Religion the great divider.

Brandon wrote

Quote:

I never saw the part of the Constitution that says that stem cell research is a right

.

You are perhaps familiar with the concept of separation of Church and state. Laws and legislation that is written to comply with particular religions belief violate that concept and are unconstitutional.

BTW where in the constitution does it say that Stem cell research is wrong? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon wrote

Quote:
I never saw the part of the Constitution that says that stem cell research is a right
.

You are perhaps familiar with the concept of separation of Church and state. Laws and legislation that is written to comply with particular religions belief violate that concept and are unconstitutional.

where in the constitution does it say that Stem cell research is wrong?

It doesn't, and I never claimed that it did. Criticising me for things I never said is assinine.

The First Amendment says that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. No law regarding stem cell research concerns the establishment of religion. As it happens, I am a lifelong atheist and opposed to the harvesting of stem cells for research. The Constitution emphatically does not say that people who follow some religion cannot vote, or that when they do, they cannot participate in any vote where their religion may take a stand. It says only that Congress shall pass no law establishing, disestablishing, or about the establishment of religion by the state. The document does not happen to say whatever you want it to.

0 Replies

Brandon
speaking of asinine what can be said of this bit of brilliance that you wrote?

Quote:

I never saw the part of the Constitution that says that stem cell research is a right

All I did by my response was to show you how asinine it was. Am glad you at least got one message.

As to separation of church and state. Laws that are passed to accommodate the beliefs of a particular religion and for no other reason are breaching the separation of chuch and state statutes. I expect that goes for executive order as well.

0 Replies

What is the density of density?

Quote:

You ask for the right to vote your conscience, but religious people do not, according to you, have the right to elect candidates who will then vote their consciences.

Where did I ask for the right to vote my conscience? Set em and knock them straw men down, Brandon9000, but what you preach still doesn't make any sense. We don't critiicze you for what you don't say, we have enough to deal with with what you do say:

Quote:

The Constitution emphatically does not say that people who follow some religion cannot vote, or that when they do, they cannot participate in any vote where their religion may take a stand.

How can the Constitution emphatically not say anything?

Oh and thanks for throwing in the bigot name calling crap. I'm wounded to the quick.

Joe(what a pathetic load of nonsense you throw)Nation

0 Replies

When we consider how harmful organized religion has been, we appreciate Nietzsche's irony: God is a finesse of the Devil.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What is being done with stem cell research funding is to declare that a religious principle will guide political, not to mention scientific, policy. The President may hold the religious principle as is his right, but when he votes his conscience instead of voting the Constitution, he errs and mis-leads the people.

Joe(It's the right thing for his soul, but not for the future of medicine.)Nation

The Constitution actually does not have a right to funding for stem cell research. If you find it let me know, I have not seen it.

What the Constitution does have is specifically enumerated powers that the Federal government may exercise. They are few and they are limited.

All other political power is delegated to the people and to the States.

Scientists (or others) who expect the Federal government to be their Sugar Daddy should raise private funds instead and not expect the government to declare that they have a "right" to have their research (or whatever) funded by the rest of us.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
real life you do not seem to be a very good listener.

I have made no call as to which I think is more correct (although it's quite obvious which I choose).

The point is THERE IS A DIVISION and everything you are typing PROVES MY POINT.

If you stop taking offense to everything for just a minute and agree with my point!......

When you do, if you like, we'll debate THE MERITS of the two which I've tried hard to avoid so far.

(oh and when you use quotes on something I did not say, that is just rude...poor form, real life)

My point again in case you forgot:

The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking vs those who use faith-based thinking.
Yes I think I understood your point the first time. There are thinkers and there are believers , and ne'er the twain shall meet. So as long as I would agree to this , then you will kindly condescend to enlighten me.

How very nice of you.

The fact is that folks who believe in God do think, despite your slanders to the contrary.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. Neo seems to have made the same error.

It's like if I said you could divide the USA into those that drive cars to work vs those that use public transport...which you can.

YOU are saying that I am implying that people on trains can't drive and that people who drive don't have bus fare. YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG. Why is this not obvious ??!!?? As for taking offense....ha! your problem. Like I said, I've got plenty of ways of insulting you if I want to...but it seems I don't even have to try!

What I'm saying is...AGAIN : there is a division (growing) in the USA between those who put their trust in faith vs those who trust reason.

Recently your political parties seem well aware of this and some are actively promoting and encouraging that division.

Those on the reason side are portrayed as "against the church and god", those on the religious side are portrayed as evangelical loonies.

If you think I'm wrong explain how instead of trying to see it as some kind of insult. If anything I think I've been incredibly patient and have been far more polite than you !!!!

To demonstrate the kind of thing I mean even more clearly....how do you know wrong from right?...do you work it out yourself or does it come from an aspect of your faith? Again, I'm not trying to trap anyone into a "wrong" answer....I'm demonstrating a distinct difference of thought between two groups of people.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

My point again in case you forgot:

The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking vs those who use faith-based thinking..................

What I'm saying is...AGAIN : there is a division (growing) in the USA between those who put their trust in faith vs those who trust reason.

You make several errors of assumption. As I stated, the first error is to assume that those who draw from their faith to make decisions do not use reason as well.

The second error is to assume that those who claim they do not use any kind of faith (to make decisions) do therefore automatically use reason. It should be clear to anyone that this is an unjustified assumption , both because it lacks a logical basis and because experience shows that it is not so.

Your black and white view of the world seems to be problematic. Human beings tend to more complex than that. They don't turn off their faith thinking and turn on their reason , or vice versa , while making decisions.

Experience shows that even those who claim they have no faith at all will at some point come to a place where they draw a line in the sand, so to speak , on an issue. "It's just wrong." they will state. This is an obvious appeal to a supposed objective standard of right and wrong, which you have indicated only the religious supposedly have. (Remember? All the reasonable, thinking folks have strictly subjective standards of right and wrong. Don't they? Or do they?)

If you truly believe we should all have subjective standards of right and wrong, then you really have no business telling me or anyone else that we are wrong about anything. You should let me do what I want and not interfere or criticize if I am living by a standard of right and wrong that differs from yours. Isn't that what you want of me? Why can't you practice what you preach?

0 Replies

Moral values need not be absolute or objective to have a value beyond the perspective of a single subjective mind. Morals can be intersubjective, social, and consensually validated. This indicates a position between individual subjectivity and absolute objectivity.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If you truly believe we should all have subjective standards of right and wrong, then you really have no business telling me or anyone else that we are wrong about anything.

That's it. I give up. Show me where I said anything even remotely along these lines.

I am GOING INSANE trying to make you see that this is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING !!!!

ah forget it...you are just too thick. Feel free to feel insulted this time.

0 Replies

JL, yes I agree. Morals are just one aspect of what I see as a general trend towards two poles...increasing faith in "faith" and mistrust of science on the one side ......and in increasing trust in science, logic, secular thought etc. in the other direction. (Clearly lots of folks retain elements of both but the trend exists (or not) regardless.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
My point is that your method of choosing right and wrong is very subjective. I believe in an objective standard of right and wrong.

and that is my point right there. I agree. My right and wrong are subjective, yours are objective.

Well folks, you heard it here first.

0 Replies

Your point being.....?

My point (yet again) is that you and I have different ways...therefore... THERE IS A DIVISION and I think it is growing.

I have avoided any discussion as to the merits of either, since they have nothing to do with my point. (again, again, again...)

0 Replies

check this out real life:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/vhi/fis/backgroundprogram.pdf

I just found it. It's from a christian source about a forum to combat the very situation I'm trying to demonstrate.

0 Replies

Our discussion has gone like this......

Eorl : There are two sides. Yours & mine. The difference between our sides is growing.

real life: Who are you to insult my side like that?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

...As to separation of church and state. Laws that are passed to accommodate the beliefs of a particular religion and for no other reason are breaching the separation of chuch and state statutes. I expect that goes for executive order as well.

The Constitution only says that one cannot pass a law for, against, or concerning establishing religion. It does not say that people who are religious cannot vote on secular matters that their religion may take a position on.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What is the density of density?

Quote:
You ask for the right to vote your conscience, but religious people do not, according to you, have the right to elect candidates who will then vote their consciences.

Where did I ask for the right to vote my conscience? Set em and knock them straw men down, Brandon9000...

Okay, Joe, then you do not wish to have the right to vote according to your ideas of right and wrong? Is that what you are saying? Because unless you are saying that, I have characterized your position accurately, and, therefore, it is not a straw man argument.

Joe Nation wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
...The Constitution emphatically does not say that people who follow some religion cannot vote, or that when they do, they cannot participate in any vote where their religion may take a stand.
How can the Constitution emphatically not say anything?

Duh, I am emphatically telling you that the Constitution does not say that. See? Why did you respond to everything except my point.

0 Replies

Eorl, I appreciate your indignation. Your position is valid. There seems to be a growing polarization similar to what the philosopher, Gregory Bateson, called "schismogenesis": the tendency for polar opposites to magnify, through interaction--as a form of mutual causation--their differences and strength of opposition. In our culture it seems that fundamentalists have opposed central conclusions of "secular" science by creating their own pseudo-science (i.e., creationism and intelligent design) as a substitute for the otherwise hegemonic authority of Western Science. At the same time, there appears to be--perhaps as a reaction to the "medieval" backwardness of fundamentalist ideology, and as a residuum of the Enlightenment--a one-sided and exaggerated construction of the nature and role of science. Scientism is a kind of quasi-religion, conceived as the only alternative to fundamentalist religion. To me, science has its profoundly instrumental, indeed indispensable, functions regarding understanding and control of the physical world. And, to me, there are many forms of religious thought that are philosophically and psychologically-mystically useful and inspirational having no resemblance to fundamentalism.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

My point (yet again) is that you and I have different ways...therefore... THERE IS A DIVISION and I think it is growing.

I am at a loss to understand why you would think this is bad if you truly do believe that each of us should have as an inherent right our own subjective standards of right and wrong.

You should be cheering on the division and encouraging the fracture until it splinters into a million factions, each with it's own standard of right and wrong.

And above all, you should not be telling anyone that they are wrong about anything if you are to be true to your convictions.

0 Replies

JL, thanks I appreciate it. I had not heard of Bateson but it seems like a logical theory. It would be interesting politically and sociologically to understand the importance of the time delay between the strengthening of each pole in relation to the other. Understanding "events" such as the French revolution or Tian'anmen square would perhaps depend on understanding the delay factor. Better understanding could lead to prevention?

real life, you've almost got it.... Rolling Eyes

....all those things you are saying I shouldn't be saying.....I'm not. (even though I may or may not hold that view). Read through one more time.

0 Replies

Religion the great divider.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know