Oh NOW he threatens to use veto power?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

If there was scientific proof that stem cell research was causing harm or death then maybe I would think different.

There's no question that the collection of fetal stem cells ends the existence of a form of life. The question is whether that form of life is deserving of legal protection and that is not a scientific question. It is a metaphysical question.

I disagree with the position that life gains a status worthy of protection at conception but it is a defensible position. Certainly more so than one that attempts to create a fuzzy line somewhere between conception and delivery for when legal protections begin to attach.

[scaeagles]

In that case it is not possible for any person who has any religious faith that may influence their decision making in the least to hold public office. That would be unconstitutional (see my previous reference). Someone may try not to allow a religious influence, but anyone who is religious has that as part of their make up, who they are, and how they think.

I, for one, think that any moral judgement in government is the same whether it has a basis in religion or not. Moral judgements are moral judgements.

[scaeagles]

I will also admit to a poor choice of words. I do not, nor have I ever considered you to be a bigot.

[Alex]

We have a representative democracy. We do not, as a country, make decisions directly but select people to make those decisions as proxy.

Everything our government does has a moral component, and therefore expecting our elected officials to not engage in moral calculus is contradictory to our method of government.

Whether life becomes protected at conception is not fundamentally a religious question (there are many atheist pro-lifers), though it is a question addressed by pretty much every religion. What it is not is a scientific question. There is no absolutely right or wrong answer.

If legislation was passed and signed that made it illegal for any stem cell research to be done then I think there would be a stronger argument for unacceptable moral dictation, but that is not what has been done. There is no right to federal funding. I disagree with his decision to veto the bill but it is neither surprising (it isn't like we didn't know the man elected would take a position against fetal stem cell research) and within how our government is designed to work.

[scaeagles]

I wanted to get that last post out on the boards as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by MBC

And when you try to legislate things based on your own belief system, you are in essence saying "My personal take on religion is the right one and everyone elses is wrong". It suggests that nobody should have the right to believe anything other than what you believe and, IMO, that crosses the line.

That is the only thing I take exception to you your post above. I make no distinction between what one thinks is right and wrong based on religion vs what someone thinks is right and wrong based on whatever. It matters not.

As an utterly ridiculous example, medicare is a moral choice made for us by government. Who is the government to tell me that my tax dollars should go for giving medical care to the elderly? It is a moral choice, and a good one regardless of what he motivation might be. It is certain biblical to help the elderly. If a politician votes to increase medicare spending because it is biblical to help the elderly does that mean his motivations are wrong because he is being influenced by his religious beliefs? Not in the least. But it won't be criticized because it is popular.

So the motivation shouldn't even come ino the equation. The vote or veto or whatever as an action itself is what matters.

A Flag Burning Amendment has nothing to do with religion. Not one bit. Yet it is a bad idea regardless that the motivation is really one of patriotic fervor (or playing thereto).

So, Eric, again, I do not consider you to be bigoted in the least, and please accept my apology for the obvious implication.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So, Eric, again, I do not consider you to be bigoted in the least, and please accept my apology for the obvious implication.

I appreciate that, Leo, I really do.

We had a thread recently where we were discussing who, if anyone, did we hate. I had a really hard time answering that one, because truly, I don't hate anyone. There are things in this world that I do hate with a passion however, and one of those is bigotry. Therefore, even when bigotry is merely implied in my direction, it pushes buttons. It also causes me to get a lot of typing practice.

I've always felt that you were a great example of how someone can let their beliefs shine through example, rather than through rhetoric. And in fact, I have many Christian friends who do the same thing. They don't tell others what they should do, they simply live a good moral life. I don't think anything could paint religion in a more positive light than choosing to lead by example.

And for the most part, even though I don't subscribe to all Christian beliefs, I still feel that that it has a mostly positive effect in the lives of its practicioners. And anything that can help people lead more positive lives is ok in my book. If it works for you, then by all means, go for it. I'll never suggest that you shouldn't.

But it is undeniable that people have used religion throughout the ages to justify their own prejudices, their own bigotry. I think the biblical justifications for slavery and for limiting women's rights are a good example of that. I also think that many people use their religion to show how much better they are than those who don't believe. They are far more interested in proclaiming "how good a Christian they are" than actually working towards being a good Christian. That nauseates me.

And lastly, sometimes people proclaim they are wonderful Christians simply so that they can gain the votes of other Christians. This is, in my opinion, what Bush does (and I fully understand it is what many other politicians do. He isn't alone.) But, there was nothing very christian about calling people and asking them if they were aware that McCain had a black baby. There is nothing in Christianity that says that it is ok to kill innocent people. In fact, it is strictly forbidden. So, on one hand, we are told that a few cells have the right to life and yet, we can't seem to figure out how to conduct ourselves in a way that doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. I just don't understand the logic.

Anyway, no harm, no foul as far as you and I are concerned. We just have differing opinions on the role of Christianity in our government. You see the separation of church and state to be mostly mythical in nature. I see it as one of the more important concepts of our particular form of government. We can agree to disagree on that.

[JWBear]

Re: Post# 42...

Thank you for saying what many of us feel. Beautiful post.

[Nephythys]

I don't get it-this is the first administration that has spent money- federal money- on this research- they just don't want them creating new embryos in order to continue it (there are existing lines)- and this is some huge Constitutional crisis in people's minds somehow?

I just don't get the rage- which I consider largely misdirected.