michael j. fox appeared in a political ad for claire mccaskill in missouri revolving around the stem cell debate…Â this article provides a commentary and some background behind the issue and controversial ad.Â
admittedly i don’t know a whole lot about stem cell research and why it’s so hotly debated, but this is a very persuasive ad…Â thoughts?
rush limbaugh is alleging that fox didn’t take his medication before shooting the political ad… and my question is, why does this matter?
Related posts:
I think that the reason that most people are opposed to stem cell research isn’t because of the science so much as the implications. Stem cell research of this type which legalizes cloning human embryos is the first step down that slippery slope which ends at the harvesting of human body parts. In other words, just because we are able to doesn’t mean that we should. This is the problem that we face when in our culture science is placed above all questions of religion and philosophy and falsely labeled as objective fact.
A good website to visit is http://www.nocloning.org which explains this ammendment referred to by Fox in this ad. It essentially gives the green light to human cloning.
hey rags, thanks for the link. it’s pretty interesting… it makes you wonder why all these things that could possibly be good get bogged down with so much garbage that makes them all so confusing. i understand that half of the law on record is merely definitions of itself so that it can be understood, but why on earth does it have to be this way?
from what i understand, lawyers get paid by word. therefore, they’re probably the ones writing this junk.
wow. that limbaugh part gets me.
i have absolutely NO idea what i think about this subject. i wish i did, but i don’t.
I’m not sure where Limbaugh gets his information, but to me it does matter because in my mind if he intentionally did not take his medication in order to sway voters with the severity of his disease it is unethical manipulation. If it is unethical for W to use images of 9/11 it is certainly equally as such for Alex P. Keaton to do this (if he did, which I’m not sure of).
i guess to me it’s not a big deal because i’ve never seen just exactly how bad parkinson’s disease is. i knew it was degenerative but didn’t realize just how bad it can be. for me this was an eye-opener to the horrors of living with something like that. i’m not sure why it’s unethical to show the severity of a disease… we do it with everything else.
The idea is that the ad was making it seem like this St. Louis politician was the reason why Fox is living in that debiliating state. And that a vote for embryonic stem cell research is a vote for a Parkinsons cure. And neither are true.
i didn’t see it that way. i saw it as more of a plea for hope than anything else. he explicitly said that mccaskill shared his hope for cures, whereas talent doesn’t share that hope. i didn’t see it as a vote for her was a vote for a cure, but rather a vote for her was a vote for hope. he’s playing the hope card, which is what every politician does in their campaigns… “hope for a brighter tomorrow.”
Eric is right on–both beliefs are implied by the commercial and both are wrong. It is also disingenuous to say that Jim Talent is in some way not hopeful for a cure. That’s like saying that all pro-lifers want to strip women of the control over their own bodies or saying that one party is pro-terrorist while the other is anti-terrorist. Of course Talent would love a cure, but the question is at what moral cost are we willing to seek these cures. My grandmother is debilitated by Parkinson’s, I would love a cure, but I’m still voting against the ammendment.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224738,00.html
I guess more celebrities are joining in the anti-stem cell war now…
Interestingly enough, there are several now saying that actually Fox’s movements could be the effects of too much medication in his system at that time … apparently that happens from time to time for those on his treatment regimen … no expert here, just what i’ve read elsewhere.
but let’s be clear … ALL politicians use overstatement to make their points and sway voters. And, actually, it’s not just politicians. I’ve known a preacher or two to do the same thing from time to time. I believe it’s called persuasive speaking and most of us learned it in COM 101.
*If” Fox was not on meds for the shoot, I personally don’t really care. I would care if he was ACTING, but if he chooses to present the raw realities and truths of this debilitating disease to make a point, well I’m okay with that. People need to understand the whole story, regardless of their stance on stem-cell research.
I do agree there are some moral dilemas associated with the debate, but I would also say that even as Christians we need to be willing to examine the entire situation. It’s not all always as simple as it seems or as we wish it was.
The stem cell POLITICAL situation is one that is completely unendearing to me, and one that shouldn’t be a concern for any Christian.
There are two sides to the political debate:
1. That stem cell research should be funded by public dollars
2. That stem cell research should be illegal.
Both sides of this debate are refusing to promote the issue from a Christ perspective. They both want to do it from Caeser’s perspective, which is why I see no reason why a Christian should enter the debate as a political goal.
If you agree with #1, you are saying it is OK to steal from some people to give that money to others. God is pretty specific about stealing — don’t do it. To fund anything with public dollars that are not voluntarily paid is theft, so what is the point of a Christian supporting public funding of stem cells?
If you agree with #2, you are saying it is OK to use force rather than persuasion to change someone’s convictions. If someone wants to stick pencils in their own ear, it’s stupid. It’s dangerous to them. They could pierce their brain, fall over, and hurt you. Maybe we should make it illegal. The problem is that the only way to prevent them from sticking pencils in their ear is to threaten them — with fines (theft), court (judgement) and jail (slavery). All of these actions are contradictory to Christ’s teaching.
Do the Christ-ian thing when it comes to stem cell research: don’t partake in political discource. If you support stem cell research, use your own hands or your own money to promote the market. If you oppose it, withhold your hands and money to demote the market. That’s the Christ-ian way, not the Caeser way.
I don’t understand your second point. Are you saying that it is always unchristian to use “force rather than persuasion?” Do you honestly believe that fines = theft, court = judgment, and jail = slavery? What kind of world do you assume that you live in? Christians can choose to place their heads in the sand and self-righteously tell themselves that Christians have a higher calling than politics – but isn’t it just as “sinful” to put our heads in the sand when we have the opportunity to effect public policy in the richest and most influential nation in the world? Isn’t apathy a sin? There are some things that even if a person is only harming himself (which I don’t believe applies to stem cell research) it still harms society and culture as a whole. Do we not have a prophetic ministry to a godless culture? Or am I just some hopeless evangelical spitting in the wind?
Sorry Dada, didn’t mean to “go off;” hope there’s no offense. Stinkin blogs give us all an inflated view of ourselves when really probably none of us have a clue (but I still stand by my argument).
No offense taken, rags.
Taxes ARE theft unless they’re voluntary. Considering that you (yes, you) are paying over 50% of your income to the State, is all of that voluntary? I’m doubtful.
Christ never said “go and steal from one group to give to another.” He said YOU give what you have extra, sacrificially. I can’t do that — I’m already having 50% of my income stolen from me by the vote of others. That is not Christian.
Harming society is an incredibly authoritarian response. If someone wants to do drugs, they’re harming no one but themselves. Society isn’t harmed. If someone wants to play with genetic structures, they’re hurting no one else. If they want to look at porn, they’re hurting no one else.
The prophetic ministry to a godless culture is for us to be a shining example: “I can be happy without drugs. I can be happy without porn. I can be happy without genetic modification.” Ministering to the godless by saying “You can’t do this because your life will be worse” is not Christ-like at all, it is 100% what the Pharisees did. Then again, most evangelicals ARE pharisees.
How can a fat Christian complain about someone’s smoking? Read the Bible — they can’t, just as the smoker can’t complain about the Christian who overeats. How can a financially stable Christian complain about a financially-hurting Christian’s charitable efforts? They can’t. Jesus was specific about not judging the sins of others — that means NO judging. Our own sins are worse and that is what we should deal with.
Christianity today is co-opted with “What is best for society to do on our behalf because we’re too lazy to do it ourselves” rather than “I really need to sacrifice myself for those around me.” Read the Bible, friend. See what Jesus did and said. He surely did NOT say “go and vote, go and steal from others in taxation, go and enslave those who don’t follow a mortal man’s law.” He said YOU go and turn from your sin, YOU stop judging others, YOU give of yourself sacrifically, YOU, the individual.
Again, no offense taken. We Christians have been lied to by our parents, our pastors, our leaders and our friends — lied to because of their sin. Just realize what Jesus said and did are prime examples — everyone else, including myself, is just trash in comparison.
All government is force, therefore all government is against God. All of it. Go and do it yourself.
It is naive to think that someone else’s sin, no matter how private, does not harm society in general. Why not take it the next step–whatever a person decides to do in his own home is his business–whether it’s to himself or his eight year old daughter–I mean does his pedophilia really harm my life? I should probably just be an example of a person who doesn’t need to be a pedophile to be sexually fulfilled.
I’m not sure that’s it is fair or biblically accurate to pull the “Pharisee card” on anyone whom we disagree with or on anyone whom may be speaking out against evil. It is morally fatalistic to say that because we all are hypocrits we have lost all right to speak out on any issue.
We can not look at this problem from a secular perspective if we are Christ followers. We can’t. I’ve been searching for on evangelical to show me how Christ was a liar or a conman (which would be the case when we accept the evangelical platform as it stands today). He wasn’t.
He told us we can’t judge each other — we’re to focus on our own sins. If society is “harmed” by sin, then each individual in society has to focus on their own sin. Tell me how you interpret the “beam and log” rebuke.
He told us to love our enemies — if we force them to act in a certain way, that is not love, that is power over others. Tell me how you interpret “Blessed are the meek.”
He told us not to worry about tomorrow, our problems are too big today.
He told us to be peaceful — blessed are the peacemakers, those who make peace. Any action that forces another individual to act a different way is not peace, that’s war.
What happens if an individual decides he wants to do something that affects no one else but is against the law? Judgement. Fines. Jail. All 3 have nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.
I will pull the Pharisee card because Jesus Himself did as an example. In fact, the only example we can offer is rebuke — not judgement. Judgement creates finality, usually with punishment or threat of force. Rebuke just means to “check” someone. Christianity today is the ugliest, most repressive, most judgemental system in the world. I know, I travel the world each year, and I have never seen anything uglier than Western Christianity, and I am a Western Christian.
Why is it so bad? Because Evangelicals want to become the State, they want to “spread democracy,” they want to force others to act like Jesus, even if they don’t believe in Jesus, and they want to do it by the gun, the taxman, and the jail.
There is no Bible support for any of these anymore. Maybe under the Old Convenant there was, but Jesus came and died and returned to seal that plan. The New one gives us a Kingdom to serve in to be part of — you can’t force anyone through that door to join in.
are we possibly seeing the fatal flaw of democracy through this debate, and a wide spread of others that are dividing our nation? it seems that in the political arena it matters more about winning office and individual ambition (self-centerdness) than it does about making a difference and coming together to seek out change. instead of doing something positive with the elected position, politicians and politics are revolving completely around illogical arguments, unethical methodology, and faulty belief systems. there are major holes in each side of the argument for stem cell research as well as every other hotly debated idea, if only they would come together dropping their “steadfastness” and work towards solutions we’d be in a much better off place.
but for now i guess we’ll have to continue watching the name calling and all the shennanigans unfold because that’s all we’ve got. some democracy.
rags makes some good points and observations here about the term “pharisees” and how we use it today…
food for thought.
Now you are just being disingenuous if you truly believe that Christianity is the most repressive system in the world. What has become of us that has made us so self-hating and morally hesitant? I’m sorry, you are simply misreading Jesus and the NT at large if you assume that it teaches moral silence without a shred of judgment. Turning the cheek does not imply turning a blind eye. Removing the plank does not imply that Christianity is solely and always self-referential. Do we love our enemies by permissiveness? Is that truly love? Am I hating my children when I discipline them for their own good? I’m sorry, the argument just seems shallow to me.
dada, it seems as if you’re focusing solely on individual responsibility and not taking into consideration any sort of communal responsibility–because there is communal responsibility to each other and for each others sins… am i misreading you?
[...] political ad (21 comments) [...]