http://blog.
C. Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics
and Human Dignity, says, "The answer is in the
question itself. A cloned human being would in fact be
a person and would therefore be ensouled. To be human
is to be a person is to be a soul." This is neither an
argument in favor of human cloning nor the final
answer to various theological questions about the
existence or nature of a human soul, topics best left
to mouthbreathing Pentecostals, infallible men in
funny hats, and Mitch Albom. It is simply to say, as
Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical
Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania does, "If
humans have souls, then clones will have them, too."
It reminded me of a presentation I saw by author Sam Harris speaking on C-Span. He used a term about the religious right, but I think it applies to all parts of the culture war. He spoke about "Conversational Intolerance." In the field of conflict resolution we call them stoppers. They stop the conversation.
He used the example of stem cell research. He said, in essence, when you begin a conversation about stem cell research immediately someone raises the issue that a three-day old embryo is a soul and therefore use of those cells constitutes murder. No proof is offered. It is expected to be accepted on their word. No further discussion is possible. One cannot even continue the conversation about whether or not a handful of unformed cells is a human being with a soul. Thus, with a whole segment of society, the discussion ends right there.
He seemed to imply that only religious individuals are guilty of this conversational intolerance. I contend that the conversation stops not only because the religious right won't listen, but that the irreligious left won't either.
The above quote is a prime example of this "conversational intolerance" on the left. It implies that if you don't believe as he does you are a stupid, a religious fanatic, or don't think for yourself. I happen to be one of those "mouthbreathing Pentecostals," and a good friend of mine became a nun. Neither of us are idiots or fanatics. But by using that term, he cuts off any chance for a rational discussion of the merits of his logic.
Basically, it is an argument from definition and a circular one at that. If a human is cloned, then the human would have a soul because by definition a human is a creature with a soul. The argument avoids the possibility that someone might claim that a clone would not be human because it would not have a soul. In other words, he claims the clone is human and therefore has a soul because human beings have souls. The other side though could just as easily take the same logic and say the clone does not have a soul because by definition a clone is not human and only humans have souls. Therefore, a clone does not have a soul.
Regardless, of the merits of the argument, no one has time to evaluate it because the opposing side is characterized as unintelligent and therefore one should discount their arguments out of hand.
Perhaps it is only natural for us to avoid difficult ethical issues. By calling it sin by religious people or by simply labeling it as reactionary by the left we can avoid dealing with these tough issues and blame the other guy at the same time.
Truthfully, as a Christian, I feel in some groups intimidated by expressing anything other than the "party line" laid out by a handful of powerful televangelists and Christian activists. If I opposed the death penalty, say, in certain groups, or expressed an opposition to the war in Iraq, there would be no conversation of the merits of the argument, but a rather summary dismissal of my point of view as being unAmerican or even unChristian. We could not even engage in a Bible study on such questions. The article of faith is grounded more in a political religion than a Biblical one.
But I have found myself equally intimidated by the left. I am a college instructor. If I expressed a view that said that I believed that homosexual behavior is a sin, it would not be seen only as my opinion which I had formed through a study of my religion, I would be villified as a homophobe and bigot. It would be assumed I also opposed equal rights for gays and lesbians, job protection, fair housing and marital rights. Thatwould be wrong. I support all of that. One does not exclude the other. But the conversation would be stopped as soon as I expressed the less favored opinion among my peers.
In fact, the mention of God in any context other than some vague lifeforce of the universe in some settings causes people to pull away. Being a little religious is okay. Just don't let it interfer with your real life. And above all don't talk about a living, daily relationship with God. Certainly, don't talk about Jesus as anything more than a good man or prophet.
I remember back in college having some wonderful arguments with an atheist on the debate team. We were pretty evenly matched in terms of debating skill. Neither of us were ever condemned for our beliefs. Indeed, we didn't even condemn each other. I doubt such conversations would be approved of on either side of the political spectrum today.
It's time we start conversations about these difficult issues instead of stopping them by refusing to listen to the opposite site.
