Religious devotion in the United States

[WITHTEETH]

The elites who founded the U.S. Goverment were mostly Diests. A rational belief in god, that he created everything but does not interfere. They believed in no revelation, unlike christianity.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If a leader is a religious person, that's a real plus to most people. It shows that the leader is faithful, and some would even think of him/her as having more morals than a leader who is not religious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, this is a huge part of the problem, that they believe religious people are more moral and then act on this belief. For a long time in the UK, atheists weren't even allowed to testify in court because they couldn't swear on the bible, so their word meant nothing. How about if I suggested that Christians were less moral than others?

 

Sometimes I'm a little dismayed by the ACLU and their apparent lack of tolerance of religion in public life, which doesn't seem to be helpful in promoting understanding between Christians and non-Christians. But then I remember the context in which this is all taking place, a context in which it seems non-Christians can be openly discriminated against and excluded. In that context, the ACLU's actions appear justified.

[11XHooah]

Yeah, the ACLU is sh*t. I like to refer to them as a domestic terrorist group. They're a bunch of paranoid f*ckers who just want to turn people against the government. They bash the military constantly which really pisses me off.

 

Now back on topic. For the separation of church and state, you should read this article. I found it very interesting:

 

http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[Fionavar]

Um ... yes well then. Perhaps a quick interjection here is in order. Please post in a civil manner that is not antagonistic. Please feel free to share your opinion, but do so in a civil and respectful manner. So far this thread has maintained a respectable pace and level of dialogue, I would rather not have to close it.

[11XHooah]

Um ... yes well then. Perhaps a quick interjection here is in order. Please post in a civil manner that is not antagonistic. Please feel free to share your opinion, but do so in a civil and respectful manner. So far this thread has maintained a respectable pace and level of dialogue, I would rather not have to close it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Roger that. Sorry, I just get a little belligerent when it comes to the ACLU. I'll be sure to stay civilized from now on.

[Commissar]

Yeah, the ACLU is sh*t. I like to refer to them as a domestic terrorist group. They're a bunch of paranoid f*ckers who just want to turn people against the government. They bash the military constantly which really pisses me off.

 

Now back on topic. For the separation of church and state, you should read this article. I found it very interesting:

 

http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Feel free to name one single act of terror committed by the ACLU. If you can, I'll concede your point.

 

As for that 'article'...I'm not entirely sure that 'crap' does it justice, but I can't use any stronger words for fear of the profanity filter.

[metadigital]

Why are the American Cowboys Living Underwater such a militant group? Is it because of the drastic decline in dugongs? Maybe we can help them come to a peaceful win-win solution -- we could adopt a dugong each!

[SteveThaiBinh]

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society.

It was doing quite well until this, then it descended into a rather pointless exercise which won't persuade anyone.

 

The whole tone of the article is very much 'preaching to the converted'. The position of the author is that there can only be one belief system, it will be mine, and we will beat down any others that try to challenge it. There's little attempt to reach out to non-believers or try to find a solution acceptable to all.

 

The way some Americans scrutinise every little detail of the US constitution for truths about how to live today is very similar to Christians scrutinising the bible, or Muslims the Koran. As well as reading these scriptires, go out, talk to people, and start listening as well. Rest assured, we non-believers will not be beaten down.

[11XHooah]

Yeah, the ACLU is sh*t. I like to refer to them as a domestic terrorist group. They're a bunch of paranoid f*ckers who just want to turn people against the government. They bash the military constantly which really pisses me off.

 

Now back on topic. For the separation of church and state, you should read this article. I found it very interesting:

 

http://www.no-apathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Feel free to name one single act of terror committed by the ACLU. If you can, I'll concede your point.

 

As for that 'article'...I'm not entirely sure that 'crap' does it justice, but I can't use any stronger words for fear of the profanity filter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Calling the ACLU domestic terrorists is just hyperbolism on my part. I just don't like how they try to tell people where and when they can practice their religion. Freedom of religion is there for a reason. They eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds saying that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." They also refuse to protect the 2nd Amendment and ignore the 10th Amendment. They also show a lot of opposition to the US military. I find nothing about this organization worthy of being involved with.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Calling the ACLU domestic terrorists is just hyperbolism on my part. I just don't like how they try to tell people where and when they can practice their religion. Freedom of religion is there for a reason. They eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds saying that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But surely the example from earlier in the thread is a good example of why this 'separation of church and state' is important. Otherwise you have a judge who will overtly discriminate against non-believers by sending them to jail while giving believers a 'soft option' of attending a religious service. Personally I don't mind religion existing in the public space, only the attempts by believers to reserve the public space for themselves and exclude or discriminate against the rest.

[Commissar]

Calling the ACLU domestic terrorists is just hyperbolism on my part. I just don't like how they try to tell people where and when they can practice their religion. Freedom of religion is there for a reason. They eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds saying that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." They also refuse to protect the 2nd Amendment and ignore the 10th Amendment. They also show a lot of opposition to the US military. I find nothing about this organization worthy of being involved with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They protect the minority - in this country, non-Christians - from the majority. They try to make sure that no one's ever going to have to pray to a god they don't personally believe in. They try to ensure that our government stays as far from a theocracy as possible. And they get roundly maligned for it, because, as that article you put up demonstrates, the folks on your side of the aisle believe Christianity's the answer. Nevermind the fact that every theocracy on earth has been oppressive, the very antithesis of a free society.

 

Why shouldn't they eliminate religious expression in public schools? I don't think you Christians would be very happy if the local Satan worshippers got to use the cafeteria for their weekly meetings. Or if Muslims demanded that they got to lead a prayer over the loudspeaker at football games, too. And before the Protestant one. That's the whole point; you guys are happy as hell with religion anywhere it can get its tentacles, just so long as it's your religion.

 

I've never seen the ACLU go after the military in any significant way. Don't forget, you're not the only guy who's served on these forums. I'm quite content to let you champion the military's cause, but I think I can attest pretty strongly that there's a wide variety of views in the armed forces. It's not all Toby Keith fans, don't forget.

 

As far as the second amendment? I'm split on that one, honestly. The way I read it, it sounds as though the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on a militia being necessary to ensure the security of a free state. To me, that point is long since moot; any armed uprising in the US would have absolutely no success.

 

I also don't know of any states' rights issues that the ACLU has commented on, but then again, I haven't searched through a history of their lawsuits, so I could be wrong.

 

My point is that yes, they do indeed question the government. Any thinking citizen in a democracy should. I don't care if it's "wartime" or not; nothing should ever be taken at face value from any authority. Power's nature is to perpetuate itself, by whatever means necessary.

 

And for the record, it's not like the ACLU went dormant during the Clinton administration. They're apolitical that way.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Alright, time for me to get in here :D

 

Now I sort of blew through all the previous posts, because who really wants to go through 10 pages But from what I can ascertain, most of you believe that religion should not be intertwined with government. I think that religion should stay. You can find traces of religion all over America's history. In the Pledge of Allegiance, you have "one nation, under God". When I signed up for the military, I had to speak the Oath of Enlistment, and God was in there. Did we have to say it? No. Do we have to say God in the Pledge of Allegiance, much less even be required to say it? No. Which is why I think that religion does not go too far. But this is just simple crap that I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that the U.S. government is based strongly on religion.

 

But I think religion plays an important role in government. If a leader is a religious person, that's a real plus to most people. It shows that the leader is faithful, and some would even think of him/her as having more morals than a leader who is not religious. Now, was I on the mark with my arguments, or should I go back and read the 10 pages of posts because I missed the whole point of this thread? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm Canadian, but keep in mind there are many Americans who feel the same as I do... Religion has no place in government. A government that is truly looking out for all citizens as equals should be purely secular, as once religion enters into it, someone's going to get screwed. Whether it's women, gays, or people of other faiths, religion in a government is going to hurt someone.

A secular government on the other hand really only has to take into consideration whether or not something will hurt or help the nation's citizens. Murder? That will hurt citizens, so it's illegal. That has nothing to do with any commandments. Contract laws? Will help the citizen, so they exist.

Yes, you can find traces of religion all over America's history. It helped keep women down until the 1920's, helped keep blacks down throughout its short history, and help keep gays and lesbians down until the Supreme Court just recently stepped in. Sharia law in Islamic countries is religion-based, and is that a good thing? Any non-Muslim would probably say no.

As for your remarks about a leader being religious, I'm glad you put a qualifier on the morals and that some people would think it would make them more moral. It clearly doesn't make them more moral, but yes, there are people who think it doesn. However, without a qualifier you said it "shows that the leader is faithful." What does that even mean? Faithful to what? I want a leader that is faithful to the people, not to some invisible spirit. I'm an atheist. I am faithful to my family, my friends, if I had a significant other, I'd be faithful to them, and I am faithful to my country. How does religion affect any of this? Heck, I'd be more suspicious of a religious leader because their greatest loyalty usually goes to their god/s.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Calling the ACLU domestic terrorists is just hyperbolism on my part. I just don't like how they try to tell people where and when they can practice their religion. Freedom of religion is there for a reason. They eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds saying that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." They also refuse to protect the 2nd Amendment and ignore the 10th Amendment. They also show a lot of opposition to the US military. I find nothing about this organization worthy of being involved with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You said earlier that you haven't really read this thread. This would be a good time to go back and read some of the posts, because a lot of this hear-say nonsense about their so-called "attacks on religion" has been debunked. As for the 2nd Amendment, they state quite clearly that they interpret it differently than the NRA, and so just don't get involved. Why should they? The NRA is doing just fine and why be redundant?

[11XHooah]

Calling the ACLU domestic terrorists is just hyperbolism on my part. I just don't like how they try to tell people where and when they can practice their religion. Freedom of religion is there for a reason. They eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds saying that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." They also refuse to protect the 2nd Amendment and ignore the 10th Amendment. They also show a lot of opposition to the US military. I find nothing about this organization worthy of being involved with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They protect the minority - in this country, non-Christians - from the majority. They try to make sure that no one's ever going to have to pray to a god they don't personally believe in. They try to ensure that our government stays as far from a theocracy as possible. And they get roundly maligned for it, because, as that article you put up demonstrates, the folks on your side of the aisle believe Christianity's the answer. Nevermind the fact that every theocracy on earth has been oppressive, the very antithesis of a free society.

 

Why shouldn't they eliminate religious expression in public schools? I don't think you Christians would be very happy if the local Satan worshippers got to use the cafeteria for their weekly meetings. Or if Muslims demanded that they got to lead a prayer over the loudspeaker at football games, too. And before the Protestant one. That's the whole point; you guys are happy as hell with religion anywhere it can get its tentacles, just so long as it's your religion.

 

I've never seen the ACLU go after the military in any significant way. Don't forget, you're not the only guy who's served on these forums. I'm quite content to let you champion the military's cause, but I think I can attest pretty strongly that there's a wide variety of views in the armed forces. It's not all Toby Keith fans, don't forget.

 

As far as the second amendment? I'm split on that one, honestly. The way I read it, it sounds as though the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on a militia being necessary to ensure the security of a free state. To me, that point is long since moot; any armed uprising in the US would have absolutely no success.

 

I also don't know of any states' rights issues that the ACLU has commented on, but then again, I haven't searched through a history of their lawsuits, so I could be wrong.

 

My point is that yes, they do indeed question the government. Any thinking citizen in a democracy should. I don't care if it's "wartime" or not; nothing should ever be taken at face value from any authority. Power's nature is to perpetuate itself, by whatever means necessary.

 

And for the record, it's not like the ACLU went dormant during the Clinton administration. They're apolitical that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have a point with religious expression in schools. But would it not present a perfect opportunity for children to learn how to respect the religion/beliefs of others by being exposed to them?

To answer your question about the second amendment, since the meaning of the language used in the Second Amendment is that individuals have a right to own firearms, the ACLU has little choice but to fall back on the argument the Amendment was intended only to provide for a militia. If so, it has been said this is the biggest secret in history because there is not a single shred of evidence from the Constitutional Convention which supports this proposition. Gun control proponents have yet to identify even a single quote from one of the founders to support their claim. By contrast, there is an immense amount of evidence and quotations from the Framers which make it absolutely clear they intended the Second Amendment to recognize an individual right.

 

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the ones protecting the U.S. from becoming a theocracy. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is. And you say that they make sure that no one prays to a God that they don't believe in. Who's going to force them to? We have the freedom of religion. Worship anyone you want, or worship no one if you are agnostic or atheist. Who cares?

 

And I agree that you should question the government. You would be fool not too. But I think they take it to an extremist/paranoid level IMO.

[11XHooah]

Alright, time for me to get in here :D

 

Now I sort of blew through all the previous posts, because who really wants to go through 10 pages But from what I can ascertain, most of you believe that religion should not be intertwined with government. I think that religion should stay. You can find traces of religion all over America's history. In the Pledge of Allegiance, you have "one nation, under God". When I signed up for the military, I had to speak the Oath of Enlistment, and God was in there. Did we have to say it? No. Do we have to say God in the Pledge of Allegiance, much less even be required to say it? No. Which is why I think that religion does not go too far. But this is just simple crap that I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that the U.S. government is based strongly on religion.

 

But I think religion plays an important role in government. If a leader is a religious person, that's a real plus to most people. It shows that the leader is faithful, and some would even think of him/her as having more morals than a leader who is not religious. Now, was I on the mark with my arguments, or should I go back and read the 10 pages of posts because I missed the whole point of this thread? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm Canadian, but keep in mind there are many Americans who feel the same as I do... Religion has no place in government. A government that is truly looking out for all citizens as equals should be purely secular, as once religion enters into it, someone's going to get screwed. Whether it's women, gays, or people of other faiths, religion in a government is going to hurt someone.

A secular government on the other hand really only has to take into consideration whether or not something will hurt or help the nation's citizens. Murder? That will hurt citizens, so it's illegal. That has nothing to do with any commandments. Contract laws? Will help the citizen, so they exist.

Yes, you can find traces of religion all over America's history. It helped keep women down until the 1920's, helped keep blacks down throughout its short history, and help keep gays and lesbians down until the Supreme Court just recently stepped in. Sharia law in Islamic countries is religion-based, and is that a good thing? Any non-Muslim would probably say no.

As for your remarks about a leader being religious, I'm glad you put a qualifier on the morals and that some people would think it would make them more moral. It clearly doesn't make them more moral, but yes, there are people who think it doesn. However, without a qualifier you said it "shows that the leader is faithful." What does that even mean? Faithful to what? I want a leader that is faithful to the people, not to some invisible spirit. I'm an atheist. I am faithful to my family, my friends, if I had a significant other, I'd be faithful to them, and I am faithful to my country. How does religion affect any of this? Heck, I'd be more suspicious of a religious leader because their greatest loyalty usually goes to their god/s.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Religion did play a role in all those things, but you neglect the fact that it was mostly the mentality of those times that caused it. Women were kept down yes, but it was because back then respect for women was at a low because they were seen as inferior. African-Americans were kept down because they were seen as inferior as well. They were segregated because people were brought up to look down on them. As for the subject of homosexuals, I agree that religion is the biggest reason they are kept down. But then again, I know non-religious people who do not approve of homosexuality. Again, it is a mix of mentality and religion.

 

As for religious leaders, you don't believe that a leader can be both faithful to God as well as the people? I am just as faithful to my family,country, etc. as I am to God. For those that believe a leader has good morals because he is religious, his faithfulness and devotion to whatever God he/she worships will further reinforce this. I don't believe this, but some do. And I agree that religion does not affect your faithfulness in other areas, but some think it does.

Edited June 12, 2005 by 11XHooah

[Commissar]

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the ones protecting the U.S. from becoming a theocracy. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is. And you say that they make sure that no one prays to a God that they don't believe in. Who's going to force them to? We have the freedom of religion. Worship anyone you want, or worship no one if you are agnostic or atheist. Who cares?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who's going to force them to? Judges like the one in Kentucky, for example. If I went in and he offered me the choice between jail time and attending worship services, I'd go for worship services, as would everyone else. "Okay," he'll say. "What religion are you?" I'll reply that I'm an atheist, and then presumably I'll be allowed to go home, since atheists don't have any worship services. Except that's not what'll happen. He'll say that's not a viable alternative, and I'll have to do jail time, whereas the good Christian caught with an eighth of weed can go to church for a couple Sundays.

 

Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is? Tell that to 16th century Spain. Or modern-day Iran. Or Socrates. Or the current generation of twentysomethings who are going to be smuggling their Alzheimer's medication in from South Korea because our current president decided that stem cell research was offensive to God.

 

Hey, know what? I'd be willing to bet you're some flavor of Protestant. Guess what happened to Protestants when they started being Protestants? They got burned, and not just by Spain, though that's the example I'll use since it's the easiest to follow.

 

"Oh, but we've come farther than that! That couldn't happen anymore!" No, it couldn't. Not the burning, anyway. But the rest certainly could. Hell, it does. I gave you the example of the Kentucky judge just a few pages back. You want to claim that allowing religion a place in the power structure of a government would not lead to any persecution of dissenters, but you've got - and I'm going to make this bold - the entire history of religion arguing against you.

[Archmonarch]

You have a point with religious expression in schools. But would it not present a perfect opportunity for children to learn how to respect the religion/beliefs of others by being exposed to them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem I see with this is someone is always going to object as soon as a religion other than Christianity is introduced. "I have a right to raise my children without them being exposed to that," they would say, as if there were something wrong with other faiths. And the few who would stand up for the other religions would be bludgeoned back down by the cruel ignorance and bigotry of their fellows.

 

Religion did play a role in all those things, but you neglect the fact that it was mostly the mentality of those times that caused it. Women were kept down yes, but it was because back then respect for women was at a low because they were seen as inferior.  African-Americans were kept down because they were seen as inferior as well. They were segregated because people were brought up to look down on them. As for the subject of homosexuals, I agree that religion is the biggest reason they are kept down. But then again, I know non-religious people who do not approve of homosexuality. Again, it is a mix of mentality and religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you neglect the fact that it was religion that caused most of that mentality. Why were women and Africans considered inferior? Because man was God's chosen. You can't object to that. The Bible says so.

 

They dont believe in God, so they are heathens. They believe in other beings, so they are pagans. They arent like us, thus they arent "true humans" and as such we can do what we please with them.

 

This is the viewpoint you blame on upbringing, forgetting that in most cases religion is a major factor of child-rearing.

 

As for religious leaders, you don't believe that a leader can be both faithful to God as well as the people? I am just as faithful to my family,country, etc. as I am to God. For those that believe a leader has good morals because he is religious, his faithfulness and devotion to whatever God he/she worships will further reinforce this. I don't believe this, but some do. And I agree that religion does not affect your faithfulness in other areas, but some think it does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You obviously do believe what you say, or you would not defend it so vigorously.

 

The difficulty with (some) religious leaders is that they put religion ahead of the good of the people. If something offends them, it must offend God as well, for they were raised in his teachings. And the fact is, in this country, they refer to the Christian God. No consideration, except as an afterthought to appear "politically correct," is given to other faiths, simply because what is different from me, must be wrong.

[Reveilled]

You have a point with religious expression in schools. But would it not present a perfect opportunity for children to learn how to respect the religion/beliefs of others by being exposed to them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hope you don't mind if I deal specifically with this point. Just as a point of interest, the way we deal with this in British scools is that we have a specific class called "Religious Education". The class teaches you about the religions that people follow throughout the world. As the pupils get older, they have the option either to take it on as a subject for study, or to take compulsory more generalised lessons. The compulsory lessons are about things such as tolerance, and how people of different beliefs and philosophies make decisions. The optional ones teach about more viewpoints and beliefs, and also compare and contrast those beliefs in order to see how they hold up against the arguments of other faiths. It is in this class, rather than science classes, that we look at creationist arguments in regards to things such as evolution and the big bang, as well as the arguments of more liberal christians.

 

Ultimately, the compulsory classes teach us to accept that other people have differing beliefs, and that we should not hate them or discriminate against them for those beliefs. The optional ones teach us to examine our own beliefs, and decide whether we ought to believe what we do.

However, we are never told what religion is the correct one, and everything is handled in an objective manner that encourages the student to think about what s/he believed. It also gives creationists, who often complain their views are pushed out of school, a chance to make their argument, and let the students decide which argument holds up better.

 

If the States had classes like this (afaik, they don't), some tension might be relieved about religion in school. Seperation of Church and State only means you can't teach the children religion. It doesn't mean, nor should it, that you can't teach them about religion.

 

 

Incidentally, it was those classes that took me from atheism to agnosticism, and then from agnosticism to theism.

[11XHooah]

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the ones protecting the U.S. from becoming a theocracy. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is. And you say that they make sure that no one prays to a God that they don't believe in. Who's going to force them to? We have the freedom of religion. Worship anyone you want, or worship no one if you are agnostic or atheist. Who cares?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who's going to force them to? Judges like the one in Kentucky, for example. If I went in and he offered me the choice between jail time and attending worship services, I'd go for worship services, as would everyone else. "Okay," he'll say. "What religion are you?" I'll reply that I'm an atheist, and then presumably I'll be allowed to go home, since atheists don't have any worship services. Except that's not what'll happen. He'll say that's not a viable alternative, and I'll have to do jail time, whereas the good Christian caught with an eighth of weed can go to church for a couple Sundays.

 

Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is? Tell that to 16th century Spain. Or modern-day Iran. Or Socrates. Or the current generation of twentysomethings who are going to be smuggling their Alzheimer's medication in from South Korea because our current president decided that stem cell research was offensive to God.

 

Hey, know what? I'd be willing to bet you're some flavor of Protestant. Guess what happened to Protestants when they started being Protestants? They got burned, and not just by Spain, though that's the example I'll use since it's the easiest to follow.

 

"Oh, but we've come farther than that! That couldn't happen anymore!" No, it couldn't. Not the burning, anyway. But the rest certainly could. Hell, it does. I gave you the example of the Kentucky judge just a few pages back. You want to claim that allowing religion a place in the power structure of a government would not lead to any persecution of dissenters, but you've got - and I'm going to make this bold - the entire history of religion arguing against you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree that what happened with the Kentucky judge is BS. But that was one case, it hasn't become an epidemic yet. That was bad judgement by the judge IMO. I agree with you that religion should be kept out of the judicial branch of government.

 

As for stem cell research, you don't think that it's wrong? It's inhumane, and I haven't heard one word from the precious ACLU criticizing Bush's decision. I would bet that if he had approved of it, the ACLU would be all over him calling him a murderer. And I don't even think most of America agrees that it should be done. Now Bush used God as a reason for his decision, but it also could have been for moral reasons. True, stem cell research could lead to a breakthrough in medicinal applications, but it is a very controversial way of doing it. Oh but they're just embryos, they aren't human beings

 

Here's a good analogy: Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it.

 

See what I mean?

 

And no, I'm not a protestant. I don't really know what religion I am anymore because I abandoned Christianity a long time ago. All I am is a person who believes in God, that's it. I guess you could say I'm part of my own religion.

[metadigital]

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are the ones protecting the U.S. from becoming a theocracy. Religious influence over government isn't as bad as they say it is. And you say that they make sure that no one prays to a God that they don't believe in. Who's going to force them to? We have the freedom of religion. Worship anyone you want, or worship no one if you are agnostic or atheist. Who cares?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...

Hey, know what? I'd be willing to bet you're some flavor of Protestant. Guess what happened to Protestants when they started being Protestants? They got burned, and not just by Spain, though that's the example I'll use since it's the easiest to follow.

...

"Oh, but we've come farther than that! That couldn't happen anymore!" No, it couldn't. Not the burning, anyway. But the rest certainly could. Hell, it does. I gave you the example of the Kentucky judge just a few pages back. You want to claim that allowing religion a place in the power structure of a government would not lead to any persecution of dissenters, but you've got - and I'm going to make this bold - the entire history of religion arguing against you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And Queen Elizabeth I's regal predecessor and half-sister, Mary didn't earn the epithet "Bloody" because she liked to drink.

 

I will say that there have been a couple of governments that have shown unusual tolerance: the Venetian Republic, the Iberian Muslim Royalty and the rulers of Jerusalem before the Crusades -- and also including Saladin. It is not a foregone conclusion that a religious state will not be tolerant. But with any democracy, there needs to be clear and codified checks and balances to prevent the WASP-centric bias from accidentally and truculently trampling on minorities' rights. (Shirley Jackson wrote some evocative essays of the dispossed, like those in her compendium of short stories in -- and including -- The Lottery.)

[11XHooah]

The problem I see with this is someone is always going to object as soon as a religion other than Christianity is introduced. "I have a right to raise my children without them being exposed to that," they would say, as if there were something wrong with other faiths. And the few who would stand up for the other religions would be bludgeoned back down by the cruel ignorance and bigotry of their fellows.

 

True, there will always be people like this. Perhaps I'm thinking unrealistically here.

 

And you neglect the fact that it was religion that caused most of that mentality. Why were women and Africans considered inferior? Because man was God's chosen. You can't object to that. The Bible says so.

 

They dont believe in God, so they are heathens. They believe in other beings, so they are pagans. They arent like us, thus they arent "true humans" and as such we can do what we please with them.

 

This is the viewpoint you blame on upbringing, forgetting that in most cases religion is a major factor of child-rearing.

 

True.

[WITHTEETH]

I disagree with you X10Hooah

Stem cell research is human. embryos have a potential for life, its not a person with a consciousness, its not aware. that potential life is being used for the saving of a concious one.

but since you beleive in the supernatural souls and the rest of the religion bit with demons and angels,its hard to argue sinse your first assumptions are quite radical to me.

once somebody makes there mind to beleive in something, from that day on they start building a wall to protect it. its hard to knock down.

[metadigital]

...

[1]As for stem cell research, you don't think that it's wrong? It's inhumane, and I haven't heard one word from the precious ACLU criticizing Bush's decision. I would bet that if he had approved of it, the ACLU would be all over him calling him a murderer. And I don't even think most of America agrees that it should be done. Now Bush used God as a reason for his decision, but it also could have been for moral reasons. True, stem cell research could lead to a breakthrough in medicinal applications, but it is a very controversial way of doing it. Oh but they're just embryos, they aren't human beings

 

[2]Here's a good analogy: Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No, I don't find it inhumane at all. You may believe as fervently as you wish that life begins the moment two gametes unite in the fallopian tube; a lot of people do not share this conviction. (I suggest you look up the origin of the word onanism, because even the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has not always regarded the moment of conception as the beginning of life. (It used to be regarded as life only after forty days.)

 

2. That is a terrible, emotive analogy; it is the main reason why people of extreme views (like the earnestly faithful) are completely unable to use rhetoric to their advantage. They have a complete lack of empathy for those people who have a differnt pov!

 

Just for your own erudition, there are RIGHT NOW more embryos in storage than can EVER be permitted to grow into human form: there just isn't enough years left in the Earth's lifespan. Our sun will go Red Giant before they all get their three-score-and-ten.

 

Let's view the dilemma from a different pov. There exists a lot of people now and in the future who will have short, painful and limited lives based on injury, illness and disease. With research on some proto-lifeforms, it will be possible (I believe -- ) to remedy these mishaps and ailments. You are faced with a defined, real and quantitative amount of human suffering versus the wish to save some others who haven't been born yet.

 

Finally, I obviously can't speak for any other people, whether alive, dead or not-yet-born, but I am a signed up organ donor and I would gladly trade a non-existence to help ease someone else's real suffering -- would you? And what do you think the spirits of others would do, even those proto-lifeforms, should they be given the choice? Because you are making a decision on their behalf just as much as your opponents are.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

It's inhumane, and I haven't heard one word from the precious ACLU criticizing Bush's decision. I would bet that if he had approved of it, the ACLU would be all over him calling him a murderer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here, just for you...

[11XHooah]

...

[1]As for stem cell research, you don't think that it's wrong? It's inhumane, and I haven't heard one word from the precious ACLU criticizing Bush's decision. I would bet that if he had approved of it, the ACLU would be all over him calling him a murderer. And I don't even think most of America agrees that it should be done. Now Bush used God as a reason for his decision, but it also could have been for moral reasons. True, stem cell research could lead to a breakthrough in medicinal applications, but it is a very controversial way of doing it. Oh but they're just embryos, they aren't human beings

 

[2]Here's a good analogy: Suppose that some militant racist group went around lynching black people. Hundreds of innocent blacks are killed. Public outrage grows. Then one day this group announces a new program: Whenever they lynch a black person, they will promptly deliver the body to the nearest hospital, where organs can be removed for transplant. Even if you don't approve of lynching or racism, they say, surely you must applaud us for this. Think of all that good that can be done. Maybe a lynching is a tragedy, but at least this way some good will come of it.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No, I don't find it inhumane at all. You may believe as fervently as you wish that life begins the moment two gametes unite in the fallopian tube; a lot of people do not share this conviction. (I suggest you look up the origin of the word onanism, because even the Roman Catholic Church, for example, has not always regarded the moment of conception as the beginning of life. (It used to be regarded as life only after forty days.)

 

2. That is a terrible, emotive analogy; it is the main reason why people of extreme views (like the earnestly faithful) are completely unable to use rhetoric to their advantage. They have a complete lack of empathy for those people who have a differnt pov!

 

Just for your own erudition, there are RIGHT NOW more embryos in storage than can EVER be permitted to grow into human form: there just isn't enough years left in the Earth's lifespan. Our sun will go Red Giant before they all get their three-score-and-ten.

 

Let's view the dilemma from a different pov. There exists a lot of people now and in the future who will have short, painful and limited lives based on injury, illness and disease. With research on some proto-lifeforms, it will be possible (I believe -- ) to remedy these mishaps and ailments. You are faced with a defined, real and quantitative amount of human suffering versus the wish to save some others who haven't been born yet.

 

Finally, I obviously can't speak for any other people, whether alive, dead or not-yet-born, but I am a signed up organ donor and I would gladly trade a non-existence to help ease someone else's real suffering -- would you? And what do you think the spirits of others would do, even those proto-lifeforms, should they be given the choice? Because you are making a decision on their behalf just as much as your opponents are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. It may not have a soul yet, but it is still life, is it not?

 

2. Yeah, you got a point.

 

 

My point is that embryos are not the only possible source of stem cells. There are stem cells in fat tissue. There are stem cells in umbilical cords. There has been some success at harvesting stem cells from these sources. At present, it is not clear if these sources are just as useful (from a technical point of view) as embryos.

 

And you're right, we can't make a decision for these embryos. If they could talk, some would want stem cell research done on them, some wouldn't. That's the real dilemma.