U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary injunction against the use of Federal funds on embryonic stem cell research. Citing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, the Judge said:

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed … It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the ‘piece of research’ in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

Doing some quick reading, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment states:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for–

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

(b) For purposes of this section, the term “human embryo or embryos” includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 (the Human Subject Protection regulations) . . . that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg) or human diploid cells (cells that have two sets of chromosomes, such as somatic cells).

Disagreeing with the ruling, Dr. Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health said, “This will mean very promising research will not get done, screening for new drugs will stop, and researchers who have been energized will likely grow discouraged and move to other countries or on to other research.” However, that is a fallacy, since there is plenty of corporate and private funding available. If you recall, I wrote an article back on 1/26/2009 based upon the premise of using Federal funds to destroy embryos.

This action has often been called an assault to science. To me, it is called using taxpayers funds wisely. There is enough private funding in the field at the moment that government funding isn’t necessary. Additionally, there is no law requiring the government to fund any research. If Bush had banned the research all together, then there would be grounds for protest by the medical community, but this wasn’t the case. If Bush banned all federal funding into the field of research, there would definitely be complaining, but the research would still be allowed to continue (with private funding).

Stepping back in time to 2001, I think the medical community, plus any other special interest group out there, should recognize that there are many sources of funding (both private and public) available for stem cell research as a whole. If the federal government were willing to increase funding on one segment of research and restrict funding on another, the logical course of action would be the reallocation of resources. Shift private funding to embryonic stem cell research and apply for public funding on adult and cord blood stem cell research. You would still see an increase in funding without picking a fight with the government and creating partisan divide (and confusion).

Without legislation to remove/replace the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, I do not see how the spending on embryonic stem cell research will resume. My hope is that the Judge and the public will not fall victim to the fallacious argument put forward by people like Dr. Collins, who believe that they must have Federal funding in order to conduct the research. If the pharmaceutical companies and lobbies believe that embryonic stem cell research will bring about the holy grail of medical discoveries, then they would be more than willing to invest in the technology for financial gain.

I apologize for the lack of articles as of late. Work has taken up much of my free time over the past few weeks. Hopefully that will pass soon. In the mean time, I had a few thoughts on three similar topics that I wanted to share with you.

What does the term “hallowed ground” truly mean? Essentially, it is an area that is deemed to be sacred and set apart. Churches, for example, are said to be built on hallowed ground. The same is true for cemeteries and areas that have seen a great loss of life. So it was interesting that I’ve heard the term hallowed ground mentioned in three separate news stories over the past week.

During the debate over the proposed mosque near the World Trade Center site, President Obama stated that “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” But just how far does that hallowed ground stretch? Is it just the area around the footprints of the fallen buildings? The distance where debris fell into the surrounding blocks? Or is it arbitrary depending on what is being developed around it?

In a similar story, Mindy Crawford from the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, “It is altogether fitting and proper that gambling be kept away from Gettysburg’s hallowed ground.” But where does the hallowed ground end? Just in the area where the main fighting took place? Within the National Park boundary? How about the greater area outside of the Park?

The last story I heard was a renewed debate over the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at funerals for fallen soldiers. Chief US District Judge Fernando Gaitan struck down a Missouri law that barred inflammatory protests outside the funerals, stating that it violated the First Amendment by placing restrictions of free speech. In the law was a requirement to bar protests within 300 feet of the funeral.

So how should we define hallowed ground, and who should make the determination of where it begins and ends? These three examples about are difficult to resolve because it is emotion-based and subjective. Is it disrespectful to build a Mosque two blocks away from the World Trade Center? Or a casino a half-mile away from the Gettysburg National Park? How about protests outside the gates of a cemetery?

For me, the I think the last is the easiest to answer. I doubt a loving God would want his followers to protest the funerals of troops who died during war. There should be some limit on “where” such protests can be held. Such limitations have held up in court, since it is a common practice within Washington, DC to bar protests from certain areas around the Capitol building and White House.

The question over the casino would be the next easiest answer. The National Park engulfs a large area of the battle field as well as the neighboring cemeteries. Building a casino a half-mile away should not be an issue, especially since archaeologists will be brought in before any major ground-breaking and construction begins. Additionally, the casino could result in increased awareness of major Civil War battle site, and the revenue from the casino could increase the educational resources for visitors to the Park.

The hardest question is that for the Mosque. While it is true that it was Islamic terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th, it wasn’t an act by Muslims as a whole (if so, then we would have to worry about 7 Million Muslims in the United States). So building a Mosque near the WTC site just for that narrow reason alone should not be an issue.

The issue comes to the politics behind building the Mosque. Reports show that there is a low population of Muslims in Lower Manhattan, so there isn’t a “demand” for the center in that area. Is the Mosque being built as a poke in the eye to Americans, or is it being built as a bridge to a better understanding of Islam? If it is for any reason other than a slight towards the United States, then I don’t see why it can’t be relocated. After all, if you are going to invest that much money, you would want it to be easily accessible for your congregation. However, if it is for the other reason, which it sounds like it is, then I’m sure the developer will find many more obstacles for development, making it financially prohibitive in the long run.

In short, I think you should take away from all of this one simple note. No matter what you do in life, stop and think about how others might view your actions and how it will impact their lives. In this faster pace life of ours, we tend to act first and think second. If we just slow that process down a little, we can take others into consideration, and make wiser decisions that not only benefit ourselves but also those around us. That, I think, would be a great way to remember all of those who went before us to give us this great nation we have today.

NOTE:  I will try to get the Political Blog Weekly published tomorrow.  If not, I will incorporate it into next weekends edition.

As the debate over the proposed Mosque located near the Ground Zero site in New York City continues, I’ve heard many opinions on the radio and read many online.  They have ranged from First Amendment arguments to arguments over sensitivity.

Our long-time friend over at EGO has the following advice when approaching the topic:

It is important that the resistance against the building of the mosque is based on rational arguments and that you prevent that the demonstrations against it will be hijacked by “dark elements” (read: collectivists) as it happened in Gothenburg, Sweden. I think that Dr. Leonard Peikoff and Amy Peikoff have given the best arguments for not having a mosque in New York city, near Ground Zero.

The New Clarion defines two possible realities:

In this case, since the government is defaulting on its proper role (the safeguarding of a civilized order, where such things as property rights hold sway), we are placed in the position of considering the lesser of two choices, both of which are rotten when seen in the light of derivative principles, but nonetheless necessary. Choices like this are of an emergency nature, like medical triage, and involve tradeoffs (NOT “sacrifices”) that morally we should never be asked to make.

In this case, the alternative we face is the following: permitting the enemy a symbolic success as Embedded I describes here, versus interdicting that symbol at the cost of emboldening the statists, our enemies in *this* country — and of further sanctioning the accelerating expansion of an out-of-control State.

Our friends over at Questions and Observations add:

Exactly right. Another way of saying all of this is “grow up”. You either have religious freedom and ownership rights or you don’t. It isn’t a “right” if it can be selectively applied under the arbitrary rubric of “what is right” fueled by bigotry.

And, as inevitable as the rising sun, you can count on politicians gearing up for a run for office to grab the populist opportunity to chime in and side with the bigots because it is the popular thing to do.

Taking a different approach on the issue, the Atheist Revolution proposes:

For me, the problem with the proposed center is not that it is Muslim but that it is religious in any way. Given that 9/11 probably would not have happened but for religion, it seems like a secular center to promote tolerance would be a more appropriate choice. The thing is, that is not what is being proposed. So the question must be about whether this particular center should be permitted and not about whether some other hypothetical center would be better.

I so not see any defensible grounds for denying permission to build the proposed center. Yes, we could have a “no religion of any kind near Ground Zero” policy, but this would not be constitutional. So yeah, if it was my decision (and I am glad it isn’t), I’d allow the proposed center to be built. There is no other choice.

TalkLeft chimes in with the following:

I agree the Islamic Center has every bit as much of a right to be built on the site as any other kind of building. To reject it because of 9/11 is to further the very prejudices we should be striving to overcome.

Islam is a religion, it is not al Qaeda. Tolerance will get us a lot farther than blind prejudice.

Lastly, our fellow SeededBuzzer Just Joe adds:

I haven’t said anything yet about the Ground Zero Mosque issue. Too many other ridiculous voices were making noise over how peaceful Muslims should “refudiate” the mosque and others who think we should flush the entire First Amendment and not build any mosques anywhere until Saudi Arabia decides to build churches.

In my view, it boils down to two things: doing what’s right and what you have the right to do.  Those wanting to build the Mosque have the right to do so as long as it meets the local zoning laws.  As the vote earlier this week shows, the city has no plan to block the construction of the Mosque.  On the other hand, they might better serve the city by choosing an alternate location away from a controversial site.  If the Mosque is going to draw the ire of the local community, it is possible that it could lead to vandalism of the Mosque because it might become a symbol that caused the tragedy on September 11th.

My hope mirrors that of the Atheist Revolution.  If the site is used more as a cultural center rather than a religious facility, it might help to heal some of the wounds caused by a handful of fanatics.  We’ve mended fences with the citizens of Japan, and we can do the same with Muslims.