NationStates Jolt Archive

He said embryos wouldn't be grown for body parts or research. Stem cells could be considered body parts, therefore I think he's planning to ban all stem cell research. Also he's planning to stop a any medical research involving embryos.

I understand that he beleives that each embryo has something called a soul, but I don't get how his religious beleif in souls can be codified into law to block important research.

He isn't the only one though. Polls show most people think it's immoral.

Sadly religious belief can't be justification for law but more sadly these dipshitws running the country let it.

He isn't the only one though. Polls show most people think it's immoral.
That doesn't concern me. People's morality shouldn't have much bearing on law. What if most people thought sex before marriage is immoral? Should premarital sex be banned and prosecuted?

That doesn't concern me. People's morality shouldn't have much bearing on law. What if most people thought sex before marriage is immoral? Should premarital sex be banned and prosecuted?
i remember the last time morality was governing this country, we had an intelligent supreme court. soon we will be threatened with an definate 5-4 for neocon agenda of rightwing christian morality before justice and freedom

That doesn't concern me. People's morality shouldn't have much bearing on law. What if most people thought sex before marriage is immoral? Should premarital sex be banned and prosecuted?
Quite possibly, if it let people sleep better at night, and it increased public order, which it probably would. :)

Quite possibly, if it let people sleep better at night, and it increased public order, which it probably would. :)
Remember, there was a time when it was considered immoral to allow blacks and whites to attend the same schools. Morality shouldn't guide law in my opinion. Reason should.

Most people in this nation are guided by a moral compass. Some people call this 'leadership,' others call this religious fanatacism. What part of this do you not understand? Most people were baffled by John Kerry's remark on how he was morally opposed to abortion, thought it was deplorable, and yet wanted that it be legal and available. In conclusion, most people have beliefs that are different than you, get used to it.

Most people in this nation are guided by a moral compass. Some people call this 'leadership,' others call this religious fanatacism. What part of this do you not understand? Most people were baffled by John Kerry's remark on how he was morally opposed to abortion, thought it was deplorable, and yet wanted that it be legal and available. In conclusion, most people have beliefs that are different than you, get used to it.
Well give me a reasonable objection to stem cell research and I'll listen. Any religious argument should be excluded on the basis of the constitution.

That doesn't concern me. People's morality shouldn't have much bearing on law. What if most people thought sex before marriage is immoral? Should premarital sex be banned and prosecuted?

Eh? Lots of laws are based upon morality. (Probably most of them).

Eh? Lots of laws are based upon morality. (Probably most of them).
It depends on your definition of morality. Some morality is based on religious beleif. Some is based on recognizing the rights of others. Laws against murder, for example, could be based on either "god said it's wrong" or on "Humans are all entitled to the right to live their lives". An argument could be made that both are moral judgements. I just don't think religious morals should be enforced. The constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the government. You can still have all the protections for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without bringing religion into it.

Well give me a reasonable objection to stem cell research and I'll listen. Any religious argument should be excluded on the basis of the constitution.
I agree completely.

Remember, there was a time when it was considered immoral to allow blacks and whites to attend the same schools. Morality shouldn't guide law in my opinion. Reason should.

That's bogus. Racial issues have nothing to do with morality.

It depends on your definition of morality. Some morality is based on religious beleif. Some is based on recognizing the rights of others. Laws against murder, for example, could be based on either "god said it's wrong" or on "Humans are all entitled to the right to live their lives". An argument could be made that both are moral judgements. I just don't think religious morals should be enforced. The constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the government. You can still have all the protections for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without bringing religion into it.

So what you are saying it is okay to base laws on your system of morality only, even if the majority of people vote for a different one.

You say that it is okay if morality is "based on recognizing the rights of others." But let me ask you this. Why? Why, should I have to recognize the rights of others. That is only your opionion, what basis do you ahve for this being a universal principle. Plus, at the end of the day crafting a legal framework on that basis is just enforcing secular humanism through the law, which is the same as basing a legal system on the judeo-christian tradition. In other words the same thing.

So what if people choose to get their moral system from religion and vote accordingly, its still not enforcing a religion per se.

Well give me a reasonable objection to stem cell research and I'll listen. Any religious argument should be excluded on the basis of the constitution.
The problem is, where do you stop? Do you really think everyone will say "Hey, here's all this cloning technology, let's not abuse it"? Because people WILL abuse it.

That's bogus. Racial issues have nothing to do with morality.
Bad example, though some people did say mixing black and white was immoral, it was mostly marriage they were concerned with.

How about sodomy laws? That's a much better example. No reason for them except sombody's god said it was bad.

The problem is, where do you stop? Do you really think everyone will say "Hey, here's all this cloning technology, let's not abuse it"? Because people WILL abuse it.
Cloning has some moral and logical reasons to be opposed. And I'm not talking religious ones either.

The majority of stem cell research opponents don't even know what that entails. A little knowledge would go a long way to remove some of the objections that people have against it.

Besides, if people want to abuse cloning technology, let them eat cake.

So what you are saying it is okay to base laws on your system of morality only, even if the majority of people vote for a different one.

You say that it is okay if morality is "based on recognizing the rights of others." But let me ask you this. Why? Why, should I have to recognize the rights of others. That is only your opionion, what basis do you ahve for this being a universal principle. Plus, at the end of the day crafting a legal framework on that basis is just enforcing secular humanism through the law, which is the same as basing a legal system on the judeo-christian tradition. In other words the same thing.

So what if people choose to get their moral system from religion and vote accordingly, its still not enforcing a religion per se.
The constitution sees them differently. Enforcing religious laws is strictly prohibited by the establishment clause. Most people will agree that the constitution does recognize the rights of all people.

The problem is, where do you stop? Do you really think everyone will say "Hey, here's all this cloning technology, let's not abuse it"? Because people WILL abuse it.
At what point does it become abuse? Is that the question? I don't think it's gone too far unless self-aware clones are being abused. What other possible abuses can you think of?

That's bogus. Racial issues have nothing to do with morality.
So you're saying it's not immoral to discriminate against someone because thay are of a different race, or to murder someone because they are a different color?

We elect presidents to do what's best for the country, not for God or for anyone else. If stem cell research can alleviate suffering and raise the quality of life, then GW shouldn't prevent it. And another thing, if the lives or souls of these embryos (which a large majority of are never going to be born in the first place) are so precious to him, shouldn't the lives of the already living people (ie the soldiers that are dying in Iraq) be even more precious to him? I just can't see the logic in his decision at all.

Well give me a reasonable objection to stem cell research and I'll listen. Any religious argument should be excluded on the basis of the constitution.

Religion is a more than sufficient reason. And no, this argument shall NOT be excluded until you convincingly prove that a free and prosperous society can be sustainable without religion. I am personally not aware of any free society that would persevere without religion for even just one century.

Religion is a more than sufficient reason. And no, this argument shall NOT be excluded until you convincingly prove that a free and prosperous society can be sustainable without religion. I am personally not aware of any free society that would persevere without religion for even just one century.
Religion contributes nothing. Also using government to enforce religious law is unconstitutional. Therefore religion is not a sufficient reason.

Religion is a more than sufficient reason. And no, this argument shall NOT be excluded until you convincingly prove that a free and prosperous society can be sustainable without religion. I am personally not aware of any free society that would persevere without religion for even just one century.
Go to Japan sometime, the country has a majority agnostic population.
You're born christian (maybe)
Married Shinto (or christian, once again, maybe)
Funeral's Buddist

Even though each of these is a 'religious' ceremony, the mix tends to show that its more about the tradition than the religiousness of the ceremony.
Also, the idea of a century being required is just silly, as religion was hand in hand with government until fairly recently in the grand scheme of things. Thats like saying that (personal) computers are useless because they've only been around for 3 decades.

He said embryos wouldn't be grown for body parts or research. Stem cells could be considered body parts, therefore I think he's planning to ban all stem cell research. Also he's planning to stop a any medical research involving embryos.

I understand that he beleives that each embryo has something called a soul, but I don't get how his religious beleif in souls can be codified into law to block important research.

I hope he comes down with something that stem cell research is its only hope for a cure.

Him, Cheney, and all the brainwashed religious right along with them.

Assholes.

Bush can pass any laws he wants, but eventually that research will be done, here or elsewhere.

Knowledge can't be legislatively or morally surpressed, because lawss and morals vary so widely from place to place. Not that I like the idea of having my life saved by something grown from an embryo's stem cells, but I think that people will research it regardless of what the administration does. So, I think we should allow the research here, if only to guide the direction it goes in more than anything else.

Besides, there are other sources for stem cells, like bone marrow. That could be used instead of the embryos, but many people have that connection between stem cell resarch and embryos hard-wired into their brains, so they oppose it.

Well give me a reasonable objection to stem cell research and I'll listen. Any religious argument should be excluded on the basis of the constitution.

A reasonable objection to stem cell research... The most common argument is that we would start on a slippery slope, eventually experimenting on mentally retarded children or whatever... I dont really have an opinion on stem cell research, I dont know that much about it. It should probably be a state's right.

And about the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What part of this says that outlawing stem cell research would establish Southern Baptist as our state religion? The 1st Amendment only says that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that establish religions or keep people from practicing. And, although you may not believe this, not all Conservatives or Republicans base their ideas on God or religion, keep that in mind.

And about the 2nd Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What part of this says that outlawing stem cell research would establish Southern Baptist as our state religion? The 1st Amendment only says that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that establish religions or keep people from practicing. And, although you may not believe this, not all Conservatives or Republicans base their ideas on God or religion, keep that in mind.
You forgot to look how the courts have interpreted the first amendment but I agree with your arguments.And far from me to paint every one with the same brush but the most ardent proponent of the ban is the Religious Right and we know that President Bush listens to them.

On the other hand, when I hear that this kind of research kills babies, and that babies have souls or that the bible says "thou shall not kill" and use this to say that stem cell research should be illegal because it kills babies, I find the religious undertone too much. We can argue about when exactly life begins and when it is considered murder but that is more an abortion issue.

Stem cell research is done on discarded material that would get thrown out anyway. There is absolutely no chance of that ever becoming a baby. So I ask "What's the harm?".

But you get points for trying.

Religion is a more than sufficient reason. And no, this argument shall NOT be excluded until you convincingly prove that a free and prosperous society can be sustainable without religion. I am personally not aware of any free society that would persevere without religion for even just one century.
Religious reasons are not sufficient because the constitution said so. If we talked about the British state of the union, I'd have no objection but we are talking about the US here.

And the French have prospered without religion in their government for a couples of centuries now. Individuals can believe, but the state shall not. The President should not, under any circumstances, allow religion dictate the law of the land.

Bush can pass any laws he wants, but eventually that research will be done, here or elsewhere.

Knowledge can't be legislatively or morally surpressed, because lawss and morals vary so widely from place to place. Not that I like the idea of having my life saved by something grown from an embryo's stem cells, but I think that people will research it regardless of what the administration does. So, I think we should allow the research here, if only to guide the direction it goes in more than anything else.

Besides, there are other sources for stem cells, like bone marrow. That could be used instead of the embryos, but many people have that connection between stem cell resarch and embryos hard-wired into their brains, so they oppose it.
First of all, if the research is done elsewhere the US falls behind. US companies lose out, and so do US patients. Secondly embryonic stem cells show much more promise than other stem cells for curing diseases.

And about the 2nd Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What part of this says that outlawing stem cell research would establish Southern Baptist as our state religion? The 2nd Amendment only says that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that establish religions or keep people from practicing. And, although you may not believe this, not all Conservatives or Republicans base their ideas on God or religion, keep that in mind.

That's the First Amendment. The Second is firearms.

The problem is, where do you stop? Do you really think everyone will say "Hey, here's all this cloning technology, let's not abuse it"? Because people WILL abuse it.

People who wish to abuse it will abuse it whether or not there is a law banning it. Laws against chemical and biological weapons do not prevent them from being develloped. Laws against abuse of Oxycotton (sp?) didn't prevent rush from dipping into it. Laws against speeding do nothing to prevent car accidents.

The technology is going to be realized in the next generation. This will happen no matter how much you dislike it. The question is, do we want to use this technology to cure horrible diseases, or do we want to allow others to develop it instead only for purposes we don't think are moral?

Do you want a doctor to develop it as a cure for parkinson's, or some whackjob that wants a monkey with four asses?

A reasonable objection to stem cell research... The most common argument is that we would start on a slippery slope, eventually experimenting on mentally retarded children or whatever... I dont really have an opinion on stem cell research, I dont know that much about it. It should probably be a state's right.

And about the 2nd Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. What part of this says that outlawing stem cell research would establish Southern Baptist as our state religion? The 2nd Amendment only says that Congress is not allowed to pass laws that establish religions or keep people from practicing. And, although you may not believe this, not all Conservatives or Republicans base their ideas on God or religion, keep that in mind.
The religious conflict is that the opposition to stem cell research is based on the idea that a mass of stem cells has a soul. It cannot be considered a human being by any measure except religion. Laws cannot be based on religion. That's establishment of religion by government just the same as if government said you must "keep holy the sabbath day".

A reasonable objection to stem cell research... The most common argument is that we would start on a slippery slope, eventually experimenting on mentally retarded children or whatever... I dont really have an opinion on stem cell research, I dont know that much about it. It should probably be a state's right.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html), a form of non sequitor, and therefor does not qualify as a 'reasonable' argument.

He isn't the only one though. Polls show most people think it's immoral.

Most people don't actually know what is involved.

The problem is, where do you stop? Do you really think everyone will say "Hey, here's all this cloning technology, let's not abuse it"? Because people WILL abuse it.

It would be rather easy to ban reproductive cloning, while still allowing therapeutic cloning.

Remember, there was a time when it was considered immoral to allow blacks and whites to attend the same schools. Morality shouldn't guide law in my opinion. Reason should.

"You can't legislate morality."

-Barry Goldwater

Besides, there are other sources for stem cells, like bone marrow. That could be used instead of the embryos, but many people have that connection between stem cell resarch and embryos hard-wired into their brains, so they oppose it.

Bone marrow progenitor cells are very different from embryonic stem cells, so no, they could not be used "instead of" embryonic ones. They should certainly be studied in addition to (or I'd be out of a thesis project), but not "instead of."

"You can't legislate morality."

-Barry Goldwater

Exactly. Although I had to laugh at Scalia saying that the Supreme Court can't determine morality, Congress can't determine morality (all makes sense so far, right?) but.... the state legislature should.

What?!

Quite possibly, if it let people sleep better at night, and it increased public order, which it probably would. :)
That certainly makes individual rights subservient to government. Is that what you wanted?

Exactly. Although I had to laugh at Scalia saying that the Supreme Court can't determine morality, Congress can't determine morality (all makes sense so far, right?) but.... the state legislature should.

What?!
scalia is a wacko, and clarence thomas makes him look like a liberal

scalia is a wacko, and clarence thomas makes him look like a liberal

But Scalia did say one of the most profound things in the last 50 yrs: "The rule of law is a law of rules."

He said embryos wouldn't be grown for body parts or research. Stem cells could be considered body parts, therefore I think he's planning to ban all stem cell research. Also he's planning to stop a any medical research involving embryos.

I understand that he beleives that each embryo has something called a soul, but I don't get how his religious beleif in souls can be codified into law to block important research.
He isn't planning on stopping adult stem cell research, just the repugnant practice of detroying a human embryo for research.

He isn't planning on stopping adult stem cell research, just the repugnant practice of detroying a human embryo for research.

You mean the ones that are going to be destroyed anyways?

Quote: "Laws cannot be based on religion."
When reading this I assume that Drunk Commies was thinking of Christian,Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, and other 'World Religions'. But I propose a theory, to elucidate this let us look at a defination of religion.

Religion:
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Now the first defination, both subsets, holds most 'World Religions' nicely. The second defination refers to personal habits of religious people. The third is probably concerned with reliogions that seem cultish or insular to outsiders. The fourth, however, is pointing towards what I am getting at. Any worldview is will affect the decisions one makes. This is true whether that worldview is based upon a 'World Religion', Economic Principle, Scientific Theory, or Analytical Philosophy. I do not think it is such an outlandish move to place such ideas under the heading of religion. In other words, how is Secular Humanism, Athetism, or Agnoticism better suited as a basis of policy determination than a religion. And, really, at the end of the day how are any of those three not religions?
If laws cannot not be made based on religion but based upon the absence or oppostion of religion freedom at it's core has been menaced. It is inane to impose non-belief on people and become angry at those you percieve as trying to impose belief. For a non-belief is only the belief that something is not rather than something is. It itself is a belief.
To sum up, why is is okay to allow 'non-religious' worldviews have unhindered access to policy making while hindering religious worldviews. It seems hypocritical.

---
I don't need a sig.
And I don't believe in emoticons.

Quote: "Laws cannot be based on religion."
When reading this I assume that Drunk Commies was thinking of Christian,Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, and other 'World Religions'. But I propose a theory, to elucidate this let us look at a defination of religion.

Religion:
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Now the fisrst defination holds most 'World Religions' nicely as does the second. The second defination refers to personal habits of religious people. The third is probably concerned with reliogions that seem cultish or insular to outsiders. The fourth, however, is pointing towards what I am getting at. Any worldview is will affect the decisions one makes. This is true whether that worldview is based upon a 'World Religion', Economic Principle, Scientific Theory, or Analytical Philosophy. I do not think it is such an outlandish move to place such ideas under the heading of religion. In other words, how is Secular Humanism, Athetism, or Agnoticism better suited as a basis of policy determination than a religion. And, really, at the end of the day how are any of those three not religions?
If laws cannot not be made based on religion but based upon the absence or oppostion of religion freedom at it's core has been menaced. It is inane to impose non-belief on people and become angry at those you percieve as trying to impose belief. For a non-belief is only the belief that something is not rather than something is. It itself is a belief.
To sum up, why is is okay to allow 'non-religious' worldviews have unhindered access to policy making while hindering religious worldviews. It seems hypocritical.

---
I don't need a sig.
And I don't believe in emoticons.

You miss something here. Making laws based on logic - ones that do not incorporate subjective ideas like religion and philosophy - does not impose any type of belief or non-belief upon anyone. Said person can believe or not believe whatever they want - they just can't force it upon others. It is always the one trying to force something upon others that must provide justification.

"It is always the one trying to force something upon others that must provide justification."

Justify forcing this belief on me, then.

---
I don't need a sig.
And I don't believe in emoticons.

The potential and relevence of possible abuse of "cloning" and stem cell research is so miniscule as to be completely irrelevent.

The important thing is the curing of disease, which improves the life of untold millions of people. To restrain reasonable and ethical research towards this end is wicked and immoral.

I am sorry for the rash remark above. It seems, however, that I have run into an idea totally other than the ones I am more accomdated too. The view that logic is somehow the only epistimlogical tool available to a sane being is itself rather illogical. If logic is the sole authority for making decisions then from where did it get this authority. The idea of logic as a tool within a vaccum lacks any first principle.
I quote something I was reading after I posted:
"The idea that modern democracy has to be secular in its ethos is, of course, rooted in European history," Buruma explains. "The Enlightenment was partly an assault on the authority of the church, especially in France. Political arrangements were to be subject to reason, not to theology. To be modern was to reject religion, or ‘superstition,’ and to believe in science." One should note carefully, however, that this kind of secularism does not exist as non-belief, but as part of a new faith, a substitute faith. "The belief in science as a solution for all human problems became a kind of superstition itself," says Buruma."
http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1238

Anyways, I was just hashing out a few things that seem skewed to me, but hey all knowledge of man is obtained from a point of view. All knowledge is persectival.

---
I don't even want a sig.
And emoticons are silly.

He said embryos wouldn't be grown for body parts or research. Stem cells could be considered body parts, therefore I think he's planning to ban all stem cell research. Also he's planning to stop a any medical research involving embryos.

I understand that he beleives that each embryo has something called a soul, but I don't get how his religious beleif in souls can be codified into law to block important research.

im just wondering... who began state funding for stem cell research in the first place ? oh yes.. bush -.-

The potential and relevence of possible abuse of "cloning" and stem cell research is so miniscule as to be completely irrelevent.

The important thing is the curing of disease, which improves the life of untold millions of people. To restrain reasonable and ethical research towards this end is wicked and immoral.

first of all.. bush nothing but fully supports adult line stem cell research, which has already yield amazing results leading to new treatment techniques and even some cures for humans... embryo stemcell research hasn't even been tested in animals througly and has provided us with no real tangeble expectations outside of speculation from researchers. Even if embrionic stemcell research went into full swing.. the money dosn't just come from no where.. money would be divered from other research projects, which are already producing results like the adult line stemcell research, and put into this far more experimental research which is expected to yield many problems as well as possiblities.. how can one justify taking money from something that is proven to work and put it into something that has not even the slighest garantee ?..

Yet people follow it whole hartedly on the illussion of false hope some radical researches are putting out ..

Quote: "Laws cannot be based on religion."
When reading this I assume that Drunk Commies was thinking of Christian,Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, and other 'World Religions'. But I propose a theory, to elucidate this let us look at a defination of religion.

Religion:
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Now the first defination, both subsets, holds most 'World Religions' nicely. The second defination refers to personal habits of religious people. The third is probably concerned with reliogions that seem cultish or insular to outsiders. The fourth, however, is pointing towards what I am getting at. Any worldview is will affect the decisions one makes. This is true whether that worldview is based upon a 'World Religion', Economic Principle, Scientific Theory, or Analytical Philosophy. I do not think it is such an outlandish move to place such ideas under the heading of religion. In other words, how is Secular Humanism, Athetism, or Agnoticism better suited as a basis of policy determination than a religion. And, really, at the end of the day how are any of those three not religions?
If laws cannot not be made based on religion but based upon the absence or oppostion of religion freedom at it's core has been menaced. It is inane to impose non-belief on people and become angry at those you percieve as trying to impose belief. For a non-belief is only the belief that something is not rather than something is. It itself is a belief.
To sum up, why is is okay to allow 'non-religious' worldviews have unhindered access to policy making while hindering religious worldviews. It seems hypocritical.

---
I don't need a sig.
And I don't believe in emoticons.

You forget a few things. Firstly, you don't use current dictionaries to define words in historical documents. The fourth definition was certainly not an accepted version of the word at the time the document was written.

Secondly, agnosticism is not a religion. It is defined primarily as knowing that one doesn't know the truth about whatever God(s) may exist. Atheism might be legitimately considered a religion, by stretching the word, but agnosticism by its nature can not.

That said, basing a law on religious principles may be stupid in many cases, but it is definitely not against the Constitution. The reason a law passes has nothing to do with its Constitutionality.

The 1st amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion. It does not prevent the establishment of religious based laws.

i remember the last time morality was governing this country, we had an intelligent supreme court. soon we will be threatened with an definate 5-4 for neocon agenda of rightwing christian morality before justice and freedom


On that note I found it quite laughable when he spoke of "activist judges."
He is a flaming hypocrite.

On that note I found it quite laughable when he spoke of "activist judges."
He is a flaming hypocrite.

I guess its back to the middle-ages for us :(

The 1st amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion. It does not prevent the establishment of religious based laws.
Isnt that called a theocracy???

first of all.. bush nothing but fully supports adult line stem cell research, which has already yield amazing results leading to new treatment techniques and even some cures for humans... embryo stemcell research hasn't even been tested in animals througly and has provided us with no real tangeble expectations outside of speculation from researchers. Even if embrionic stemcell research went into full swing.. the money dosn't just come from no where.. money would be divered from other research projects, which are already producing results like the adult line stemcell research, and put into this far more experimental research which is expected to yield many problems as well as possiblities.. how can one justify taking money from something that is proven to work and put it into something that has not even the slighest garantee ?..

Yet people follow it whole hartedly on the illussion of false hope some radical researches are putting out ..
So in essence you're saying "Hey the horse and cart works wonder, why should we invest in the automobile?"

The adult stem cell research yields these results becuase it has years of research already funded. Embrionic research is in it's infancy. Of course we don't have tangible results yet. All we have so far, however, lead us to believe that these research will be even better that the discoveries we are finding right now with adult cells.

Your argument is faulty because we could have used the same with adult cells four years ago. Give it time and embrionic research will yield the same result that adult is yielding now and possibly more.

The 1st amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion. It does not prevent the establishment of religious based laws.
That's not how the supreme court systematically ruled throughout the years.

Quote: "Laws cannot be based on religion."
When reading this I assume that Drunk Commies was thinking of Christian,Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, and other 'World Religions'. But I propose a theory, to elucidate this let us look at a defination of religion.

Religion:
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Now the first defination, both subsets, holds most 'World Religions' nicely. The second defination refers to personal habits of religious people. The third is probably concerned with reliogions that seem cultish or insular to outsiders. The fourth, however, is pointing towards what I am getting at. Any worldview is will affect the decisions one makes. This is true whether that worldview is based upon a 'World Religion', Economic Principle, Scientific Theory, or Analytical Philosophy. I do not think it is such an outlandish move to place such ideas under the heading of religion. In other words, how is Secular Humanism, Athetism, or Agnoticism better suited as a basis of policy determination than a religion. And, really, at the end of the day how are any of those three not religions?
If laws cannot not be made based on religion but based upon the absence or oppostion of religion freedom at it's core has been menaced. It is inane to impose non-belief on people and become angry at those you percieve as trying to impose belief. For a non-belief is only the belief that something is not rather than something is. It itself is a belief.
To sum up, why is is okay to allow 'non-religious' worldviews have unhindered access to policy making while hindering religious worldviews. It seems hypocritical.

---
I don't need a sig.
And I don't believe in emoticons.
Atheist are not forcing you to not believe. I am sick of people saying that. Wanting no religon in the government is not the same thing as imposing a non-religious view to everyone. When a law saying that churches should be illegal appears, then you'll have a point. In the meantime, your argument is moot as atheism is not a religion.

The 1st amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion. It does not prevent the establishment of religious based laws.
In that case if the US ever becomes a majority muslim nation could they pass sharia laws? Or does it only allow laws based on certain religions?

I have a news flash for you, most of the basic criminal laws in the USA are based on Mosiac Law, the 10 Commandments, at least 6 thru 10. See below...

"You shall not murder"
The Hebrew word is unambiguously murder; kill is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary, and in these cases just in the eyes of God. Thus, Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which Jews hold to be immoral for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another. Another case is killing in self-defense. (10)
Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not see abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits it in certain circumstances on other grounds.
"You shall not have sexual relations with another man's wife." (11)
"You shall not kidnap"
Theft of property is forbidden elsewhere. Theft of property is not a capital offense. (12)
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere. Lying is not a capital offence. (13)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."
One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another.

Most of these tenets hold true in all religions, and make sense to even athiests.

I am not opposed to stem cell research. I do have problems with how some of the cells are obtained though.

An embryo, no matter how young or undeveloped, has its own unique human DNA. As far as I am concerned, that qualifies it as a human. Which means killing the embryo would be murder. So gathering the stem cells in a way that destroys the embryo is murder. I don't know all the details of the practice, but why don't they let the baby live and gather stem cells from the umbilical cord?

I am not opposed to stem cell research. I do have problems with how some of the cells are obtained though.

An embryo, no matter how young or undeveloped, has its own unique human DNA. As far as I am concerned, that qualifies it as a human. Which means killing the embryo would be murder. So gathering the stem cells in a way that destroys the embryo is murder. I don't know all the details of the practice, but why don't they let the baby live and gather stem cells from the umbilical cord?
A blood sample or an appendix has DNA. Identical twins share the same DNA. Is a blood sample human because it has human DNA? Are Identical twins not human because their DNA isn't unique?

The way they acquire stem cells, unique in its' experimentation and adaptability when emryonic, is derived from fertilizing an egg with sperm in a petri dish. this really is a rather scary possible slippery slope on the power of life and scientific ethics....

Of course, opounds of these embryonic style tissue is disposed of every day by fertility clinics. the research needs to be done, what is the problem in recycling this per a release form? i woud love for a geneticist/microbiologist to clarify, but that;s where i believe the line is trying to be drawn.....creation of life within a perti dish is scary to me, humans can;t even put together a society that is violence free, much less handle the responsibility of creating life, in my opinion. what i mean by that, is the ethical restraints, do these individuals have them? cynicism should be applied to humans AT LEAST as much as it is applied to god/spirituality/politics, etc....

I have a news flash for you, most of the basic criminal laws in the USA are based on Mosiac Law, the 10 Commandments, at least 6 thru 10. See below...

"You shall not murder"
The Hebrew word is unambiguously murder; kill is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary, and in these cases just in the eyes of God. Thus, Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which Jews hold to be immoral for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another. Another case is killing in self-defense. (10)
Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not see abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits it in certain circumstances on other grounds.
"You shall not have sexual relations with another man's wife." (11)
"You shall not kidnap"
Theft of property is forbidden elsewhere. Theft of property is not a capital offense. (12)
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere. Lying is not a capital offence. (13)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."
One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another.

Most of these tenets hold true in all religions, and make sense to even athiests.
Here's a news flash for you. Nobody can legislate the ten commandments and pass constitutional muster.

1 I am the lord thy god- You can't establish a government sponsored beleif in any god.

2 Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain / prohibition on graven images (there are different versions of the ten commandments depending on religion)- We have laws protecting free speech. That extends to making statues.

3 Keep holy the sabbath day (if you're catholic, see graven images above if you're not)- Government can't force you to go to church instead of work.

4 Honor thy father and mother (catholic once again, others refer to sabbath day above)- In the USA you can hold any opinion you want. Even if that opinion is critical of your parents.

10 Coveting wives and goods- You can covet anything you want. It's constitutionally protected. You just can't steal it.

The ten commandments are not the basis of US law.

pray tell, if the judeo christian cultural and spiritual imprint on the WEST is NOT the basis for Law in the constitution and most if not all Western societies, pray tell, what is? it certainly isn;t a direct derivation, i agree....but to dismiss cultural design around law from its' derivation from judeo christian tenets, is, well, i don;t know. can;t see any argument making sense. love to hear it. Culture has an undeniable imprint on Law, and i think you know that, so, what exactly IS the constituion based on? it is based on english common law, largely, correct? what is english common law largely derived from? just wanting to hear where you are coming from.

pray tell, if the judeo christian cultural and spiritual imprint on the WEST is NOT the basis for Law in the constitution and most if not all Western societies, pray tell, what is? it certainly isn;t a direct derivation, i agree....but to dismiss cultural design around law from its' derivation from judeo christian tenets, is, well, i don;t know. can;t see any argument making sense. love to hear it. Culture has an undeniable imprint on Law, and i think you know that, so, what exactly IS the constituion based on? it is based on english common law, largely, correct? what is english common law largely derived from? just wanting to hear where you are coming from.
Hammurabi's code perhaps? It established rule of law before the ten commandments. If the ten commandments were the basis of American law then why do we have protections for every religion and no religion? Why do we have free speech? The ten commandments violate the basic legal protections for religion and expression.

A blood sample or an appendix has DNA. Identical twins share the same DNA. Is a blood sample human because it has human DNA? Are Identical twins not human because their DNA isn't unique?

The answer is quite obvious, and I think you understood most of the meaning before asking...

By unique, I meant in relation to the parents, and more specifically, the mother, since so many people seem to consider an embryo as simply a part of the mother's body.

A blood sample from a human is human blood, part of a human. The embryo, however, is the whole human at that point in time. It may not have all the parts that you or I have, but given the right environment and time, it will eventually develop them.

The answer is quite obvious, and I think you understood most of the meaning before asking...

By unique, I meant in relation to the parents, and more specifically, the mother, since so many people seem to consider an embryo as simply a part of the mother's body.

A blood sample from a human is human blood, part of a human. The embryo, however, is the whole human at that point in time. It may not have all the parts that you or I have, but given the right environment and time, it will eventually develop them.
But it lacks a personality, the ability to think, the ability to feel emotion. What kind of human is that? Except for the fact that it has unique DNA it's no more human than a skin cell. Just because it has the potential to be a person doesn't make it a person right now.

I have a news flash for you, most of the basic criminal laws in the USA are based on Mosiac Law, the 10 Commandments, at least 6 thru 10. See below...

"You shall not murder"
The Hebrew word is unambiguously murder; kill is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary, and in these cases just in the eyes of God. Thus, Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which Jews hold to be immoral for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another. Another case is killing in self-defense. (10)
Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not see abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits it in certain circumstances on other grounds.
"You shall not have sexual relations with another man's wife." (11)
"You shall not kidnap"
Theft of property is forbidden elsewhere. Theft of property is not a capital offense. (12)
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere. Lying is not a capital offence. (13)
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."
One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another.

Most of these tenets hold true in all religions, and make sense to even athiests.

Absolutely.... to suggest that modern laws are not based on religious morals is folishness at best.. Modern western laws can easily be based on many basic laws centuries old dating back to the time in which all of Europe was led by the Catholic church, which had influence in all walks of life including government and law.

But it lacks a personality, the ability to think, the ability to feel emotion. What kind of human is that? Except for the fact that it has unique DNA it's no more human than a skin cell. Just because it has the potential to be a person doesn't make it a person right now.
i
s a human in a coma a person ? is a human mentally damaged classifed as a "vegtiable" a person ? ... I feel you would be hard pressed to have the average person suggest that those mentally impaired or those in congnatively disabled are not "people" ... essentially the same conditions exist.. in the right enviornment and time, each of these people are the same as you and me. So what is the dividing factor between the embroy and these disabled people ? simple development ? even though the functions no longer exist ?

Absolutely.... to suggest that modern laws are not based on religious morals is folishness at best.. Modern western laws can easily be based on many basic laws centuries old dating back to the time in which all of Europe was led by the Catholic church, which had influence in all walks of life including government and law.
Oh, ok. That explains why it's legal to burn witches and only Jews can lend money with interest.

i
s a human in a coma a person ? is a human mentally damaged classifed as a "vegtiable" a person ? ... I feel you would be hard pressed to have the average person suggest that those mentally impaired or those in congnatively disabled are not "people" ... essentially the same conditions exist.. in the right enviornment and time, each of these people are the same as you and me. So what is the dividing factor between the embroy and these disabled people ? simple development ? even though the functions no longer exist ?
We pull the plug on people who are braindead or in irreversable comas all the time. Although there is no law on the books that states they aren't human the assumption is that they are not because if they were it would be murder.

We pull the plug on people who are braindead or in irreversable comas all the time. Although there is no law on the books that states they aren't human the assumption is that they are not because if they were it would be murder.

brain dead is far different from those classified as "vegitables" and comas are unsure things... a person can come out of a come 10 days or 10 years later.. to identify one as irrversable is a hard process.. and it is not as simple as you suggest that those in comas can simply be unplug.. there are usually very long and arduious legal processes to get there.. brain death is where blood is no longer flowing to the brain and the cells are essentially dead thought the rest of the body is living... quite different from those who suffer brain damage.. so my original question still holds.. what is the dividing line between an embroy.. and say someone in a coma..

Oh, ok. That explains why it's legal to burn witches and only Jews can lend money with interest.

that would be described as a flame bit wouldn't it.. the sad truth is that most modern laws we have today are based on religious moral laws propigaded by the church centuries ago.. all sense of societal morality are based on religious foundations

brain dead is far different from those classified as "vegitables" and comas are unsure things... a person can come out of a come 10 days or 10 years later.. to identify one as irrversable is a hard process.. and it is not as simple as you suggest that those in comas can simply be unplug.. there are usually very long and arduious legal processes to get there.. brain death is where blood is no longer flowing to the brain and the cells are essentially dead thought the rest of the body is living... quite different from those who suffer brain damage.. so my original question still holds.. what is the dividing line between an embroy.. and say someone in a coma..
Braindead person has no functioning brain, so it's ok to pull the plug.
Embryo to be harvested for stem cells has no brain, therefore it's ok to use it.
It's the same situation.

that would be described as a flame bit wouldn't it.. the sad truth is that most modern laws we have today are based on religious moral laws propigaded by the church centuries ago.. all sense of societal morality are based on religious foundations
It's not flamebait. It's showing that laws set down by religion long ago don't carry over to current laws. The laws we have now prohibiting murder and such can be traced back to Hammurabi and even beyond.

Braindead person has no functioning brain, so it's ok to pull the plug.
Embryo to be harvested for stem cells has no brain, therefore it's ok to use it.
It's the same situation.

It is not the same. A brain dead person cannot improve, and the body will slowly decline until it dies as well. The embryo is developing, and will eventually become a fully functioning human being.

It is not the same. A brain dead person cannot improve, and the body will slowly decline until it dies as well. The embryo is developing, and will eventually become a fully functioning human being.
My bonds will eventually be worth more money, but I can't cash them in for the same value today. What it may become has no bearing on what it is now.

Apples and oranges...

But if you ever buy a bond that cannot be sold until it matures, you can just send it my way send it is apparently worth nothing to you considering it's future value is of no importance.

Apples and oranges...

But if you ever buy a bond that cannot be sold until it matures, you can just send it my way send it is apparently worth nothing to you considering it's future value is of no importance.
The point is that it will become a person, but it isn't one yet. So killing it for stem cells is not the same as killing a person. It's actually more like contraception.

The point is that it will become a person, but it isn't one yet. So killing it for stem cells is not the same as killing a person. It's actually more like contraception.

Webster defines contraception as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation." Harvesting stem cells occurs after conception, and makes it more along the lines of abortion. Abortion, no matter how you look at it, involves killing. Personally, I view it as murder for the reasons I listed in my previous replies. An embryo is a person, it is merely in a different stage of development than an adult.

Webster defines contraception as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation." Harvesting stem cells occurs after conception, and makes it more along the lines of abortion. Abortion, no matter how you look at it, involves killing. Personally, I view it as murder for the reasons I listed in my previous replies. An embryo is a person, it is merely in a different stage of development than an adult.
That's the problem. You have a different definition of what constitutes a person than me. I compared it to contraception because it's similar to what happens when a woman has an IUD. The egg is fertilized but it can't implant in the Uterus. IUDs are considered a form of contraception. Anyway, that's irrelevant. The basic disagreement here is in what constitutes a person. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

He isn't the only one though. Polls show most people think it's immoral.
i think its immoral
No Embryo research but i might lean to the other type diffenitly no cutting of the unborn
But Pig insulin was a nice supliment for Human insulin think about it you diabetics?

Webster defines contraception as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation." Harvesting stem cells occurs after conception, and makes it more along the lines of abortion. Abortion, no matter how you look at it, involves killing. Personally, I view it as murder for the reasons I listed in my previous replies. An embryo is a person, it is merely in a different stage of development than an adult.
Bows to thee

If stem cell harvesting involves physically removing an embryo from the uterus walls, then it is abortion.

If the embryos are created outside the womb and never implanted, it is contraception from the definition you gave.

Webster defines contraception as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation."

I'm saying this cause I don't know how they get them. It's for other people to use.

If stem cell harvesting involves physically removing an embryo from the uterus walls, then it is abortion.

If the embryos are created outside the womb and never implanted, it is contraception from the definition you gave.

Webster defines contraception as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation."

I'm saying this cause I don't know how they get them. It's for other people to use.
They get them from in-vitro fertilization.

Say something, or say anything, but I want you to have faith in the fact that what you are saying is pure unfiltered idea. You have no special access to truth by simply having an opinion. This thread was started for what reason? What is accomplished by this bluster?

I tend to think that if man invented God, then man must surely own this universe. Think of the more frightening explanation, not only did man not invent God, but man didn't even invent himself. Humanity, such as it is, stem cells, living people, all that wonderful stuff that makes you sit there and read this sentence, is the undeniable truth that you are struggling to make sense of something that is otherwise pointless.

No, no, no, I am not saying human existence is pointless, you did, just then when you read those words. You are looking for meaning in the dust and you won't find it in the flashing light of your computer screen.

You claim that logic is indifferent, very well, but you are not at all indifferent. As ambiguous as you would like to think you are, you are in fact transparent. You wear your prejudices on your little name tags, just like me. I am not the voice of reason or dissent, I am simply noise on the wires, just like you.

first of all.. bush nothing but fully supports adult line stem cell research, which has already yield amazing results leading to new treatment techniques and even some cures for humans...

There is no such thing as "adult line stem cell research", as there have been no cell lines created from adult stem cells.

The only "cure" currently available using adult stem cells is a bone marrow transplant.

The treatment techniques that use adult stem cells apparently can use *any* cells and still provide therapeutic use.

embryo stemcell research hasn't even been tested in animals througly and has provided us with no real tangeble expectations outside of speculation from researchers.

You are right on the first part, but not on the second.

You also, as everyone does, leave out the very real fact that embryonic stem cells are one of the best ways we have to advance cancer research.

Even if embrionic stemcell research went into full swing.. the money dosn't just come from no where.. money would be divered from other research projects, which are already producing results like the adult line stemcell research, and put into this far more experimental research which is expected to yield many problems as well as possiblities.. how can one justify taking money from something that is proven to work and put it into something that has not even the slighest garantee ?..

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Adult stem cells are already lineage specific. As such, they can only be used in a select few areas. For all other areas, they are useless. As such, we need to investigate other ideas. People who say the kinds of things you are saying here are saying something equivalent to "We found penicillin! I guess we never need to worry about looking for any other antibiotics!"

The 1st amendment prevents the establishment of a state religion. It does not prevent the establishment of religious based laws.

They are the exact same thing.

Most of these tenets hold true in all religions, and make sense to even athiests.

Which would demonstrate why your idiotic claim that the laws are "based" on the ten commandments is wrong. They are correlative to the commandments, not based on them.

I am not opposed to stem cell research. I do have problems with how some of the cells are obtained though.

An embryo, no matter how young or undeveloped, has its own unique human DNA. As far as I am concerned, that qualifies it as a human. Which means killing the embryo would be murder. So gathering the stem cells in a way that destroys the embryo is murder. I don't know all the details of the practice, but why don't they let the baby live and gather stem cells from the umbilical cord?

(a) "As far as I am concerned" is not objective, and is therefore not a basis for law.

(b) Stem cells are only garnered from embryos that will be destroyed anyways, or embryos that do not have their own unique DNA.

(c) Umbilical cord stem cells are only multipotent, while embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. In other words, embryonic stem cells are much more useful.

It is not the same. A brain dead person cannot improve, and the body will slowly decline until it dies as well. The embryo is developing, and will eventually become a fully functioning human being.

An embryo in the lab will never become a fully functioning human being.

If stem cell harvesting involves physically removing an embryo from the uterus walls, then it is abortion.

If the embryos are created outside the womb and never implanted, it is contraception from the definition you gave.

Webster defines contraception as "deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation."

I'm saying this cause I don't know how they get them. It's for other people to use.

No embryo that has ever been inside a woman has ever been used for stem cell research.

Apples and oranges...

But if you ever buy a bond that cannot be sold until it matures, you can just send it my way send it is apparently worth nothing to you considering it's future value is of no importance.

Stating that the future value is not the same as the current value in no way suggests that the current value to the person involved is zero.

That's not how the supreme court systematically ruled throughout the years.

The recent years anyway.

In that case if the US ever becomes a majority muslim nation could they pass sharia laws? Or does it only allow laws based on certain religions?

Yes they could/should be able to. However no law that contradict other portions of the constitution could be passed. And a good deal of Sharia law wouldn’t be constitutional.

They are the exact same thing.

No, they're not. It was mainly put in the constitution to prevent the Pope from having any power over America in the same way the Pope had power in Europe. It prevents the government from saying that the official religion of the United States is Scientology and all other religions are disbanded. It doesn't prevent us from passing a law forbidding stem cell research on religious grounds.

No, they're not. It was mainly put in the constitution to prevent the Pope from having any power over America in the same way the Pope had power in Europe. It prevents the government from saying that the official religion of the United States is Scientology and all other religions are disbanded. It doesn't prevent us from passing a law forbidding stem cell research on religious grounds.

If you make a law based purely on religion, you are establishing that religion as the state-sponsored, state-supported religion.

If you make a law based purely on religion, you are establishing that religion as the state-sponsored, state-supported religion.

Uh. No you're not.

Uh. No you're not.

Yes darling, you are. If we allow, for instance, Muslims to pass laws requiring hajib, we are establishing Islam as a religion above all others.

Yes darling, you are. If we allow, for instance, Muslims to pass laws requiring hajib, we are establishing Islam as a religion above all others.
Try not to be the kind of dumbass that runs around casting around thinly concealed flames.

Passing a law based on religious principles does not create a government religion. Passing a law (such as Hajib) enforcing a religious tenant *is*. Never mind that Hajib would be forbidden by things other than freedom of religion.

Try not to be the kind of dumbass that runs around casting around thinly concealed flames.

Passing a law based on religious principles does not create a government religion. Passing a law (such as Hajib) enforcing a religious tenant *is*. Never mind that Hajib would be forbidden by things other than freedom of religion.

"Thinly concealed flames"? If I wanted to flame you, I would.

There is no difference between "enforcing a religious tenet" and basing a law on a religious principle (aka. a religious tenet). In either case, you are enforcing one particular religion upon other people, thus establishing that religion.

"Thinly concealed flames"? If I wanted to flame you, I would.

"yes darling" is a flame. Period.

There is no difference between "enforcing a religious tenet" and basing a law on a religious principle (aka. a religious tenet). In either case, you are enforcing one particular religion upon other people, thus establishing that religion.

And your justification for any law is? Murder, Monopoly Laws etc... They are all based on some idea of morality, justice, fairness, what is best for society, etc... So long as the law in question does not violate the constitution it is fair game. And that includes any law that is based in religion that does not violate the constitution.

"yes darling" is a flame. Period.

Really? What planet do you live on?

And your justification for any law is? Murder, Monopoly Laws etc...

These serve the purpose for which the government was set up - protection of the citizens. There are objective reasons behind these laws - they are not purely based on any subjective concept. The fact that they correlate with religion is irrelevant, as they are not based entirely upon religion.

They are all based on some idea of morality, justice, fairness, what is best for society, etc...

They are based on objective reasoning. You do realize that morality, justice, fairness, and what is best for society is not relegated purely to the realm of religion, correct?

So long as the law in question does not violate the constitution it is fair game. And that includes any law that is based in religion that does not violate the constitution.

Basing a law completely upon a religion enforces that religion upon other people, thus violating the constitution. It really isn't that hard to understand.

Not really. It supports the standards of that religion. There is a significant difference. There are many, many laws based on religious principles. Regardless of source, if the duly elected legislature puts them into place, that theoretically means that x principle is something the public at large wants enforced. Where exactly do you think marriage laws came from? Public decency laws (that vary depending on the area)? If many people want something to be law, and the something, by itself, does not violate the Constitution, the reason they want it law doesn't really matter. <b>Many</b> laws boil down to enforcing morals. e.g. cruelty to animals. Religion is a source of moral positions for many people, whether or not other people like it (I don't). To say that a law can not be passed because religious people are the ones who wish it is just as ridiculous as to say that a law may not be passed because non-religious people want it.

The stem-cell issue is essentially a question of defining what constitutes a human. Define that, and it is trivial to say whether or not it is wrong given the facts. I haven't met two people who agreed on what a human is who disagreed about stem-cell research, after looking up a few facts on the matter. We've been arguing what makes a person since the very beginning of this nation though. Look up some of the arguments for the 2/3 compromise. Or the ones for women's liberation, on both sides.

Not really. It supports the standards of that religion.

Which sets that religion up as the government-accepted religion. Thank you for making my point for me.

To say that a law can not be passed because religious people are the ones who wish it is just as ridiculous as to say that a law may not be passed because non-religious people want it.

No one ever said this. However, a law cannot be based which is completely based in religion. The people who want the law must provide an objective reason for it.

Taking quotes out of context, are we?

Laws that support a particular moral viewpoint have been a normal and accepted part of the USA since its inception. There are many laws whose sole reason for existing is to ban something that people who enacted it saw as wrong. e.g. the old laws prohibiting anal and oral intercourse. They may be dead-letter because people don't see it as so wrong anymore, and enforcement would be impossible anyway, but they exist.

The Constitution essentially says Congress will neither help nor hinder religion. It says nothing about the reasons for enacting a law. If the law itself does not "respect" or "prohibit" an establishment of religion, then the sole clause in the Constitution regarding religion is irrelevant. I repeat: there is not word one in the Constitution about motives. The reasons for a law don't go onto the books. Only the law does. Only the law can be contested as un-Constitutional.

The people who desire a law don't even have to give any reason for it, if they do not wish to. They do so so that they can convince others to vote in favor of it, not because they are required to.

There have been reverends in Congress. Several times. The laws they supported didn't get thrown out because of their reasoning.

You are confusing an ideal that many Americans hold about government and religion with the actual Constitution.

The people who want the law must provide an objective reason for it.

I really don't think they have to. As long as the law itself does not violate the constitution and is properly brought into effect (eg. voting, signing, etc.), I don't think it matters where, how, or why it originated.

Really? What planet do you live on?

Earth, Sol, Milky Way, The Universe. You? I'm curious as to which planet doesn't consider running around using sarcastic and condescending terms of address a flame.

These serve the purpose for which the government was set up - protection of the citizens. There are objective reasons behind these laws - they are not purely based on any subjective concept. The fact that they correlate with religion is irrelevant, as they are not based entirely upon religion.

They are based solely on the fact that someone thinks we should have them. There is nothing objective about outlawing murder. There is nothing objective about not allowing a company to control a market, there is nothing objective about requiring a speed limit. All of these things are based on an idea and a morality about what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to kill someone, so we outlaw it. It is wrong for a company to be able to use the power of monopoly to rape its customer base, so we outlaw. There is nothing objective about, we just think its wrong.

They are based on objective reasoning. You do realize that morality, justice, fairness, and what is best for society is not relegated purely to the realm of religion, correct?

They are based on "its wrong", they are not based on objective reasoning. What is the objective reasoning about outlawing murder? If it was legal it would cause chaos, ok, what’s wrong with chaos? It doesn't let us get things done, well why do we need to get things done? It is based purely on the idea that something is wrong, and there is nothing objective about it.

Basing a law completely upon a religion enforces that religion upon other people, thus violating the constitution. It really isn't that hard to understand.

Nope sorry it doesn't. Please point out to me how banning stem cell research based solely on the religious convictions of the majority of the country forces Christianity on others?

Absolutely.... to suggest that modern laws are not based on religious morals is folishness at best.. Modern western laws can easily be based on many basic laws centuries old dating back to the time in which all of Europe was led by the Catholic church, which had influence in all walks of life including government and law.
Based on morals, yes.
Religious morals, no.

Those who make the laws should make abstraction of what the religion wants unless it makes sense in and of itself. Not murdering makes sense without an almighty god telling you it's wrong. Forcing a sizeable portion of the population to be forever denied the same rights as the rest of the population (Gay Marriage) because the archbishop says it's against God does not makes sense.

The basis of american law is based on the founding father's morals at the time but they made sure that religion was not the sole source of moral in the land.

Nope sorry it doesn't. Please point out to me how banning stem cell research based solely on the religious convictions of the majority of the country forces Christianity on others?

The non-Christians may have terminal / debilitating conditions that have a chance of being cured through stem cell research.

If it is banned because a majority merely consider it icky, then those non-believers will have had the believers' faith forced on them. Having something forced on you doesn't mean you absorb it totally.

And going back to this issue of objective morality...

Murder is outlawed because if it weren't, there would be chaos. We do not desire chaos because stability is in everyone's best interests. Hence we outlaw murder.

Fact: George Walker Bush is the first and only United States President to grant federal funding for embryotic stem cell research.
Fact: The government is permitting all embroytic stem cells already created to be used for research.
Fact: It is prevented further life being created just so it can be destroyed via stem cell research.
Fact: Creating embroys is unnessesary to conduct stem cell research.
Fact: Research can be conducted with adult stem cells, which does not require the destruction of human/potentially human life.
Fact: Embroytic stem cell research HAS NOT to date found any cures or treatments for ANY disease.

Until it can be conclusively proved, we cannot rule out an avenue of research.

I have a news flash for you, most of the basic criminal laws in the USA are based on Mosiac Law, the 10 Commandments, at least 6 thru 10. See below...
[SNIP]
Most of these tenets hold true in all religions, and make sense to even athiests.

Incorrect. American legal code is based on English Common Law, which was in turn based off of Roman/Greek law. American law is not based off of Judaic (Hebrew) law any more than it is based off of Muslim (Persian) law, even though all of them do have some similar stipends against theft and murder.

No matter if it were, the rules against theft and murder predate Mosaic law, being both part of Hammurabi's code, so your point is moot. Even Jewish scholars freely admit that the Mosaic law was just the recording of rules that they previously heald to be true in their oral traditions.

The 10 commandments have no direct ties to American justice.

I am not opposed to stem cell research. I do have problems with how some of the cells are obtained though.

An embryo, no matter how young or undeveloped, has its own unique human DNA. As far as I am concerned, that qualifies it as a human. Which means killing the embryo would be murder. So gathering the stem cells in a way that destroys the embryo is murder. I don't know all the details of the practice, but why don't they let the baby live and gather stem cells from the umbilical cord?

The embryos they are collecting the stem cells from (or wish to collect it from) are already going to be destroyed. Most are the leftovers from en vitro fertilization clinics. They will never develop into human beings. They will never have umbilical cords. The idea that something that is already going to be destroyed can't be used to save the lives of thinking and breathing human beings is insane.

Perhaps you would be better off if you actually took the time to learn the details of the practice.

EDIT: Long morning, said one thing when I meant another.

i
s a human in a coma a person ? is a human mentally damaged classifed as a "vegtiable" a person ? ... I feel you would be hard pressed to have the average person suggest that those mentally impaired or those in congnatively disabled are not "people" ... essentially the same conditions exist.. in the right enviornment and time, each of these people are the same as you and me. So what is the dividing factor between the embroy and these disabled people ? simple development ? even though the functions no longer exist ?

I would say no. Cogito ergo Sum. Without thought, an individual is less human than a gorilla or a dolphin. Humanity is defined by it's ability to think, feel, and communicate that thought, not just it's DNA. Without that ability, a being is not human. We define our death's by the absense of brainwaves for this reason. Without the thoughts in our head we are nothing more than a hodgepodge of carbon atoms and water that happen to be in a human shape.

The embryos in question haven't even develloped to the point of having brains to begin with. And, more importantly, they NEVER will. The requests scientists in the field are making are for those embryos which are already set for certain destruction. Noone is asking people to grow them in embryo farms, the way some of you opponents seem to be thinking.

Until it can be conclusively proved, we cannot rule out an avenue of research.
We sure as hell can when it necessitates the unnessary destruction of human life!

We sure as hell can when it necessitates the unnessary destruction of human life!

RRRRGH...

FFS.

Read this.

Stem Cell Info (http://www.stemcellresearchfoundation.org/About/FAQ.htm#StemCells)

We sure as hell can when it necessitates the unnessary destruction of human life!
Goddamn fundamentalist nutjobs are what will do this country in. Already South Korea and China have carried out advanced biological research involving human cloning, cutting-edge human-animal hybrid cells, that are not possible to do here in the States due to a vocal minority of bible thumpers who are holding back American science. Research like this is stimulating foreigners' technology capabilities and the US can't afford to fall behind on these things. If we continue to abide by obsolete taboos formulated by Popes and Mormons, soon Asia will have the undisputed advantage in biological research.

Laws that support a particular moral viewpoint have been a normal and accepted part of the USA since its inception. There are many laws whose sole reason for existing is to ban something that people who enacted it saw as wrong. e.g. the old laws prohibiting anal and oral intercourse. They may be dead-letter because people don't see it as so wrong anymore, and enforcement would be impossible anyway, but they exist.

This is a bad example from your Point. The laws banning consentual sexual practices between adults on 'moral grounds' have been deemed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Goddamn fundamentalist nutjobs are what will do this country in. Already South Korea and China have carried out advanced biological research involving human cloning, cutting-edge human-animal hybrid cells, that are not possible to do here in the States due to a vocal minority of bible thumpers who are holding back American science. Research like this is stimulating foreigners' technology capabilities and the US can't afford to fall behind on these things. If we continue to abide by obsolete taboos formulated by Popes and Mormons, soon Asia will have the undisputed advantage in biological research.

"I never go anywhere without my mutated anthrax... ;) For duck hunting!"

They are based solely on the fact that someone thinks we should have them. There is nothing objective about outlawing murder. There is nothing objective about not allowing a company to control a market, there is nothing objective about requiring a speed limit. All of these things are based on an idea and a morality about what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to kill someone, so we outlaw it. It is wrong for a company to be able to use the power of monopoly to rape its customer base, so we outlaw. There is nothing objective about, we just think its wrong.

Incorrect. The governments purpose, according to its founding documents, exists to protect the rights of its people. Since the documents include among those rights the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines, laws against murder are their to protect those rights, as is the governments job to do.

Laws against monopoly, too, exist to protect the people from those who would abuse their rights. It isn't a 'moral' issue, (Unless you are using some convoluted definition of morality.) it is a legal one. It is our governments legal responsibility to protect the people. That it's protection correlates to most of the peoples moral views is a matter of convenience, not cause and effect.

They are based on "its wrong", they are not based on objective reasoning. What is the objective reasoning about outlawing murder? If it was legal it would cause chaos, ok, what’s wrong with chaos? It doesn't let us get things done, well why do we need to get things done? It is based purely on the idea that something is wrong, and there is nothing objective about it.

You are using circular and faulty logic as well as clearly misrepresenting the definition of words.

Fact: George Walker Bush is the first and only United States President to grant federal funding for embryotic stem cell research.

This has no bearing on the argument. He was the first and only one to have the request made during his presidency. It's like saying that Franklin Roosevelt was the first and only president to declare war on Japan.

Fact: The government is permitting all embroytic stem cells already created to be used for research.

Fact: The vast majority of the stem cells already being used are tainted and unusuable for the research the scientists are requesting them for.

Fact: It is prevented further life being created just so it can be destroyed via stem cell research.

No ethical scientist is requesting this. They are requesting that all the excess embryos being created for in vitro fertilization clinics (You do know that they create dozens, sometimes hundreds just to impregnate one woman one time right?) that WILL ALREADY BE DESTROYED AND WILL NEVER BECOME HUMAN BEINGS be opened up for further research lines.

Fact: Creating embroys is unnessesary to conduct stem cell research.

See above, you have your understanding of the facts wrong. Noone is asking for this.

Fact: Research can be conducted with adult stem cells, which does not require the destruction of human/potentially human life.

Fact: Every cell in the human body is potentially a human life.
Fact: Adult stem cell lines are single use lines that cannot be propagated further out. An adult marrow stem cell for example can only be used in marrow based research. Embryonic stem cells open up new avenues for research that CANNOT BE DONE WITH ADULT STEM CELL LINES.

Fact: Embroytic stem cell research HAS NOT to date found any cures or treatments for ANY disease.

Wow, you have some pretty unrealistic demands on scientists. A lot of this type of research is as complicated (some more so) than the research involved in creating a nuclear weapon. Embryonic stem cell lines have only been under serious investigation for a few years. It took decades for them to go from Einstein's equations to the bombing of Hiroshima.

Taking quotes out of context, are we?

How so?

Laws that support a particular moral viewpoint have been a normal and accepted part of the USA since its inception. There are many laws whose sole reason for existing is to ban something that people who enacted it saw as wrong. e.g. the old laws prohibiting anal and oral intercourse. They may be dead-letter because people don't see it as so wrong anymore, and enforcement would be impossible anyway, but they exist.

Notice that all sodomy laws have been deemed unconstitutional - on the basis that they are unfair restrictions of citizens' rights with no objective backing. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone sees it as wrong anymore - it is that the laws themselves were unconstitutional.

The Constitution essentially says Congress will neither help nor hinder religion.

Passing a law based completely in religion is helping a religion and hindering other religions.

It says nothing about the reasons for enacting a law. If the law itself does not "respect" or "prohibit" an establishment of religion, then the sole clause in the Constitution regarding religion is irrelevant. I repeat: there is not word one in the Constitution about motives. The reasons for a law don't go onto the books. Only the law does. Only the law can be contested as un-Constitutional.

You haven't studied much law. Plenty of laws have gone before the courts on the basis that the motive for passing it was unconstitutional - and many have won.

The people who desire a law don't even have to give any reason for it, if they do not wish to. They do so so that they can convince others to vote in favor of it, not because they are required to.

Wrong. If the law restricts other people, a reason must be given. If a law restricting a citizen goes before the courts, and the state can provide no objective reason for it, the law will fall.

There have been reverends in Congress. Several times. The laws they supported didn't get thrown out because of their reasoning.

The weren't basing laws completely on religion. No one has tried to get a nationwide "No working on Sunday law" passed and, if they did, they basically got laughed out of the room. No one has tried to pass a "Women must wear hajib" law without similar results.

I really don't think they have to. As long as the law itself does not violate the constitution and is properly brought into effect (eg. voting, signing, etc.), I don't think it matters where, how, or why it originated.

And yet more than one law has been challenged on the basis of motive, and ihas fallen.

They are based solely on the fact that someone thinks we should have them. There is nothing objective about outlawing murder. There is nothing objective about not allowing a company to control a market, there is nothing objective about requiring a speed limit. All of these things are based on an idea and a morality about what is right and what is wrong. It is wrong to kill someone, so we outlaw it. It is wrong for a company to be able to use the power of monopoly to rape its customer base, so we outlaw. There is nothing objective about, we just think its wrong.

Are you insane? The objective reason for outlawing murder is that it harms a citizen, thus resulting in a less productive populace. The objective reason for a speed limit is that driving too fast causes accidents. These are *objective* reasons. We can test them - we know that going without them generally causes an adverse affect to the populace. We can argue over what the speed limit itself should be, but the actual basis for that even lies in objective tests.

They are based on "its wrong", they are not based on objective reasoning. What is the objective reasoning about outlawing murder? If it was legal it would cause chaos, ok, what’s wrong with chaos? It doesn't let us get things done, well why do we need to get things done? It is based purely on the idea that something is wrong, and there is nothing objective about it.

It is based in the fact that the purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. This says nothing about whether protection is "right" or "wrong," only that this is the purpose of the government. My toaster was made to toast bread. This says nothing about whether toasting bread is morally right or wrong, but the entire purpose of my toaster is to toast things.

Nope sorry it doesn't. Please point out to me how banning stem cell research based solely on the religious convictions of the majority of the country forces Christianity on others?

Are you an idiot? If you base a law in your particular religious beliefs (all of Christianity does not agree with you btw), you are making your religion the law of the land. Someone can be arrested for not following your particular religious beliefs.

Fact: The government is permitting all embroytic stem cells already created to be used for research.

All of which are contaminated with animal products and can never be used for human treatments.

Most of which have karyotype problems.

The majority of which are not available to most researchers.

Fact: It is prevented further life being created just so it can be destroyed via stem cell research.

Only in Korea has anyone ever used therapeutic cloning and, since old DNA is being used and the embryo has almost a zero chance of getting past the blastocyst stage, the idea of whether or not such an embryo is "life" is debateable anyways.

The IVF clinics are not going to stop helping people get pregnant, even if it means that all the extra embryos just get incinerated instead of allowing the parents to use them for some good.

Fact: Creating embroys is unnessesary to conduct stem cell research.

Fact: There is a big difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. Embryos are necessary for embryonic stem cells, which hold a completely different potential from adult.

Fact: In embryonic stem cell research, the researchers don't "create" the embryos anyways, unless they are attempting therapeutic cloning.

Fact: Research can be conducted with adult stem cells, which does not require the destruction of human/potentially human life.

I suppose we should have stopped looking for medicines after we found penicillin, huh?

Fact: Embroytic stem cell research HAS NOT to date found any cures or treatments for ANY disease.

It has gotten very close in diseases such as Parkinson's. Studies in apes are showing very promising results. Of course *none* of the "approved" lines can even be used in human beings, so it's not like we can just inject these things.

Meanwhile, in other countries, embryonic stem cells have been used to improve heart function after heart attack. Clinical trials are ongoing now.

The embryos they are collecting the stem cells from (or wish to collect it from) are already going to be destroyed. Most are the leftovers from en vitro fertilization clinics. They will never develop into human beings. They will never have umbilical cords. The idea that something that is already going to be destroyed can't be used to save the lives of thinking and breathing human beings is insane.

Perhaps you would be better off if you actually took the time to learn the details of the practice.

EDIT: Long morning, said one thing when I meant another.

I guess it would have helped if I said that I also think the way en vitro fertilization is done is wrong. I'm not sure if it is right or not to use the embryos at that point, but they can't be saved, so I don't see too much of a problem with it. If I had my way, en vitro fertilization would be illegal as well. Please don't start screaming at me about the rights of the parents to have children. I already explained how I define a human being, and I would hope that you would agree with me about en vitro is you held the same views for defining human life.


And yet more than one law has been challenged on the basis of motive, and ihas fallen.

I don't know much about this, but I believe that would be in a court to challenge the constitutionality of a law. If so, the law was already passed. I still don't think it is required to give a reason for a law to be passed, though once it goes to a court, they can ask for whatever they want to help them make a decision on it.

I don't know much about this, but I believe that would be in a court to challenge the constitutionality of a law. If so, the law was already passed. I still don't think it is required to give a reason for a law to be passed, though once it goes to a court, they can ask for whatever they want to help them make a decision on it.

Ah, I see the problem.

You are correct. If Congress wanted to pass a law that said all Americans must sacrifice their firstborn child who was born on a Tuesday, they could do so. However, upon challenge, that law would fall.

Meanwhile, Congress could also pass a law based completely in religion. However, upon challenge on the basis of motive for passing it, that law would fail.

This is a bad example from your Point. The laws banning consentual sexual practices between adults on 'moral grounds' have been deemed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

How long after the Bill of Rights was ratified? And after how many changes were made to the Constitution?

And particularly, what was the exact wording on the decision they made?

I guess it would have helped if I said that I also think the way en vitro fertilization is done is wrong. I'm not sure if it is right or not to use the embryos at that point, but they can't be saved, so I don't see too much of a problem with it. If I had my way, en vitro fertilization would be illegal as well. Please don't start screaming at me about the rights of the parents to have children. I already explained how I define a human being, and I would hope that you would agree with me about en vitro is you held the same views for defining human life.

For the record, I don't like en vitro fertilization methods either. I would rather people adopt one of the 210 million kids already in the world than use a shortcut around their own bad genes to bring another mouth into the world.

Just because I dislike it, though, doesn't mean that it's going to change. The vast majority of people in this country do not have an issue with the practice, and there is no logical/just reason to completely ban it or restrict the people who wish to do it's freedoms.

How long after the Bill of Rights was ratified? And after how many changes were made to the Constitution?

And particularly, what was the exact wording on the decision they made?

You misunderstand the way this works. Congress can try and make any law they want. So can states, counties, cities, or any other parts of the government. If they get the votes to do so, they can pass whatever they want. If however, they do not also amend the constitution and that law is later challenged in court (a la Roe V Wade), and the court comes to the conclusion that the law is not constitutional, then it is overthrown.

Just because there may be a delay, even a long one, between when a law is written and when it is challenged does not mean that the law was constitutional or even technically valid in the interim.

In regards to the wording on the sex laws, I believe it was challenged on the basis of the right to privacy concerns of the 4th ammendment. And was overturned because it was a violation of that right. Because of the health concerns associated with (irresponsible) promiscuity, one could argue that there is a secular reasoning behind the law, and it wasn't challenged on the first ammendment for that reason. A LOT of state laws have however been overturned (some multiple times) over first ammendment violations. Even if 100% of the state population aggrees with the law, all it takes is one person moving in who doesn't and is willing to challenge it in court to get that law overturned.