See the story here.

For the record, “the [Mormon] Church has not taken a position on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research.” This is a interesting stance.

Embryonic stem-cell research requires either the destruction of an existing human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. For those that believe that an embryo is a human being, destroying an embryo — even if for a noble purpose — is immoral. Also, the idea of therapeutic cloning conjurs images of slippery slopes that end in reproductive cloning. It is distasteful to many that a human being (if that is what an embryo is) should be instrumentalized as a means of treating other human beings.

For opponents of stem-cell research, the moral implications are clear. One wonders, then, what ambiguities remain that cause the church to profess neutrality. Clearly, unborn babies are considered worthy of protection in the eyes’ of the church as we generally oppose elective abortion. One also cannot in a million years believe that the church would support human cloning.

Neutrality, in my mind, can only mean two things: either, the idea that an embryo in a freezer is a “human being” (in the same way we are, or even a foetus is) is unclear. (This is the Orrin Hatch position.) Or, the morality of destroying an embyro — even if considered “human” — to potentially cure a disease is also unclear.

I said that the church’s stance is “interesting.” In fact, it is wholly reasonable given the dilemmas that so easily surface when considering this issue. We all peer through a glass darkly.

For what it’s worth, I support embryonic stem-cell research.

The article blames shopping malls, personal cars, urban sprawl, desires for personal homes, fast-growing population and other modern malaises for a vaguely defined sense that we are heading into “unchartered territory” now that we have 300 million Americans. So, are there too few or too many of us? Some argue there are too few of us to maintain the system of entitlements that exist even in US society (and the problem is widely acknowleged in the social market democracies of Europe). Others seem to be arguing that there are too many of us and that we need to limit our numbers. The debate rages on, I suppose.

A report by the Church of England suggests that, “misguided and distorted versions of Christian belief have contributed to domestic abuse in Britain.” Here are the sore points (as reported by The Times):

• A bride’s traditional marriage vow to “obey” her husband could be used to justify domestic violence as could referring to God as “He” and “Lord.”
• Bad theology, such as using the Virgin Mary “to reinforce norms of female passivity and obedience,” has been used to convince victims to forgive their abusers and not take action against them.
• The theology of self-denial and redemptive suffering in the Crucifixion of Jesus has “undermined people’s recognition of the evils being done to them and implanted masochistic attitudes of acceptance, or even celebration, of their afflictions.”
• Using religious texts such as “submit to your husband” to justify abuse.
• The Old Testament, where the attribution of violent actions and attitudes are attributed to God.

An average of two women a week are killed by their partner or former partners in England and Wales. The report does not say what percentage of abuse is encouraged (consciously or subconsciously) by Christian doctrine

It strikes me that reporters don’t really know how to frame or “spin” polygamy anymore.  Big Love seems to have muddled the previously accepted immorality of polygamy for journalists – if Hollywood can have fun with a topic, can it really be morally wrong?  But in a world where half of America considers comedy shows to be real news, I guess it’s not surprising that some journalists take their moral cues from Hollywood.  Call it the media’s open little secret.  I was also struck by the fact that female voices, both for and against polygamy, predominate in these increasingly frequent polygamy articles.