Stage Right

One of the most infuriating arguments that President Obama made in the 2008 election was that President Bush and his administration were "anti-science". It appeared as though this charge was mainly aimed at the ban for federal funding on stem-cell research.

In an incredibly in-elegant and classless display (surprising actually considering I find the man quite classy and elegant) President Obama used the occasion of his inaugural address to make this charge while his predecessor sat eight feet away. And, true to form, within weeks of his swearing in, President Obama used the power of the Executive Order to institute federal funding for stem-cell research. His supporters rejoiced and some Republicans who were uncomfortable with being labeled "anti-science" because it made them feel like they were arguing that the world was flat quietly cheered as well.

But hold on a second progressives. Wait just a minute all of you "pro-science" Republicans. Did anyone catch this part of President Obama's speech made the day he lifted the ban on funding?:

"We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction," Obama said. "It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

Ummm... isn't this a little bit ANTI-SCIENCE? If Michael J. Fox were to believe that the cure for Parkinson's disease could be discovered through human cloning, would he make a commercial supporting it?

President Obama labels human cloning as "dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society". But, why? Why is it so wrong? And, more importantly, why is he allowed to draw HIS moral line in the sand at cloning and not be considered "anti-science" yet President Bush drew HIS line in the sand at stem-cell research and he is a reactionary neanderthal worthy of ridicule as a back-woods rube holding back medicine in deference to make-believe Gods?

Why? Oh, you know why.

Yesterday's National Prayer Day non-event at the White House inspired a fascinating discussion on the always-reliably-entertaining Dennis Miller Show yesterday.

A woman called in and stated that she was repelled from the Republican Party because the extreme Christian Right wanted a theocracy and to push their religious views on the country. Miller pressed and she had no example.

Miller's trusty liberal side-kick, Sal tried to chime in with the idea that the extreme Christian right wanted to "tell people when they should pray" (an idea I had never heard before) and, again Sal could not support this with any actual example.

Finally a caller came in and cited the Christian Right's position against assisted suicide and stem cell research as examples of the Christian Right's attempt to "push their religious beliefs on the country. It occurred to me at that moment that this charge has been levied for decades and never really fought against in any intelligent or logical way by our party's leaders.

Well, allow me.

I believe that most of my liberal (oops.. I mean PROGRESSIVE) friends would agree with the following statement:

"The Republican Party and the religious right wing that lies within it would like to try to push their religious views on the country by banning gay marriage, banning abortion, banning stem-cell research, banning assisted suicide, and re-instituting prayer in public schools."

I would venture to say agreement with this statement is the essence of many people's aversion to the GOP.

But, look at how this argument has been formed and the conclusion reached in a logical way for a moment.

Abortion, banning school prayer, stem-cell research, assisted suicide, gay marriage. Each of these issues are radically new and controversial ideas in the relative history of civilization. Putting abortion and school prayer aside for a moment since they are already allowed due to arguably suspect Supreme Court dictum, the last three, assisted suicide, stem-cell research and gay marriage were completely outside of the realm of normative societal practices.

So what changed? Liber... Oops.. PROGRESSIVE forces in our society proposed to CHANGE current law, long-standing law, based on centuries of reasoned and legitimate arguments on the ramifications to civilization if these things were to be allowed. They are the ones who PUSH their beliefs and force these issues upon the rest of society. We traditionalists, or those attempting to uphold these long-standing ideals by which we have built a triumphant and flourishing society, resist these attempts at radical change and then WE are accused of pushing our beliefs on the rest of the country!

Who is pushing who? Because we do not want to up-end centuries of legitimate and well-reasoned laws at the whim of a minority of PROGRESSIVES we are then accused of wanting a theocracy. How did we end up here?

And please, can someone show me how we can get back?