Under Attack

If you feel like you're under attack lately, I've got news for you. If your faith is an important part of your life, you definitely are being attacked -- on all fronts.

A report sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (yes, your tax dollars at work) has determined that "people who use religious coping actually ended up receiving significantly more intensive life-prolonging burdensome care than those who did not" (emphasis is mine). That quote comes from the study's author, Holly Prigerson, who examined the intersection of religion and medical care in patients with terminal cancer. Her conclusion, stripped of its euphemisms, is that people of faith shouldn't get expensive, life-prolonging medical care because it's not going to prevent death in the long run or end their suffering. (Check out http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/05/20090528a.html)

I'm seeing some proposals for healthcare reform coming out of this study.

Another example also involves the NIH. Francis Collins, a respected scientist who is an evangelical Christian, is being considered to head up the NIH. You should see the response from scientists -- the ones who think they alone hold all the answers to the world's problems. Here's a sampling from scientists commenting on a blog featured in The Scientist:

-- "We're finally getting a funding bump and respect and it may all be for naught if a religious apologist ends up at the helm."

-- "I have very strong reservations about such a posting for such a clearly religious person. ... The posting would be for the head of the NIH and I can envision several serious conflicts that would compromise Collins' ability to lead effectively and may very well result in bad policy choices. For example, how would he deal with issues relating to contraception, teenage sex, AIDs, Embryonic Stem Cell research and so on?

"I have to conclude that anyone choosing to have a strong religious belief has chosen to disqualify themselves from holding such a post. We need people that can be absolutely objective, and by definition this is not possible for an evangelical christian."

-- "I did not invent the religion (that was done by profoundly ignorant men thousands of years ago) but I can observe what it does to the faithful and I cannot feel comfortable with those of strong faith being in such positions where their faith can potentially introduce a dangerous bias with far-reaching implications for our society."

-- "I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of religious belief to make moral decisions that affect national interest."

-- "In a secular society, people who want to hold a highly visible public office should keep their faith to themselves, and not let their faith influence their decisions at a scientific level."

So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion or even freedom of thought.

The Agenda of 'Science'

In what's being hailed as a victory for "science," President Obame today put another nail in the coffin of unborn children and widened the divide that separates much of this nation.

"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said as he signed documents changing Bush's policy against embryonic stem cell research. "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Some researchers have said that lifting the ban removed the shackles from their work. What everyone is ignoring is that science itself is divided on the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells. Many respected scientists have demonstrated that cord stem cells and a person's own stem cells may be more therapeutic and safer than embryonic cells. And they don't require the sacrifice of a premature life.

The researchers who downplay these facts and the media who ignore them have as much of an agenda as those of us who are pro-life. It's just that they won't admit it. Cloaking their agenda in the jargon of "science" and claiming that their stance is the only enlightened one, they try to portray anyone who disagrees with them as idealogues who ignore facts and put politics before the welfare of others. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

The War in Louisiana

While the media is directing all of our attention to budgets, deficits, the economy and stimulus, scientists of a certain stripe have been waging a quiet war against the state of Louisiana.

The cause? Last summer, state legislators overwhelmingly passed the Louisiana Science Education Act -- 35-0 in the Senate and 94-3 in the House. Signed into law by Gov. Bobby Jindal, the act allows teachers to use supplementary materials in the classroom. Fearing that the law will open the door of science classrooms and labs to religious materials and textbooks promoting intelligent design, some scientists are so outraged that they're calling for a boycott of Louisiana. In fact, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology was so upset that it has moved its 2011 meeting from New Orleans to Utah in protest.

Before other scientists get their test tubes in a tizzy, they need to practice scientific theory and look at this objectively.

First, what the bill does NOT do:
--It does NOT allow teachers to replace the current scientist-approved textbooks;
--It does NOT require school officials to glue any "offensive" materials into those sacrosanct textbooks;
--It does NOT require school officials to redact any information in those blessed textbooks; and
--It does NOT require science teachers to introduce any supplemental materials.

What the bill does do:
--It promotes academic freedom; and
--It allows for open discourse in the classroom. Isn't that what education is all about?

Another fact these scientists ignore is that the law applies only to public schools. Louisiana has a long history of relying on parochial schools to educate a large percentage of its students. Science teachers in these schools have been free to discuss creationism/intelligent design all along. So every year since the founding of the state, a large portion of Louisiana students, including many of the brightest, have been -- horror of horrors -- subjected to this subversive teaching.

One scientific conference, the Experimental Biology meeting -- which includes such organizations as the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and the American Physiological Society -- thought about canceling its April meeting in New Orleans, but it was too late to book another convention center that could house 12,000-15,000 scientists. And the group was bound by a contract with the convention center. Instead, the conference will include an open symposium on the "Evolution of Creationism" April 20. The group is inviting state legislators and high school science teachers to the free session. Do you think it will yield the microphone to scientists who have opposing views?

A professor at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Barbara Forrest -- who also serves on the board of directors for the National Center for Science Education and is the co-founder of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, which combats the use of creationist and intelligent design materials in schools -- said the symposium is well intentioned but unlikely to change the law. Instead, she is pushing for broad boycotts of Louisiana.

I guess her commitment to stamping out any beliefs or facts she disagrees with outweighs the needs of a state that is still struggling to its feet after a series of devastating hurricanes.

And liberals call conservatives intolerant!