Same Ten Commandments -- Different Outcome

by Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst
Citizenlink.org (12/20/05)

SUMMARY: An appeals court rules an Ohio display is constitutional.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a courthouse display today which is essentially identical to the one struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in last summer's McCreary County case. The difference turned on religious motivation -- or in this case, the lack thereof.

The decision was notable for its rejection of the ACLU's argument that the ACLU was offended:

"And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that . . . the government (is kept) out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person," the opinion read.

Then the court went on to kick a hole in the old "separation of church and state" mantra:

"The ACLU's argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

And, reasonably enough, the court said that a public display of the Ten Commandments does not equal a government endorsement of religion:

"We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation's cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto.”

"The Mercer County display has a secular purpose. Unlike McCreary County, there is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religious purpose. Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. The display is therefore constitutional as a matter of law."

Now, if someone could just explain to me how identical displays in separate counties should constitutionally receive different treatment because of the subjective intent of the people that authorized them, then -- well, never mind, it's not really explainable.

HWANG LIED

COMMENTARY by Ed Nicholson

THEY SAY:

Bush lied.

I SAY:

Hwang lied.

THEY SAY:

Bush made up reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) so that he could pursue his secret agenda of getting revenge on Saddam Hussein.

I SAY:

Hwang made up reports about advancements in Embryonic Stem-Cell Research (ESCR) so that the cloning industry could pursue their hidden agenda of receiving a future financial windfall from human cloning at American taxpayer expense.

THEY SAY:

Committing our troops in Iraq is misguided. The war in Iraq is not winnable. Our war against terror is better served in other pursuits. Precious resources should be devoted in other ways in the war on terror.

I SAY:

Investing in ESCR is misguided as well as unethical. ESCR shows no signs of success. Scarce research dollars should go instead to Adult Stem-Cell Research (ASCR), which is not only ethical, but is much more promising in finding medical cures than ESCR.

THEY SAY:

Young people in our armed forces are dying because Bush lied.

I SAY:

Public money was earmarked for ESCR after Hwang’s fake advancements were publicized. Now, more young human beings in the embryonic stage of development are contracted to die in laboratories in the U.S. because Hwang lied.

THEY SAY:

More innocent human beings (soldiers) are going to lose their lives the longer we stay in Iraq.

I SAY:

More innocent human beings (human embryos) are going to lose their lives the longer we advance ESCR.

THEY SAY: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research is good science.

I SAY: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research is mad science.

As reported by the Family Research Council:

“The Washington Post calls this widening scandal ‘one of the biggest scientific frauds in memory.’ That story may never be fully told. The journal Science, which had trumpeted Hwang's research, now says it will retract his ‘landmark’ May 2005 paper on embryonic stem cells. Note the word--landmark. This is liberals' word-of-choice for some really big, really good thing, as in ‘the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.”

A week later, FRC reports, “It Get’s Worse”:

“‘[Stem cell research is] years behind where scientists thought it was.’ That's the dire judgment on the latest disclosures from South Korea. Dr. Hwang Woo Suk not only did not develop patient-specific stem cell lines using human cloning, but he never derived stem cells from a cloned embryonic human. An eight-month study by Hwang's peers at Seoul National University concluded that DNA studies on preserved stem cells failed to correspond with published photographs. They
were ‘fakes.’ ‘Hwang basically lied to the Korean people and scientific world,’ said Dr. Chung Myung Hee, the chairman of the review panel. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., said ACT will re-enter the race to clone a human being. ‘The United States has a second chance to do it right and win,’ he said. Once again, it seems scientists are not drawing the obvious lessons from this episode. Instead of exploiting the actual and potential benefits of adult stem cells, they are determined to pursue this destructive and fundamentally unethical research agenda.”

Scientist Lied About Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Breakthrough

Citizenlink.org (12/16/05)

Hype about advances in embryonic stem-cell research coming from South Korean scientists was based on faked research, the Los Angeles Time reported.

Hwang Woo-suk published his alleged findings in the journal Science, describing his ability to clone embryos using DNA from sick patients to create personalized stem-cell treatments.

Later Hwang told associate Roh Sung-il, an executive at MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, the research was faked because his stem-cell lines had died.

"If it's true, it's going to go down as probably the biggest scandal in science," said Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "Even cold fusion didn't get this worldwide attention."

For more details on the scandal, read this article by Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

“What could be more inclusive and non-offensive than publicly and civilly acknowledging our religious beliefs and differences, rather than pretending we are a monolithic, secular, non-religious nation of the easily offended?”

-- Stuart Shepard, managing editor, Citizenlink.org

Click here to read the rest of his commentary.

Redefining “Torture” to Suit Liberal Agenda

COMMENTARY by Ed Nicholson

While the abuses brought about by a few of our "not-so-finest" American soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison is indeed tragic, we should not allow all the methods employed for gaining important information from the enemy to be labeled as "torture." The angry left continues to exploit this tragic situation for political purposes.

The far-left leaning Amnesty International, for example, has continued their attack on the US government -- namely the Bush Administration – by accusing them of “torturing” Iraqi insurgents by subjecting them to "loud music and sleep deprivation for three days." I ask: “Where was Amnesty International when Janet Reno used similar tactics on the compound at Waco? Did they accuse the Clinton Administration of torture then?”

While the extreme left (Hillary, the liberal elites in the Main Stream Media, et. al) continue to purvey their deceit onto the American people, all they are doing is continuing to put our troops in harms way and threatening the progress already made in Iraq.

Storm Victims Praise Churches

-- The Washington Times

Vatican Ruling Allows Ex-Gays in Priesthood

Those who have left homosexuality have a powerful testimony.
-- Citizenlink.org