Amendment 2 in Missouri – The Issues BOTH Sides Ignore

For those who have been in a politics-free closet with the door closed or who haven’t driven down any major highway in our state recently, Amendment 2 is the controversial embryonic stem cell research, “clone and kill” legislation being considered in Missouri.

As the vote on Amendment 2 nears in Missouri, the “debate” is expected to heat up.  I have to write “debate” in quotes, because in reality there isn’t anything close to a sincere debate or discussion on display.

What is on display is standard politicking.  Giant signs with the words “Yes!” or “No!”  Celebrity testimonials.  Lies, slurs, and accusations—both actively and passively communicated.  And Money.  LOTS of money.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried an article today saying that the Amendment 2 race is “already almost three times as expensive as any ballot campaign in Missouri history” (emphasis mine).  And by far (apparently on a scale somewhat near 10-to-1 as far as I can tell), most of that money has been poured into the “Yes” side of the race—chiefly by the single wealthy family that is driving the initiative.

If money is the key determining factor in elections (as is often posited) then the outcome is already determined.

But it’s a shame that there isn’t real discussion going on about the issues that are brought up.  The amendment addresses some vital issues at the center of one of the most heated moral debates in our country’s history: how do we best respect human life?  Indeed, what IS human life?

Interestingly (whether they realize it or not) BOTH sides do not want the voting public thinking too much about the issue…

The “Yes” side wants you to simply look at the pictures on the billboards of a woman cuddling her young daughter, agree that no rational person could oppose funding for “cures,” and pull the lever for yes.  Yet there are HUGE questions to be asked!  For example:

• Is a philosophy of “find a cure at all costs” morally defensible?  No one could agree to that.  No one would endorse mass euthanizing of the elderly in order to find such hypothetical cures.  (Actually, some might, but thankfully in America such voices still represent fringe minorities.)  So if this cost is not too high to pay, what constitutes a cost that is too high?
• The idea of cloning a human is generally understood to be morally repugnant to most Americans and a road down which science should not be allowed to walk.  Amendment 2 asks for permission to move the “point of prohibition” a bit further down that road, from the most obvious point of never beginning a cloning process to a less obvious point of beginning but halting the process.  What makes this new point more morally acceptable?
• Why is cloning not infringing on a domain best reserved to God alone, as many seem to feel it is?  Does religion never have a role in informing medical ethics?

Yet the “No” side is just as hesitant to stir too much thought.  They seem to want you to think enough to notice the truth that this is a “yes to cloning” bill disguised as a cloning ban, but it seems they’d rather you not think about larger issues.  Consider these questions that ought to be addressed (among others):

• Why is cloning wrong in the first place?  If it’s because God says so, what about the many who call themselves Christians and who say He does not say so?  What makes your view of God’s opinion one that should be legally binding on the rest of society?  Which “Christianity” are we supposed to listen to?  And if it isn’t because God says so, then in what way is cloning wrong?
• What about all the embryos permanently frozen as a byproduct of the effort to help childless couples have children?  Why is destroying these cells to help others morally indefensible, but allowing them to remain frozen for all eternity never to grow, never to be born, never to live their lives is just fine, inviting no similar rancor?  Why the dramatic difference in response?  Whether someone kills someone I love or keeps him or her perpetually in a state of involuntary suspended animation—either way I’m going to be outraged.  Why is this situation different?

The issues brought up by Amendment 2 involve some of our deepest beliefs as a people.  And God has very definite opinions.

Concerning those who would ignore any “superstitious considerations” about the issue of cloning, God warns us in Psalm 53:1-3…

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.  God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God.  Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

We live in a generation lead by men and women who fulfill Romans 1:28 – “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting…”

Such describes, it would seem, many of the backers of Amendment 2, who would rather that God not poke His nose into their affairs and interfere with the “progress” of science.

Yet those who claim to carry the banner of the Biblical God in opposition to Amendment 2 face their own problems.  The God of that Bible says through His Son, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight…” (John 18:36).

Admittedly, He is speaking here of fighting to prevent the civil authorities from carrying out their execution of Him, but the record (Biblical and otherwise) of the true church He founded (not its counterfeit) bears witness to the fact that this principle He taught applied quite broadly: His followers’ task was not to fight to make this world theirs, but to announce the coming of another world.  In fact, He refused in some instances to regulate the affairs of men in this world (Luke 12:13-14).  Didn’t He call His people to spiritually come out of this world (2 Cor. 6:17, Rev. 18:4), not to spiritually transform it through force (political or otherwise)?

If this viewpoint is wrong and God does want Christians to transform the world, then why are the legal and political battle lines drawn so adamantly at Amendment 2 and not at the vast host of other sins that are legally sanctified (even promoted) in this country?  Is it just because this legislation is more vile than other laws?  (Matthew 5:19 and James 2:10 might speak to this thought…)  Or is it because this cause seems more winnable?  In which case, why is God so weak that His will cannot be accomplished more broadly—waiting for political opportunities to open a door for Him?

There are a host of issues that are brought to light by the debate around Amendment 2 that truly form the “debate behind the debate.”  But don’t expect those issues to be discussed seriously anytime soon.

And when God does decide to “influence” public policy, don’t expect it to be through billboards and “get out the vote” campaigns.  The 14th chapter of Zechariah tells us that His methods will be a good bit more effective.