Somewhere deep among the boxes of my scattered possessions there is a cassette tape. This particular tape is approximately 27 years old. On that tape, I can hear myself at the age of three, reciting a bedtime prayer that my grandmother taught me. My parents were not particularly spiritual. I do not recall having ever discussed matters of faith with either of them. My grandmother decided very early on to take it upon herself to introduce my developing and impressionable mind to Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and the Almighty God.

I remember being hauled to Sunday school on a regular basis for a short while, but I do not remember much about what we were taught there. There was a long rectangle-shaped table around which children sat, drawing. I recall being asked if I knew who Jesus was. In time, I learned the answer they wanted to hear: he was the son of God. He had thick, long, auburn hair, and sometimes he had a beard. He wore white robes, and carried a shepherd’s crook. He sat around and talked a lot while people, children in particular, came from all over to listen to him.

My grandmother believes that God is the highest authority and the creator of all things. She also believes that only through acknowledging Jesus Christ as one’s savior and accepting him into one’s heart will one be saved from eternal, post-mortem damnation. Things like the Theory of Evolution do not even exist for her. She attends Pentecostal church meetings regularly and is heavily involved in church activities. She sings and plays her acoustic guitar at funerals and other church proceedings. Sometimes her group will go and sing in hospitals. She and I email each other frequently, and she often mentions how she is praying for me and my wife. She encourages me to study the Bible. For her, these things form the foundation for all aspects of her life.

Very little of what she tried to teach me actually stuck with me. I learned about kindness towards my fellow man and a general appreciation for life. Jesus, on the other hand, remains a character in a colorful book.

I do not believe in sin. I find it difficult to accept the notion that all people, even children, are sinners by default, and therefore destined for eternal pain and suffering unless they truly and honestly take Christ into their hearts. There were many times in my life when I desperately wanted to believe. Occasionally, I would fool myself into thinking that I had, in fact, found God and become part of the Good Shepherd’s flock. But that spiritual enlightenment was always temporary. In the end, I simply could not overlook the idiosyncratic details of all the confusing rules and definitions of Christianity. One moment I would feel like an obedient follower, and the next like a damn fool.

Of all the religions and belief systems I have studied, the only one that is akin to what I believe is Taoism, an ancient religious philosophy. Taoism focuses on humanism, and the order, balance, and link between people and nature. I believe that there is no single divine being and authority, but that all life consists of energy which “flows” through all beings and things. Life is constant movement of that energy. I believe there is no god to worship, but instead one must find their own path through life, pursuing enlightenment, peace, humility, and balance.

On that old tape, my very young self is asking God to claim my soul into Heaven should I pass away in my sleep. Perhaps the underlying sentiment there is the one thing that my grandmother’s beliefs and mine have in common: the hope that, regardless of our shortcomings and failures, in our most fragile hour there will be something to protect and cherish the core of our being – the soul.

In early January 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) declared that meat and milk from cloned animals are just as safe for human consumption as products derived from animals bred through conventional means (Charles 2). Due to a hesitant consumer response, the FDA recommended that food producers wanting to utilize cloning technology wait a bit longer before making their products commercially available. Meanwhile, the federal government has decided not to require food producers to label their products as food produced from or by cloned animals (Hedges 1). This decision is facing much criticism and opposition. Food producers using cloned animals should be required by law to label their products for several reasons. First, the technology behind animal cloning is very new and unperfected. Second, many ethical concerns continue to exist regarding the cloning process as well as the technology in general. Third, the current research on the safety of consumption of “cloned food” is still insufficient and speculative, with possible long-term side-effects yet to be determined. Most importantly, regardless of any safety reassurances, consumers should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to purchase and consume food that has been produced, directly or indirectly, through cloning.

It was only eleven years ago that a large mammal was successfully cloned for the first time. The cloned sheep, named Dolly by the Scottish scientists who created her, was considered a scientific breakthrough. She was preceded by many failed cloning attempts. Although considered a successful clone, she had to be put down at a young age due to arthritis and a progressive lung disease (Stobart and Mestel 1). To the disappointment of the scientific community, Dolly was not the first entry in a long list of scientific miracles. In an article for the Associated Press, medical writer Lauran Neergaard observes that even today, “many attempts at livestock cloning still end in fatal birth defects or with deformed fetuses dying in the womb” (Neergaard 2). While there is no concrete evidence that Dolly’s early demise was due to her being a product of cloning, that possibility cannot be scientifically excluded. Dolly was born with short telomeres – regions of highly repetitive DNA bands at the end of linear chromosomes. The shortening of telomeres is associated with the aging process (“Dolly’s” 1). Nevertheless, a decade after Dolly’s creation, the technology behind animal cloning continues to be relatively unreliable. The FDA has admitted that for the time being “it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding the longevity of livestock clones or possible long-term health consequences” for the cloned animal (“Animal Cloning” 10).

Ethical questions regarding the cloning of animals also continue to be heavily debated. For some, cloning is a form of playing God. Mother Nature has been known to make changes, not to replicate. Even identical twins, despite having identical DNA, are not carbon copies of one another – or of their parents. Also, animal rights activists are concerned about the large number of failed cloning attempts. The National Anti-Vivisection Society, one of the oldest animal rights organizations in the country, recently concluded that “there are serious concerns regarding animal suffering for animals who are ‘rejects’ of the cloning process,” and that these concerns need to be addressed before the new technology can be approved (“Stop Sale” 2).

As for the safety of consuming food produced with cloned animals, the Food and Drug Administration appears convinced that there is no risk, judging by their 900-page safety report, “Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment.” The FDA plans to continue to observe the scientific research on cloning technology, but it will not specifically monitor the cloning process of animals for food production purposes, or the production or quality of those food products. The safety report drafted by the FDA is based on scientific analysis of the genetic differences – or lack thereof – between a clone and the “original” animal. The FDA’s conclusion is that if the meat from the original animal is completely safe to eat, then the meat produced from its clone is equally safe (Weiss 2). The agency places the responsibility of safety and quality control of food products solely on the production companies. That may be a questionable approach, considering the high cost of cloning livestock. Since it can take up to one hundred tries to successfully create a clone, with each attempt costing thousands of dollars, food producers will want to maximize the profit achieved with each clone (Weise 1; Neergaard 1). In most cases the cloned animals will not be used for food, but for breeding purposes, to acquire masses of animals with the positive characteristics of the original. In time, there will be millions of animals which are descendants of cloned animals, and will therefore carry some of their genes, and be susceptible to possible hereditary conditions. How thoroughly will manufacturers monitor the health of those cloned animals and their millions of descendants, and how quickly will they be willing to dispose of those expensive animals, should the livestock develop health problems? After all, whether cloned animals are genetically predisposed to degenerative diseases or premature aging is yet to be determined. In an article for the Washington Post, journalist Rick Weiss reported that “[Scientists associated with the FDA] concluded that [cloned] newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes” (Weiss 2).

American consumers should not have to fight for their right to know where the food they eat comes from. Many food producers acknowledge this, and have released statements stating that their products will continue to be “clone-free” (Heller 1). Jerry Greenfield, a co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, is among the loudest voices opposing livestock cloning. The company is considering special labels for their products in order to make it clear that their dairy products do not contain milk from cloned cows. “Putting cloned animals and their milk in our food supply is just weird, and people don’t want it,” Greenfield told BusinessWeek (Gogoi 1). Some retailers have chimed in as well with their disapproval. HEB, a large grocery retailer, recently announced that they will not carry any products which contain meat from cloned animals (“FDA: Cloned” 1). However, for many consumers and public interest groups, this is insufficient. The National Farmers Union (NFU) is supporting the Cloned Food Labeling Act introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski. The bill, if passed, would require food producers to use labels to distinguish food produced from cloned animals. Following the release of the FDA’s risk assessment report, the president of the NFU, Tom Buis, issued a statement in which he criticized the agency’s decision not to require labels. “In the face of ever increasing food safety concerns,” Buis said, “it is troubling to see the FDA approval of products from cloned animals to be sold to the public, when questions surrounding the health risks, legal implications and ethical concerns remain unanswered.” According to Buis, there is currently no documented consumer demand for cloned food products (“NFU Statement” 1).

Ultimately, it should be up to each consumer to decide whether or not to buy food that has been produced with the use of a cloned animal. Requiring food manufacturers to specifically label such food products is a matter of protecting the right of the consumers to know what they are eating.

Truth is a product of subjective perception. We define “truth” by what we perceive as being accurate and real. However, a person’s perception – the conclusions and the process through which those conclusions are reached – is unique from person to person. Our culture, upbringing, heritage, and personality all affect how we perceive things and what we consider true or false, good or evil, just or unjust. I agree with the Sophists’ notion that truth is relative; what one person considers an absolute truth may be a misconception in the eyes of another. I do not believe there to be any universal truths. Even the mortality of all living beings is subject to perception: whereas the death of a living being is the end of a life to some, to others it is only a phase in a larger cycle. One man mourns, another celebrates. It is all relative. Perhaps there is no ultimate truth to any given issue, but instead many subjective truths, each equally accurate and relevant to their beholder.

I would like to think that when I argue for something I believe in, I try to be objective, to maintain an open mind and a willingness to remodel some of my views, if warranted. Admittedly, I sometimes lose my cool exterior, and my male ego rears its forceful head. I agree with Socrates that the purpose of an argument should be to achieve clarity and enlightenment, not personal gain. While it is true that some individuals will try to win an argument just for the sake of winning, I do not believe that winning for winning’s sake is a justifiable purpose for an argument.

I think that a successful argument can clarify the details of an issue or its possible solutions, but that those clarifications are entirely subjective. In other words, each participant in an argument, whether for or against an issue, will determine its underlying “truths” based on their own cultural and ideological backgrounds. For example, I recently had an exchange of opinions with my wife on the subject of Senator Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign. My wife feels that Senator Clinton has undermined her morals and her political credibility by standing by her husband’s side as he committed perjury (oh, wait, he was acquitted) in the aftermath of his sex scandal during his second presidential term. Being American and having grown up under the cultural blanket of high ideals and moral expectations, she finds it distasteful to consider Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate based solely on her morals, or lack thereof. As for me, your standard issue decadent European, I grew up in an atmosphere which was more tolerant of adulterous mishaps, as long as the political views and the policies being drawn were found effective and agreeable. In the end, I found our argument an interesting one, but naturally there was no ultimate truth or all-encompassing solution to our differing views. Just as well; the world is much more interesting that way.