Max
08-18-2002, 08:42 PM
Religions reveal
little consensus
on cloning
Spiritual guidance depends
upon the denomination,
but is the flock listening?
By Bob Sullivan
MSNBC
Aug. 16 - The debate over whether scientists are "playing God" has probably never been more real than now, as humans consider calling forth the spark of life, seemingly without divine intervention. However, a confused population looking for clear ethical wisdom on cloning might be disappointed: Beyond issuing a general call for caution, the world's spiritual leaders hardly speak with one voice on the cloning debate.
Take our interactive quizzes
Sign up for our free health e-newsletter
• Shop at B&N.com
• Auctions at uBid
• Yellow Pages
• Personals Channel
• Professional Tips
• Shopping
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Or Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama? The announcement of sheep-clone Dolly in 1997 sent many religious leaders to the pulpit. Others scrambled through religious texts looking for guidance. There were plenty of swift condemnations.
But as the realities and limitations of science have removed some of the haze surrounding cloning, the philosophical and religious debates have also come into focus.
Today, conservative Christians are still unmoved from their blanket opposition to all cloning. Other faiths have found room in their traditions for therapeutic cloning - the use of cloned cells for research and health reasons, but not for breeding humans. Some even find ethical room for the cloning of humans.
But in almost every case, the religious debate is still open-ended. Other than opposition to the more sinister possibilities, such as the creation of "spare-parts" humans, there is hardly consensus about the ethics of cloning. In the absence of a central teaching authority, akin to the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, many religious scholars are still openly debating the pros and cons of a powerful new science that could bring as much potential for hope as for horror.
THREE BASIC QUESTIONS
• <b>The science: </b>Cloning for cures
• <b>The human:</b> Coveting a clone
• <b>The ethics:</b> Separating science from fiction
• <b>The pet:</b> Fluffy 2.0
• <b>The church:</b> Religious reactions
• <b>The mind:</b> Decoding the brain
• The science: Cloning for cures
• The human: Coveting a clone
• The ethics: Separating science from fiction
• The pet: Fluffy 2.0
• The church: Religious reactions
• The mind: Decoding the brain
The discussion eventually wraps itself around three central questions: Would cloning somehow corrupt traditional family relationships and lineage? Is destruction of a fertilized embryo during research murder? And perhaps more fundamentally, does cloning meddle with God's universe in a way that humans shouldn't?
Picking a position on cloning is actually an exercise in revisiting basic religious beliefs, says Coutney Campbell, director of the Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment at Oregon State University.
For example, most Jews and Muslims don't consider a fertilized embryo to have full human status, which essentially gives a green light to therapeutic cloning research. In that sense, the discussion about therapeutic cloning tends to follow lines similar to the debate over stem cell research and, ultimately, abortion.
"Thinking about cloning ought to require traditions to go back and think through basic tenets, such as does life really begin at conception," Campbell said. "You can't avoid that question."
To most faithful, answering such deep questions requires study of religious texts. Some people might think thousand-year-old writings would offer little guidance on 21st-century scientific morality, but that's not true, says Rabbi Edward Reichman, assistant professor of philosophy and history at Yeshiva University Einstein College of Medicine.
"The (Jewish) law is relevant to any imaginable technology," he said. "When you apply the law to a new technology, you can seek direct precedent, or you can ... seek to distill a principle of the law that applies.
"With evolution, Darwin, Copernicus, it was fundamentally the same. It was an unknown thing one couldn't have dreamed of when the law was written, but where the principles applied."
Jewish law is squarely on the side of medical research that has potential to save and preserve life, Reichman said. As a result, Jewish scholars are generally among the most vocal religious leaders in support of therapeutic cloning.
"The Jewish faith generally welcomes new technologies and sciences in as much as they can benefit the world, especially medicine. We do not necessary perceive all advances as stepping on God's toes," he said.
Most African-American churches - which stem largely from Methodist and Baptist traditions - affirm that life begins at conception, which leaves little room for any embryonic research. Black churches are also sensitive to the potential abuses minorities may face in the name of medical research because of incidents like the Tuskegee experiments from 1932 to 1972 in which African-Americans were denied syphilis treatments. Cloning could also make society more race conscious, further marginalizing minorities, according to some African-American leaders. And the focus on costly new research while some members of the community lack basic health care is also troubling.
Since Buddhism rejects the Western idea of individuality, scholars generally agree that the process by which children are born makes no difference. Cloning can even be viewed as a tool for reaching enlightenment, or liberation from the world of suffering. The Dalai Lama once said hypothetically that he would welcome creation of a person who had all good human qualities and no bad qualities because it would facilitate the process of rebirth and liberation. On the other hand, some Buddhist monks say cloning is just a foolhardy attempt to eliminate suffering from the world. Buddhism's Eightfold Path also prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which presents possible restrictions on embryo and animal research.
For additional discussion, see The Koan of cloning.
The editors of Hinduism Today, in a compilation of Hindu thought on the issue of cloning, suggested a morally neutral stance, indicating that Hinduism neither "condones not condemns" cloning research. "If done with divine intent and consciousness, it may benefit; if done in the services of selfishness, greed and power, it may bring severe negative karmic experiences." But research may pose difficulties: Hindus are not allowed to injure sentient beings, so the tradition rejects both animal research and the destruction of embryos.
Hindu creation narratives suggest the world was created with a cloning-like process, and the tradition believes in reincarnation, so there is not the kind of fundamental objection seen in many Christian traditions. But most Hindu scholars say cloning can only be supported if it somehow contributes to the cultivation of spiritual self-awareness, rather than being purely an effort to manipulate the external environment. More on the Hindu position can be found here.
Preservation of parent-child lineage is of utmost importance to Muslims, who object to third-party assisted reproduction but endorse procedures that assist in the fertility of committed parents. Leading U.S. scholar on Islamic cloning views, Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, believes Muslims would support cloning if it helped parents have children. But the potential breakdown of filial relationships that could ensue from the creation of cloned persons gives Muslims pause. So does the destruction of embryos, as there is not consensus among schools of Islamic thought about the moral status of the human embryo. Some traditions affirm the presence of a soul at point of conception, but others place ensoulment at 40 days, and still others at 120 days. Within these latter traditions, therapeutic cloning research can be justified.
More on Sachedina's views is available on the University of Virginia's Web site.
Preservation of human life is seen as an overriding duty for Jews, and the Jewish tradition places high value on scientific research, so many Jewish scholars support cloning research and are suspicious of outright government bans. In a joint statement recently, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and the Rabbinical Council of America said "if cloning technology research advances our ability to heal humans with greater success, it ought to be pursued since it does not require or encourage the destruction of life in the process." Both groups, however, indicated opposition to cloning for reproductive purposes. But other scholars say that the cloning of human beings may be acceptable if no other method for procreation is available. The joint statement can be viewed here.
Animal cloning and human cloning both risk substantial disruption of the created order and balance in nature, according to some Native American views. Animal cloning is seen as eroding the reverence and kinship between humans and other created beings. "We are becoming more like Creator every day ... however, it is only our abilities that are growing that way," says Muskogee tribe elder Sakim, according to Oregon State University professor Courtney Campbell. "We are not blessed with nor in any manner fraught with the judgment of Creator. That is the fundamental problem." However, some support for human cloning can be found among Native Americans who are worried about the preservation of endangered indigenous peoples and see cloning as a possible way to ensure survival.
Conservative Christians resoundingly oppose any cloning, since they hold that embryos are human beings. In a public statement made in 1997, the Orthodox Church in America said it believed cloning would lead to commercialization of DNA, production of "spare parts" babies, and movement toward creation of a superior class of human beings. The most recent statement by the Orthodox Church in America can be found here.
Conservative Christians, including the largest American Protestant organization, the Southern Baptist Convention, reject cloning outright. Any kind of cloning would break the chain of creation that God set in motion in Genesis, and rupture the relationship between parent and child, scholars say, separating human reproduction from any relationship. Research is immoral as well because the embryo is given full human status. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptists' Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has called therapeutic cloning "a euphemism for cloning and then killing tiny babies."
More on the Southern Baptist view.
Mainline Protestants include American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Methodists, Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ - about 17 percent of the U.S. population. Not surprisingly, there is great diversity of opinions among these groups. Some scholars assert that Christians are co-creators with God, and cloning could fulfill this calling. Cloning would also open biological parenthood to gay couples, which some support. In the middle ground are those who make a clear distinction between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Research that minimizes discarded embryos may be acceptable, but cloning people would be playing God, according to this school of thought. The more conservative traditions, such as the United Methodist Church, support a ban on all human cloning, including therapeutic cloning. Still others, such as U.S. Presbyterian Church, have not taken a position on cloning, but call for "extreme caution in such endeavors."
More on the Methodist position.
More on the Presbyterian position.
More on the Lutheran position.
The Catholic Church's position is spelled out clearly in Donum Vitae, published in 1987 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Any attempts at cloning are a violation of the dignity of the human embryo and of human sexuality. Research on human embryos is also rejected, as the embryo is afforded the status as a person. The Vatican's position on cloning is available here
SOURCE: "Cloning Human Beings," by Courtney Campbell, OSU professor, MSNBC research
Printable version
RED LIGHT, GREEN LIGHT
But that's exactly the interpretation arrived at by Roman Catholic scholars after examining the Bible and Canon Law. Back in 1987, the church became the leading voice against human cloning of any kind. In a document called "Donum Vitae," Roman Catholics were told that cloning was "considered contrary to the moral law, since (it is in) opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union."
The church still holds that position, which is also supported by conservative Christians such as Southern Baptists. However, there is great diversity of opinion among other Christian denominations, and even within those denominations.
Oregon State's Campbell compiled the most comprehensive look at religious perspectives in 1997, for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission appointed by then-President Bill Clinton.
Advertisement
Campbell used a simple traffic-light system to classify the religious points of view: Catholics and Southern Baptists issue clear red lights on both therapeutic and human cloning. But among "mainline" Protestants such as the Lutheran and Episcopal faiths, Campbell found some green and yellow lights.
"Some traditions and leading figures in conservative Protestantism who were opposed to human cloning for reproductive reasons have come to see that given the ambiguity about their own views about the status of embryonic life, and given the potential for health benefits, they could be opposed to reproductive cloning, but affirm therapeutic cloning," Campbell said. The main reason, Campbell says, is the tradition of emphasizing individual choice over central dogma.
BUDDHISM: YES AND NO
Some other faiths are even harder to pin down. For example, there is no stated position among Buddhists on cloning, so scholars like Campbell are left only to interpret the tradition's precepts on their own.
What's your position on human cloning?
There should be a complete ban.
It should be banned for reproductive purposes, but permitted for stem cell research.
It should be allowed without any restrictions.
Vote to see results
What's your position on human cloning?
* 46687 responses
There should be a complete ban.
39%
It should be banned for reproductive purposes, but permitted for stem cell research.
35%
It should be allowed without any restrictions.
25%
Survey results tallied every 60 seconds. Live Votes reflect respondents' views and are not scientifically valid surveys.
Buddhism might be willing to accept cloning, Campbell said, because it represents a leap in modern science and self-understanding that could be considered a path to enlightenment. On the other hand, the Eightfold Path prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which could be seen in the destruction of cells necessary to perform cloning research. Campbell's judgment: a yellow light on the issues raised by human cloning, and a flashing red light on other implications of cloning research.
Damien Keown, professor at Goldsmiths College in London and perhaps the best-known expert on possible Buddhist responses to cloning, generally agreed. He said the tradition doesn't have the same kind of fundamental moral opposition that can be found in Christian faiths. Buddhists already believe in non-sexual reproduction, for example, since Buddhism teaches that life can come into being through supernatural phenomenon like spontaneous generation. "Life can thus legitimately begin in more ways than one," he said.
"For Christians, to bring into being a new human or animal life by cloning as opposed to normal sexual reproduction is to 'play God' and usurp the power of the creator. This is not a problem for Buddhism, because in Buddhism the creation of new life is not seen as a 'gift from God,'" Keown said in a recent paper. "For this reason the technique in itself would not be seen as problematic."
Buddhism sees human individuality as a mirage, so adherents wouldn't share some of the other philosophical complaints that Western thinkers have about cloning, as it pertains to devaluing an individual's personality or character by creating copies.
But that hardly means Buddhists will welcome clones. On more practical grounds, Buddhism promotes ultimate respect to every sentient being, and that generally includes cells born out of research. Destroying such cells, even in research on animal cloning, runs contrary to Buddhist teaching.
"It is hard to see what purposes - scientific or otherwise - can justify the dehumanization that results when life is created and manipulated for other ends," Keown said. "We should not forget that Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly, failed 276 times before Dolly was conceived."
HINDUS, MUSLIMS
Hindu religious scholars have issued flashing red lights, according to Campbell - which means they are calling for a temporary pause to provide time to think, but have not issued an outright objection of human cloning.
A Hindu's sense of the world and the relationship between people and Creator is very different from Western traditions, so Hindus also wouldn't have the same fundamental objection to "playing God" that Christians might. But there are plenty of concerns about the desire for greed and power that might be served by aggressive scientists who call for cloning.
Diversity among Muslims makes an authoritative description of Islamic thought on cloning nearly impossible. Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, University of Virginia professor and a leading U.S. scholar on Muslim thought regarding cloning, believes that most Muslims will eventually agree that scientists wouldn't have discovered cloning if Allah hadn't willed it. So cloning for the purpose of enhancing the chances of procreating within a solid family structure will be "regarded as an act of faith in the ultimate will of God as the Giver of all life."
But he's hardly without opponents. Nasser Farid Wasel, Egypt's Mufti, said in 1999 that cloning clearly contradicts Islam. Other muftis have gone further, saying scientists who clone are doing Satan's work.
Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed, director of the Islamic Research Foundation International and an outspoken cloning supporter, says such absolute statements from religious leaders only serve to complicate the conversation.
"Anything new, just as a reaction, they oppose it," Syed said. "Our religious leaders have little knowledge of evolving technologies." But the problem works both ways, he conceded. "The scientists don't know anything about religious beliefs, often."
SCIENCE VS. RELIGION
'Science can be a spur to creative and innovative theological thought.'
- COURTNEY CAMPBELL
Oregon State University Scientific advances have shaken religious beliefs to their roots repeatedly through the ages. Charles Darwin did it. Copernicus did it. And now, companies like Advanced Cell Technologies are doing it.
But as much as religious leaders want to push scientists to think more about the morality of their work, scientists are pushing religious leaders back to the basic tenets of their faiths, where they scramble to make sense of a world teetering on the razor's edge of irreversible change.
While it might be a frightening moment, it's also a grand opportunity, Campbell said.
"Science can be a spur to creative and innovative theological thought," he said. "And I think what is a crying need is for the church to be a forum for discussion with engaged dialogue between science and religion, and be a venue for civic conversation."
In the debate over cloning, will religious views ultimately matter? Already, some scientists are working faster than ethicists on cloning. And at least in the United States, there is an open question about the weight given to religious leaders' opinions on cloning.
Four out of five people said they opposed cloning in a survey conducted last year for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. But only one in four Catholics and one in three Protestants cited religious beliefs as the main reasons for their opposition. Pollsters say many Americans pride themselves on developing their own opinions rather than consulting religious dogma - which means that the key decisions on cloning are much more likely to be made in the House of Representatives than in a house of God.
• <b>The science: </b>Cloning for cures
• <b>The human:</b> Coveting a clone
• <b>The ethics:</b> Separating science from fiction
• <b>The pet:</b> Fluffy 2.0
• <b>The church:</b> Religious reactions
• <b>The mind:</b> Decoding the brain
The mind: Decoding the brain
6 of 6
1. The science: Cloning for cures
2. The human: Coveting a clone
3. The ethics: Separating science from fiction
4. The pet: Fluffy 2.0
5. The church: Religious reactions
6. The mind: Decoding the brain
http://www.msnbc.com/news/768367.asp?0si=-%20style=text-decoration:none#BODY
==============================
"With every scientific advance, we grow closer to unlocking the mysteries of life and creation. But what have we gained if in the process, we lose our humanity. The most powerful thing we pass along to our children may not reside in the genes, but in the soul."
The Outer Limits(Criminal Nature)
little consensus
on cloning
Spiritual guidance depends
upon the denomination,
but is the flock listening?
By Bob Sullivan
MSNBC
Aug. 16 - The debate over whether scientists are "playing God" has probably never been more real than now, as humans consider calling forth the spark of life, seemingly without divine intervention. However, a confused population looking for clear ethical wisdom on cloning might be disappointed: Beyond issuing a general call for caution, the world's spiritual leaders hardly speak with one voice on the cloning debate.
Take our interactive quizzes
Sign up for our free health e-newsletter
• Shop at B&N.com
• Auctions at uBid
• Yellow Pages
• Personals Channel
• Professional Tips
• Shopping
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Or Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama? The announcement of sheep-clone Dolly in 1997 sent many religious leaders to the pulpit. Others scrambled through religious texts looking for guidance. There were plenty of swift condemnations.
But as the realities and limitations of science have removed some of the haze surrounding cloning, the philosophical and religious debates have also come into focus.
Today, conservative Christians are still unmoved from their blanket opposition to all cloning. Other faiths have found room in their traditions for therapeutic cloning - the use of cloned cells for research and health reasons, but not for breeding humans. Some even find ethical room for the cloning of humans.
But in almost every case, the religious debate is still open-ended. Other than opposition to the more sinister possibilities, such as the creation of "spare-parts" humans, there is hardly consensus about the ethics of cloning. In the absence of a central teaching authority, akin to the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, many religious scholars are still openly debating the pros and cons of a powerful new science that could bring as much potential for hope as for horror.
THREE BASIC QUESTIONS
• <b>The science: </b>Cloning for cures
• <b>The human:</b> Coveting a clone
• <b>The ethics:</b> Separating science from fiction
• <b>The pet:</b> Fluffy 2.0
• <b>The church:</b> Religious reactions
• <b>The mind:</b> Decoding the brain
• The science: Cloning for cures
• The human: Coveting a clone
• The ethics: Separating science from fiction
• The pet: Fluffy 2.0
• The church: Religious reactions
• The mind: Decoding the brain
The discussion eventually wraps itself around three central questions: Would cloning somehow corrupt traditional family relationships and lineage? Is destruction of a fertilized embryo during research murder? And perhaps more fundamentally, does cloning meddle with God's universe in a way that humans shouldn't?
Picking a position on cloning is actually an exercise in revisiting basic religious beliefs, says Coutney Campbell, director of the Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment at Oregon State University.
For example, most Jews and Muslims don't consider a fertilized embryo to have full human status, which essentially gives a green light to therapeutic cloning research. In that sense, the discussion about therapeutic cloning tends to follow lines similar to the debate over stem cell research and, ultimately, abortion.
"Thinking about cloning ought to require traditions to go back and think through basic tenets, such as does life really begin at conception," Campbell said. "You can't avoid that question."
To most faithful, answering such deep questions requires study of religious texts. Some people might think thousand-year-old writings would offer little guidance on 21st-century scientific morality, but that's not true, says Rabbi Edward Reichman, assistant professor of philosophy and history at Yeshiva University Einstein College of Medicine.
"The (Jewish) law is relevant to any imaginable technology," he said. "When you apply the law to a new technology, you can seek direct precedent, or you can ... seek to distill a principle of the law that applies.
"With evolution, Darwin, Copernicus, it was fundamentally the same. It was an unknown thing one couldn't have dreamed of when the law was written, but where the principles applied."
Jewish law is squarely on the side of medical research that has potential to save and preserve life, Reichman said. As a result, Jewish scholars are generally among the most vocal religious leaders in support of therapeutic cloning.
"The Jewish faith generally welcomes new technologies and sciences in as much as they can benefit the world, especially medicine. We do not necessary perceive all advances as stepping on God's toes," he said.
Most African-American churches - which stem largely from Methodist and Baptist traditions - affirm that life begins at conception, which leaves little room for any embryonic research. Black churches are also sensitive to the potential abuses minorities may face in the name of medical research because of incidents like the Tuskegee experiments from 1932 to 1972 in which African-Americans were denied syphilis treatments. Cloning could also make society more race conscious, further marginalizing minorities, according to some African-American leaders. And the focus on costly new research while some members of the community lack basic health care is also troubling.
Since Buddhism rejects the Western idea of individuality, scholars generally agree that the process by which children are born makes no difference. Cloning can even be viewed as a tool for reaching enlightenment, or liberation from the world of suffering. The Dalai Lama once said hypothetically that he would welcome creation of a person who had all good human qualities and no bad qualities because it would facilitate the process of rebirth and liberation. On the other hand, some Buddhist monks say cloning is just a foolhardy attempt to eliminate suffering from the world. Buddhism's Eightfold Path also prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which presents possible restrictions on embryo and animal research.
For additional discussion, see The Koan of cloning.
The editors of Hinduism Today, in a compilation of Hindu thought on the issue of cloning, suggested a morally neutral stance, indicating that Hinduism neither "condones not condemns" cloning research. "If done with divine intent and consciousness, it may benefit; if done in the services of selfishness, greed and power, it may bring severe negative karmic experiences." But research may pose difficulties: Hindus are not allowed to injure sentient beings, so the tradition rejects both animal research and the destruction of embryos.
Hindu creation narratives suggest the world was created with a cloning-like process, and the tradition believes in reincarnation, so there is not the kind of fundamental objection seen in many Christian traditions. But most Hindu scholars say cloning can only be supported if it somehow contributes to the cultivation of spiritual self-awareness, rather than being purely an effort to manipulate the external environment. More on the Hindu position can be found here.
Preservation of parent-child lineage is of utmost importance to Muslims, who object to third-party assisted reproduction but endorse procedures that assist in the fertility of committed parents. Leading U.S. scholar on Islamic cloning views, Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, believes Muslims would support cloning if it helped parents have children. But the potential breakdown of filial relationships that could ensue from the creation of cloned persons gives Muslims pause. So does the destruction of embryos, as there is not consensus among schools of Islamic thought about the moral status of the human embryo. Some traditions affirm the presence of a soul at point of conception, but others place ensoulment at 40 days, and still others at 120 days. Within these latter traditions, therapeutic cloning research can be justified.
More on Sachedina's views is available on the University of Virginia's Web site.
Preservation of human life is seen as an overriding duty for Jews, and the Jewish tradition places high value on scientific research, so many Jewish scholars support cloning research and are suspicious of outright government bans. In a joint statement recently, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and the Rabbinical Council of America said "if cloning technology research advances our ability to heal humans with greater success, it ought to be pursued since it does not require or encourage the destruction of life in the process." Both groups, however, indicated opposition to cloning for reproductive purposes. But other scholars say that the cloning of human beings may be acceptable if no other method for procreation is available. The joint statement can be viewed here.
Animal cloning and human cloning both risk substantial disruption of the created order and balance in nature, according to some Native American views. Animal cloning is seen as eroding the reverence and kinship between humans and other created beings. "We are becoming more like Creator every day ... however, it is only our abilities that are growing that way," says Muskogee tribe elder Sakim, according to Oregon State University professor Courtney Campbell. "We are not blessed with nor in any manner fraught with the judgment of Creator. That is the fundamental problem." However, some support for human cloning can be found among Native Americans who are worried about the preservation of endangered indigenous peoples and see cloning as a possible way to ensure survival.
Conservative Christians resoundingly oppose any cloning, since they hold that embryos are human beings. In a public statement made in 1997, the Orthodox Church in America said it believed cloning would lead to commercialization of DNA, production of "spare parts" babies, and movement toward creation of a superior class of human beings. The most recent statement by the Orthodox Church in America can be found here.
Conservative Christians, including the largest American Protestant organization, the Southern Baptist Convention, reject cloning outright. Any kind of cloning would break the chain of creation that God set in motion in Genesis, and rupture the relationship between parent and child, scholars say, separating human reproduction from any relationship. Research is immoral as well because the embryo is given full human status. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptists' Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has called therapeutic cloning "a euphemism for cloning and then killing tiny babies."
More on the Southern Baptist view.
Mainline Protestants include American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, United Methodists, Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ - about 17 percent of the U.S. population. Not surprisingly, there is great diversity of opinions among these groups. Some scholars assert that Christians are co-creators with God, and cloning could fulfill this calling. Cloning would also open biological parenthood to gay couples, which some support. In the middle ground are those who make a clear distinction between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Research that minimizes discarded embryos may be acceptable, but cloning people would be playing God, according to this school of thought. The more conservative traditions, such as the United Methodist Church, support a ban on all human cloning, including therapeutic cloning. Still others, such as U.S. Presbyterian Church, have not taken a position on cloning, but call for "extreme caution in such endeavors."
More on the Methodist position.
More on the Presbyterian position.
More on the Lutheran position.
The Catholic Church's position is spelled out clearly in Donum Vitae, published in 1987 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Any attempts at cloning are a violation of the dignity of the human embryo and of human sexuality. Research on human embryos is also rejected, as the embryo is afforded the status as a person. The Vatican's position on cloning is available here
SOURCE: "Cloning Human Beings," by Courtney Campbell, OSU professor, MSNBC research
Printable version
RED LIGHT, GREEN LIGHT
But that's exactly the interpretation arrived at by Roman Catholic scholars after examining the Bible and Canon Law. Back in 1987, the church became the leading voice against human cloning of any kind. In a document called "Donum Vitae," Roman Catholics were told that cloning was "considered contrary to the moral law, since (it is in) opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union."
The church still holds that position, which is also supported by conservative Christians such as Southern Baptists. However, there is great diversity of opinion among other Christian denominations, and even within those denominations.
Oregon State's Campbell compiled the most comprehensive look at religious perspectives in 1997, for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission appointed by then-President Bill Clinton.
Advertisement
Campbell used a simple traffic-light system to classify the religious points of view: Catholics and Southern Baptists issue clear red lights on both therapeutic and human cloning. But among "mainline" Protestants such as the Lutheran and Episcopal faiths, Campbell found some green and yellow lights.
"Some traditions and leading figures in conservative Protestantism who were opposed to human cloning for reproductive reasons have come to see that given the ambiguity about their own views about the status of embryonic life, and given the potential for health benefits, they could be opposed to reproductive cloning, but affirm therapeutic cloning," Campbell said. The main reason, Campbell says, is the tradition of emphasizing individual choice over central dogma.
BUDDHISM: YES AND NO
Some other faiths are even harder to pin down. For example, there is no stated position among Buddhists on cloning, so scholars like Campbell are left only to interpret the tradition's precepts on their own.
What's your position on human cloning?
There should be a complete ban.
It should be banned for reproductive purposes, but permitted for stem cell research.
It should be allowed without any restrictions.
Vote to see results
What's your position on human cloning?
* 46687 responses
There should be a complete ban.
39%
It should be banned for reproductive purposes, but permitted for stem cell research.
35%
It should be allowed without any restrictions.
25%
Survey results tallied every 60 seconds. Live Votes reflect respondents' views and are not scientifically valid surveys.
Buddhism might be willing to accept cloning, Campbell said, because it represents a leap in modern science and self-understanding that could be considered a path to enlightenment. On the other hand, the Eightfold Path prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which could be seen in the destruction of cells necessary to perform cloning research. Campbell's judgment: a yellow light on the issues raised by human cloning, and a flashing red light on other implications of cloning research.
Damien Keown, professor at Goldsmiths College in London and perhaps the best-known expert on possible Buddhist responses to cloning, generally agreed. He said the tradition doesn't have the same kind of fundamental moral opposition that can be found in Christian faiths. Buddhists already believe in non-sexual reproduction, for example, since Buddhism teaches that life can come into being through supernatural phenomenon like spontaneous generation. "Life can thus legitimately begin in more ways than one," he said.
"For Christians, to bring into being a new human or animal life by cloning as opposed to normal sexual reproduction is to 'play God' and usurp the power of the creator. This is not a problem for Buddhism, because in Buddhism the creation of new life is not seen as a 'gift from God,'" Keown said in a recent paper. "For this reason the technique in itself would not be seen as problematic."
Buddhism sees human individuality as a mirage, so adherents wouldn't share some of the other philosophical complaints that Western thinkers have about cloning, as it pertains to devaluing an individual's personality or character by creating copies.
But that hardly means Buddhists will welcome clones. On more practical grounds, Buddhism promotes ultimate respect to every sentient being, and that generally includes cells born out of research. Destroying such cells, even in research on animal cloning, runs contrary to Buddhist teaching.
"It is hard to see what purposes - scientific or otherwise - can justify the dehumanization that results when life is created and manipulated for other ends," Keown said. "We should not forget that Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly, failed 276 times before Dolly was conceived."
HINDUS, MUSLIMS
Hindu religious scholars have issued flashing red lights, according to Campbell - which means they are calling for a temporary pause to provide time to think, but have not issued an outright objection of human cloning.
A Hindu's sense of the world and the relationship between people and Creator is very different from Western traditions, so Hindus also wouldn't have the same fundamental objection to "playing God" that Christians might. But there are plenty of concerns about the desire for greed and power that might be served by aggressive scientists who call for cloning.
Diversity among Muslims makes an authoritative description of Islamic thought on cloning nearly impossible. Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, University of Virginia professor and a leading U.S. scholar on Muslim thought regarding cloning, believes that most Muslims will eventually agree that scientists wouldn't have discovered cloning if Allah hadn't willed it. So cloning for the purpose of enhancing the chances of procreating within a solid family structure will be "regarded as an act of faith in the ultimate will of God as the Giver of all life."
But he's hardly without opponents. Nasser Farid Wasel, Egypt's Mufti, said in 1999 that cloning clearly contradicts Islam. Other muftis have gone further, saying scientists who clone are doing Satan's work.
Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed, director of the Islamic Research Foundation International and an outspoken cloning supporter, says such absolute statements from religious leaders only serve to complicate the conversation.
"Anything new, just as a reaction, they oppose it," Syed said. "Our religious leaders have little knowledge of evolving technologies." But the problem works both ways, he conceded. "The scientists don't know anything about religious beliefs, often."
SCIENCE VS. RELIGION
'Science can be a spur to creative and innovative theological thought.'
- COURTNEY CAMPBELL
Oregon State University Scientific advances have shaken religious beliefs to their roots repeatedly through the ages. Charles Darwin did it. Copernicus did it. And now, companies like Advanced Cell Technologies are doing it.
But as much as religious leaders want to push scientists to think more about the morality of their work, scientists are pushing religious leaders back to the basic tenets of their faiths, where they scramble to make sense of a world teetering on the razor's edge of irreversible change.
While it might be a frightening moment, it's also a grand opportunity, Campbell said.
"Science can be a spur to creative and innovative theological thought," he said. "And I think what is a crying need is for the church to be a forum for discussion with engaged dialogue between science and religion, and be a venue for civic conversation."
In the debate over cloning, will religious views ultimately matter? Already, some scientists are working faster than ethicists on cloning. And at least in the United States, there is an open question about the weight given to religious leaders' opinions on cloning.
Four out of five people said they opposed cloning in a survey conducted last year for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. But only one in four Catholics and one in three Protestants cited religious beliefs as the main reasons for their opposition. Pollsters say many Americans pride themselves on developing their own opinions rather than consulting religious dogma - which means that the key decisions on cloning are much more likely to be made in the House of Representatives than in a house of God.
• <b>The science: </b>Cloning for cures
• <b>The human:</b> Coveting a clone
• <b>The ethics:</b> Separating science from fiction
• <b>The pet:</b> Fluffy 2.0
• <b>The church:</b> Religious reactions
• <b>The mind:</b> Decoding the brain
The mind: Decoding the brain
6 of 6
1. The science: Cloning for cures
2. The human: Coveting a clone
3. The ethics: Separating science from fiction
4. The pet: Fluffy 2.0
5. The church: Religious reactions
6. The mind: Decoding the brain
http://www.msnbc.com/news/768367.asp?0si=-%20style=text-decoration:none#BODY
==============================
"With every scientific advance, we grow closer to unlocking the mysteries of life and creation. But what have we gained if in the process, we lose our humanity. The most powerful thing we pass along to our children may not reside in the genes, but in the soul."
The Outer Limits(Criminal Nature)