Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Finally!

tvb wrote:

Religion and science are always a part of the equation.

By excluding religion from the debate you affirm that you are an oppressor of religion.

Check your constitution. The religious have a say and are here to stay .

Someone needs to explain the first amendment to you.

Freedom of religion means that you are free to worship as you see fit. It does NOT mean that you are free to shove your religious beliefs onto others who aren't interested. By demanding that your religious beliefs be part of the equation, you are actually asking the government to violate the same amendment you are erroneously trying to uphold.

Your specific religious beliefs should have no role in the discussion, nor should mine.

Further, for those who think the rights of "potential babies" are being violated or worse, that some type of living being is being killed, please share some pictures of the blastocysts you've adopted into your family.

Perhaps someone should explain the first amendment to you. The first amendment says nothing about keeping your personal beliefs out of your words or actions. My religious beliefs shape my personality, my behavior and my ethics. The first amendment defends religion against government action, not the people or the government from religious beliefs. Any attempt by government or a person to prevent my religious beliefs in thought or personal action is a violation of my civil rights.

Your interpretation that anyone is "shoving" anything on you is no different than me believing that your blind faith in an unproven science is anything but someone else's faith being "shoved" onto me. Scientific belief without proof is called hypothesis. After proven, the hypothesis becomes theory. There are social implications to your beliefs as well as mine. Any presentation of those beliefs in legislation should be secular to respect all faiths or non-believers. Research should go forward but there must be a plan for avoiding or handling the unintended consequences of human engineering.

I respect your non-belief and you must respect my faith.

"Scientific belief without proof is called hypothesis" and Religious belief without proof is nothing but faith.

I do respect your faith. I just don't want you to push it onto me and my family nor would I expect you to want our faith and beliefs pushed upon you.

For all you know, I am muslim, or worse yet in the eyes of some Christians, Wiccan. If I am Wiccan, would you want me pushing that into the schools where you live? Onto your children by sticking literature in their hands?

My point is that religion should be a very private affair - I don't want to know about yours and you probably don't want to know about mine. It's the 1st Amendment that should guarantee that.

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:The clear church-state separation enumerated in the Constitution is for the government to keep its hands off of religion.

That's your interpretation which I think is clearly wrong. Our founding Fathers were rebeling against the repression of the King & Church of England. The more accepted interpretation has always been that separation of church & state was meant to protect the people's government from the dogma of the Church. You can't state your OPINION as fact.

What is quite clear that the founders, who were mostly Episcopalians did not reject their faith or denomination, they simply rejected the coersion of the king with regard to religious selection and respected varied faiths by forming a government of believers (deists at minimum) out of the colonies in defiance of the kings oppression and at the same time respected non-believers by inclusion. (Episcopalians are decendents of Church of England; both are in the modern day Anglican Communion, at least for the moment, but that's another debate. Neither were submissive to the Pope at the time of the revolution.)

What's missing today is tolerance of believers who truly find faith guiding in their everyday lives like the founders did. We're going back to oppression of those who internalize their faith and are guided by it. The left secures their message everyday and each day they become more oppressive.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Main Entry: re·spect·ing
Function: preposition
Date: circa 1611
1 : in view of : considering
2 : with respect to : concerning

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_F ... igion.html

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

tvb wrote:I do respect your faith. I just don't want you to push it onto me and my family nor would I expect you to want our faith and beliefs pushed upon you.

For all you know, I am muslim, or worse yet in the eyes of some Christians, Wiccan. If I am Wiccan, would you want me pushing that into the schools where you live? Onto your children by sticking literature in their hands?

My point is that religion should be a very private affair - I don't want to know about yours and you probably don't want to know about mine. It's the 1st Amendment that should guarantee that.

It was commonly accepted that religions fostered a positive human spirit and hope for that spirit. There are many valid religions other than Christianity. The unfortunate mistake of our founding fathers was that they didn't define religion. As is always the case, a definition so familar can be corrupted over time.

The founders were unmistakably Christian and their values were unmistakably reflected in their work of establishing this nation.

It is a pity that that heritage is being obiterated by wayward thought.

The founders were unmistakably Christian and their values were unmistakably reflected in their work of establishing this nation.

I'm curious. Have you ever read the writings of Thomas Jefferson?

ken wrote:"Scientific belief without proof is called hypothesis" and Religious belief without proof is nothing but faith.

You are sooooooooooooo right. But please, don't wait for proof. It will be too late.

Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. --1 Cor 13:13

tvb wrote:

The founders were unmistakably Christian and their values were unmistakably reflected in their work of establishing this nation.

I'm curious. Have you ever read the writings of Thomas Jefferson?

He was a deist however, the overriding beliefs of the day that shaped the Constitution were Christian. I would like to point out that Jefferson, in the writing of the Declaration, he chose words that a deist would use to reference God.

Did you check my list of founding fathers and their faiths?

mikeandgerry wrote:As for the embyros and stem cells, I don't really care. I don't believe an embryo is human until the ninth week in utero. Until science and religion define that which is human we will argue about abortion, cloning and stem cells.

What I care about is the unknown ramifications of stem cells in cloning humans, human organs and prolonging life beyond what nature intended for the sake of our future and our decendants. Bush was right to halt the research until the ethics have been settled.

(italics are mine)

So ... you're a Christian Scientist?

Every surgical and/or pharmaceutical advance could be argued to do likewise. Certainly organ donations do.

Are you against organ donation?

stockingfull wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:As for the embyros and stem cells, I don't really care. I don't believe an embryo is human until the ninth week in utero. Until science and religion define that which is human we will argue about abortion, cloning and stem cells.

What I care about is the unknown ramifications of stem cells in cloning humans, human organs and prolonging life beyond what nature intended for the sake of our future and our decendants. Bush was right to halt the research until the ethics have been settled.

(italics are mine)

So ... you're a Christian Scientist?

Every surgical and/or pharmaceutical advance could be argued to do likewise. Certainly organ donations do.

Are you against organ donation?

No and no.

I have no physical church. The primitive church had no walls, no priests, no wealth, no structure. It relied only on the heart of mankind to pass on the story of Christ. That story has survived, relatively unscathed and relatively unadulterated for two thousand years. It has survived war, famine, flood, oppression, pestilance, plague, it has been scribed and inscribed, told and retold, yet, it is relatively intact and as humanistically relevant today as it ever was: The science of the bible is mostly irrelevant as is the ritual of the Torah (all due respect to Jews who practice) and the new testament (all due respect to christians who practice).

The issue I am talking about is the ethical/moral ramifications of playing God with creationary technology; Of prolonging existing life without bringing in new life and of creating new life without benefit of human love.

Thank you MikeandGerry & Tsb. Some people just see only the info that supports what they already believe. The media has not helped here either. I read several science publications and you can tell which ones hate Republicans by the tone of their articles. The truth is never simple.

Kevin

mikeandgerry wrote:I am talking about the ethical/moral ramifications of playing God with creationary technology.

We're not talking about cloning here, boyz.

These are life forms already in existence. There really is a direct parallel to organ donation.

And, for the parents whose embryos otherwise would have been discarded as "medical waste," a similar joy to be derived from their contribution to potentially miraculous recoveries of patients afflicted with everything from spinal cord injuries, to multiple sclerosis, to Alzheimer's, and on and on.

KLook wrote:Thank you MikeandGerry & Tsb. Some people just see only the info that supports what they already believe. The media has not helped here either. I read several science publications and you can tell which ones hate Republicans by the tone of their articles. The truth is never simple.

Kevin

The truth revealed is always simple. It is the lies that complicate.

stockingfull wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:I am talking about the ethical/moral ramifications of playing God with creationary technology.

We're not talking about cloning here, boyz.

As the theory goes, embryonic stem cells hold the secrets of human cell development. Cloning could certain be a part of the total result.

One of my fears is that human vanity will make horrible creatures of mankind. We see it today with lesser technology: Breast implants, plastic surgery, even tats. Should these secrets be unlocked; men may live forever. They may not reproduce or they may compete harshly for resources with overpopulation. They may suffer until they end their own life. Life could be hell on earth.

It would simply be nice to restrict the uses of this technology to the repair of organs and exclude the augmentations of vanity.

You don't know that they were deists. The writings of Jefferson are all over the map when it comes to religious beliefs and where our world came from. Claiming otherwise is a tool of the religious right based upon a few passages of his work.

However, if you really want to believe that, do you also think that the 2nd amendment applies as written? If so, tell me about your muzzle loader.