliatory secularism in public life, extremists in their midst often make moderate positions untenable for the community as a whole.

So, if one does the math, the riots in Paris this summer and the recent uproar over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad are not at all surprising, and we can expect worse to come, I fear. What was somewhat surprising last year were the London train bombings. From afar, it seemed to me that Britain at least attempted to accomodate immigrant populations better.

This post is not, though, about the excesses of secularism rampant in Europe, many of which I feel are simply unjust. It is about something fundamental at the heart of Islam, and not just radical Islam, I believe, which has lead to the furor over the cartoons of Muhammad. First, some background.

Muslims do not believe Muhammad to be divine, but they do reverence him extremely highly, uttering the blessing "Peace be Upon Him" every time they utter his name. This belief lead to the Pakistan blasphemy laws which indicates death for anyone who "by words or visible representation or by an imputation or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Prophet Mohammad of Islam." And as problematic as this law is when properly administered, i.e. with accusations being judged in a court of law, it of course led to accusations followed immediately by vigilante killings and sometimes even that order was reversed.

Islam, in fact, frowns on any representational art of the human form, though I do not think it is absolutely forbidden. Unflattering representations of the prophet Muhammad, then, clearly are highly problematic. That is understandable and I would choose to be very sensitive to these issues when addressing Muslims. Civility is a generally virtue, and there is no point hurting anyone unnecessarily even if I am in a country in which my life might not be directly in jeopardy but rather I am protected by law to say my peace.

The Islamic response to these cartoons, though, highlights a problem intrinsic to Islam. For better or worse, and to the best of my fairly limited knowledge, Islam does not have the internal framework to allow individuals such freedom of expression if it is the majority religion in a country or community. There is some Koranic support for the toleration and accommodation of the other "people of the Book," Christians and, ironically, Jews to live and worship unmolested in Islamic societies, but I cannot envision any support for the Voltarian notion of, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Mind you, I do not agree with Voltaire on that one either. If you say something that leads people to pick up stones to kill you, well, I think it might be a case by case thing whether I put my head up do some catching. Actually, If I am brave, I hope would intervene peacebly and then, if necessary, choose to catch some stones, or a bullet for you, but not for your right to say stupid or inflammatory things.

Once on NPR, I heard the author V. S. Naipaul say that of the three major Judeo-Christian religions, only Islam has not experienced reformations that have served to mediate and moderate the temporal power lodged in the religion. I hope that is a fair restatement of his view.

In truth, though, I think that Christianity at its very beginning made that dissociation, but lost it at around the time of, say, Constantine. Think Ananias and Saphira dying without a hand being laid on them and Paul's deference to civic authorities, even desperately wicked ones, in matters that did not impinge upon the faith. Moreover, as I read the New Testament, God's family itself shifted from being a regional theocracy to a transnational family not married to any one state, while being instructed to "salt" and better all states through its influence.

Finally, the belief that all people are created in the image of God with dignity to make choices, many which I may believe to reject God's law, added to the reasons listed above, is the basis for my "toleration" of people with behaviors and words which I might dislike or abhor. [Note: Shots at my views on opposing abortion may be inserted here, but that will have to wait until another post.] My "toleration," then may mirror secularism but it does not spring from the same root.

Islam, though, as far as I am aware, has no such a framework, perhaps appropriately so if it is to be consistent with its founding principles. And, hence, the problems in Europe. I do not really have a solution. I do believe that some of the secularism in Europe, and especially France, is rather totalitarian and unjust, but the reaction of the Islamic world in and outside of Europe cannot really be excused.

On one level, the Islamic response is juvenile and immature, like a prince demanding that his desire must be met and nothing short of it will do. That characterization may be somewhat demeaning, but I believe it is accurate. And the response then, as my vast experience in childrearing tells me, is not to simply roll over and acquiesce. That makes for spoiled and dangerous children. No, I think that, despite what might be ensconced in the tenants of Islam, that Muslims should simply ignore the Danish journalists. If it were a government oppressing their rights to worship, that might be another matter, but it is not. At the risk of chasing my tail in circles, though, except for some more or less secular Muslims, I do not think there is a framework in Islam for doing that.

Out of respect for Muslim brothers and sisters I will not post a cartoon out of the twelve on my blog, but I will provide a link to where they might be viewed. I do find some of these stereotypical, offensive, and juvenile in their own right, and none particularly insightful. But nonetheless igonring them would have been the best option for Muslims. In fairness, it should be noted that at least one Jordanian newspaper has done exactly that, even publishing one of the cartoons (YIKES!).

_______________________________________

This just in! (02.03.06) Thanks to that great and biased aggregator of news, Matt Drudge, we have this story (make sure you watch the video) of a painting depicting Osama Bin Laden as Jesus in New York, which also hosted the showings of Serrano's famous "Piss Christ" and the Virgin Mary in mixed media, which included elephant dung which, then Mayor, Rudi Giuliani
wanted to shut down. Still, on a societal level, the reaction of the Muslim world to the cartoons are very different in scale, if not substance.

Posted by jackdas at 9:27 PM | TrackBack

August 4, 2005

Frist Steps

There was a time when I could not hold back, for good or for ill. There was a time when I could not simply listen to a conversation involving issues upon which I had deep opinions and keep silent. I had to let my opinions be known, both, wrongly, because I so valued my individual voice, I so believed I could bring clarity to the debate (my visions of being E. F. Hutton) and, rightly, because I really did want people to hear what I perceived to be the truth for their edification, political, physical, spiritual or otherwise.

It has been many years since that has been the case. And now, I generally remain silent, for good or for ill. Why? Perhaps it was one too many debates in the library in which I was the sole conservative, one time being brought to tears by a group of gently, though persistently, mocking friends, and they were friends. In other areas, I became far less confident of my opinions. And so now I have more or less acquiesced to the postmodern wisdom that if you want to get along you should not discuss religion or politics. Now I keep my discussions limited to the likeminded, or, if I am brutally honest, to people I think may be easy marks for a philosophical mugging.

Yeah, it really is pathetic. Not, simply the seeking of easy targets, but the result of what the silence does to my relationships with people, what it does to me.

Silence=writing off. In increments of apathy, I write off my friends and colleagues with whom I disagree, not willing to expend the emotional energy to engage in thoughful, listening, processing, responding dialog. Not willing to share what, in many cases, I believe to be eternal truths, just because it will very likely cause me emotional bother or potentially pain. And it harms me as I sit silent, suffering the silting of my internal reservoir of thoughts and feelings.

But there are stirrings. Last night listening to Charlie Rose, there was a stirring as I listened to a biologist and political scientist discuss Bill Frist's restatement of his position on stem cell research. There was annoyance, there was churning, there was a desire to speak. But today, I did not immediately rush to blog or discuss, I actually took the time to read what Senator Frist had to say. I hope it marks the beginning of engagement on my part of a completely different order.

First, I appreciate the tenor of Senator Frist's speech. I believe that he genuinely does want to help people by furthering the science of embryonic stem cell research. And I believe that he is making what he feels is a genuine compromise by finding a use for embryos that would be discarded anyway, those that are the byproduct of fertility treatments. Yet, this seems nconsistent with the dignity he accords the embryo:

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. ItÕs genetically distinct. And itÕs biologically human. ItÕs living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isnÕt just a matter of faith. ItÕs a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported.

But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

It seems a more consistent pro-life position would not be to find a use for these embryos but rather to address the reason for their existence in the first place. As good of a desire as it is to want to have children of one's own, even this noble desire should not lead to the setting aside of a consistently pro-life ethic. Embryos should not be created that are not going to be implanted. Even the procedure of using multiple embryos to see which will be implanted seems highly suspect. A more basic question is to what extremes people, particularly Christians, should go to have a child of their own when there are so many children that need to be adopted and cared for.

I know that one of the responses to my arguments will be that I do not know either the pain of childlessnes (never having attempted the requisite procedures to give it a whirl) nor the pain of seeing a relative suffer from a debilitating disease that might be lessened through stem cell derived treatments (however far down the pike they may actually be). And both these contentions are largely true. But this type of reasoning is surely some type of logical fallacy (appeal to emotion, I believe). I am not devoid of emotion, though, and I can imagine what it must feel like. I know what it feels like to have a niece who has suffered through numerous surgeries and a great deal of pain in her young life. Even so, though I might indeed feel strongly a certain way, there must be other considerations that constrain my feelings.

If Frist believes embryos to be nascent life, to be humans (and he consistently refers to the gamete suppliers of such embryos as parents), I do not see how he can, even temporarily, allow for conditions in which they are used and discarded, no matter how noble the end. It would be better to morn the embryos already so created and abandoned and take steps to see that more do not join their orphaned ranks.

Posted by jackdas at 8:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 18, 2005

Bombing in London....Fallout in St. Louis

I have always admired free spirits. In fact, many of the people I am attracted to and befriend are exactly that. I think this is so because in some way I am making up for a desire for free spiritedness in my own soul that for whatever reasons I have never let fully germinate and bloom. I am getting the soil and seeds ready, though. (Ah, the paradox of planned free-spiritedness!)

One of the things that it takes a more or less free sprited person to do is to backpack, to backpack anywhere, but specifically around Europe, holing up in youth hostels, getting a Eurorail pass, eating french bread and cheese for lunch, may be camping. Never done that...but I am thinking...saving pennies for a packet of seeds that I might go sow next summer. Just now I am thinking it might cool if I could somehow involve my bicycle, may be ride from Lands End at one end of Britain all the way to John O'Groats at the tip of Scotland. Ah, Scotland. Just watched Rob Roy last night. Brilliant.

And then came the sorrow in London.

As an aside, following the coverage of a disaster, particularly a man-made disaster, opens the door on some dark areas in my make-up. I do not relish the suffering, I am not as monstrous as that, but I think I am rather too interested in numbers. In the number dead. In the carnage wreaked. And, though I am ashamed to admit it, in a morbid way, the greater the carnage, the greater the intrigue. Who did this and why? What sort of ramifictions will it have on the state of world affairs, etc., etc. It is not that I am not touched by the horror, the sadness, but it is not my initial reaction. Nor are my questions inappropriate, but only so if their import never reaches the heart at all.

And I reacted to London in exactly that complex way. From an analytical perspective, it is shocking that the conflict that I have long anticipated to arrive in Europe between its Islamic minorities and largely secular majorities (a pertinent clip from NPR), would begin in Britain. It is not surprising that there was a bombing in London. As it will not be surprising when it happens here. (I hate to use the words "will" and "when," instead of "would" and "if," but I am afraid that that these terms are likely more accurate.) It was suprising, though, that the young men who carried out the bombings were native Britons who had been seemingly readily radicalized. And where? In the homeland of half my blood, Pakistan.

How this tragedy affects me is really, really of no consequence in face of the high level of suffering it has produced, but it is interesting. The following picture completely changes the dynamics of any back packing trip that I might want to take to Europe...

(story)

...It does not mean that I cannot go or would not, but the dynamics are now far more complex. I am sure I could not easily travel the tube just now with a backpack, perhaps no one can. I am sure that my lovely complexion (which I like to jest is the perfect comprise between the half of the world that wants to get darker and the other half of the world which wants to get lighter), which these days is darkened as a result of miles of cycling, would arouse additional suspicion. And, though I have been more or less profiled only once in my life due to my skin color (at the Canadian border some 10 year ago) which left me feeling angry/defensive, I don't know that I can rule out some forms of profiling now for safety's sake.

Before this weekend my mental discussion of what a summer in Europe might look like for me seemed to be rather hypothetical. It still largely is. But there is this. Yesterday, near the end of a thirty mile of bike ride, with a hydration pack strapped to my back, I waited for a light just South of the Arch. And just before they pulled away, a man shouted out the window of a car, "Hey, he's got a bomb on his back!" I doubt it would have been so had I not had my lovely complexion.

Posted by jackdas at 5:45 PM | TrackBack