Election Day

[Mitsurugi CP]

How about some insight from the founding fathers of the United States?

If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.

Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opnions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on a man.

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose

The proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those priviledges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natual right.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries.

The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.

And for those of you who still aren't influenced...

"Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of the American population regularly attended religious services to quote just one statistic. Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted national commitment to Christianity! It is a matter of simple historical fact that the United States was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a Christian nation.
That there were strong, long-lasting Christian influences involved in the nation's earliest history, due to the Puritan settlements and those of other religious persons escaping European persecution, cannot be denied. But that is a long way from saying that colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak of the Revolution, were intending to form a nation founded on specifically Christian principles and doctrine.
We Christians do ourselves no favor by bending history to suit our prejudices or to accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style fantasy that says America is a Christian nation that needs to be "taken back" from secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what we never had), it would be much healthier for us Christians to face reality, holding to what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that Christians should never be surprised at the hostility with which the gospel would be greeted by the world, because most people would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly implying that, in every age and country, Christianity would always be a minority faith."

Pastor Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, August 1995

[Lord Golbez]

I guess that depends on what you mean by influence? The founding fathers have never had a very great influence on my opinion. If you expect that their opinions, which I feel in many manners were greatly flawed, will mold my own on the matter of religion, it hardly needs to be said that you are mistaken. If you only mean to convince me that America was not created as a Christian nation, I barely need any convincing, for as it is, I barely consider Pagans *ahem*, excuse me, Puritans to be Christians.

[Patchingko]

The founding fathers were all very strongly in favor of the secular nation, and that's why they designed this country the way they did, regardless of the huge Christian population. Ben Franklin is rolling in his grave.

This is something I've talked to a number of people scared about the sudden upsurge in pro-Christian language and decision-making by politicians of both major parties.

We are supposed to be the secular nation, the response to a Christian-run Europe. We don't want priests, bishops and the Pope dictating our policy in the interest of religion or their own gains.

Look at Mel Gibson, talking trash about California for passing the stem cell proposition because it's "ending a life." Anyone with a brain not being controlled by the church realizes that no matter what, this research is going to be done somewhere. If we don't do it, someone else, be it Japanese, Korean, English or French, will, and they will have the rights to whatever is produced from the research. This is one of those issues I find stratified over the two major parties--people who logically think about the issue realize that the research needs to be funded to keep America from falling behind, and those who do what the Pope says blindly rally against it.

Anyhow, the country is going in a dangerous direction. Non-Christians are all wary of what's going to become of this supposed haven of religious tolerance and freedom.

[Lord Golbez]

I don't see why I should care if America "falls behind." Better to set a good example doing it than push on ahead in the spirit of capitalism.

[Patchingko]

You should care because our economy and health care system are already in the shitter, and having other countries' scientists discover the treatment and cures for our ailments means even greater drain on both. Not to mention that embryonic stem cells don't even come from viable embryos that would otherwise lead to a human in the future, but from embryos that will never reach that point because they'll either be destroyed or frozen for eternity.

But hey, you can always take the noble route when you or a loved one is dying of liver disease, Alzheimer's, leukemia or Parkinson's and not accept whatever treatment comes out of the research. I'm sure as you lose control over your own muscles or become unable to recognize family members, you'll feel very secure in the fact that you arbitrarily listened to the church instead of actually finding out what stem cell research entails and making the decision on your own.

At least God won't hate you, right? Because the Pope said he wouldn't, and God listens to the Pope.

[Lord Golbez]

You're such a biased idiot. You automatically assume that I only believe in protecting all life because my religion says its a good thing. If that we're true, would I be vegan? It's not like Catholicism promotes vegetarianism except maybe as some sort of ascetic thing. My opposityion to stem cell research comes from my opposition to destruction of life for any reason, and the real thing I oppose is that those embryos are frozen or destroyed to begin with, not the research that may take place afterward, I only worry thast advocating stem cell research will encourage more lives to be destroyed, because it's "for a good cause." In response to your sarcastic appeal to emotion, I cannot say whether I would deny the results of stem cell research *a;though if the treatment involved more death, I certainly would) once its been done, but certainly if I was struck with one of those diseases today, I would not start advocating stem cell research.

[Patchingko]

My opposityion to stem cell research comes from my opposition to destruction of life for any reason, and the real thing I oppose is that those embryos are frozen or destroyed to begin with, not the research that may take place afterward, I only worry thast advocating stem cell research will encourage more lives to be destroyed, because it's "for a good cause."

I'm the idiot? That's like opposing people who buy bread because they use it to make sandwiches that contain cold cuts. The material is there, so why not take advantage of it?

Consider the fact that this research would save countless lives and you've got quite the dilemma on your hands, don't you life-boy? I guess you'd rather both those embryos be killed and go to waste and not be used to help save the lives of the living, right? Because clearly that way more lives are being spared (oh wait... no, you're still being a moron).

I missed you, Kneepads. :frank

[Lord Golbez]

It's not right to detsroy life to try to save life. Even if you save more lives one way, I still say it's wrong to actively seek to destroy lives to do it. Amd yes, you are being an idiot for lumping everyone who is against stem cell research into one category. Clearly, everyone who opposes stem cell research simply thinks what the pope tells them to, even the ones who think the pope is the Antichrist.

And no, of course I'm not included in that last group of people. I would be much closer to the people who think what the pope says, but I don't do that. There are issues on which i disagree with the pope. It just so happens that we do think a like in various respects though and no i'm not so ignorant as to deny that my catholic upbringing would have something to do with that, but reducing my thoughts to my upbringing is foolish and at any rate it would have to be done equally to every person.

[Patchingko]

I was using the general "you" in the post you're whining about, not referring to you specifically.

Your opinion comes from an idiotic ideal that life should never be sacrificed for the greater good. Would we would be able to exist as we do today without the death of other life? No.

I hate to break this to you Kneepads, but that's life. If you consider a cluster of unthinking cells to be equivalent to a fully grown human being, you're simply a moron. Then again, I've already shown numerous times how hypocritical your anti-death-of-any-life stance is since you're a vegetarian, and plants are equally as alive as anything else. Not to mention that you take drugs and use products that are the result of animal testing, and cooperate in a society that is based on the death of other life. But now, you can't even use the argument that mice or plants aren't equivalent to men because you're saying you'd rather an embryo that will never reach a developed stage not be used to do research that will save human lives.

I mean, shit, at least the Pope can say it's because God told him to believe it's wrong. You're just off your gourde on these types of issues, as you've always been.

[Lord Golbez]

Um....no. I think human life is more valuable than animal life, and an embryo is still human life.

[Patchingko]

If you consider a cluster of unthinking cells to be equivalent to a fully grown human being, you're simply a moron.

[Kakeru]

I'm just a little curious... when did we start talking about Stem Cell reasearch?


Not trying to side with anyone, but technically humans ARE animals. We only consider ourselves to be more important because of our accomplishments. Which essentially makes the entire human race a bunch of arrogant fuckbags doesn't it?

[Lord Golbez]

If you consider a cluster of unthinking cells to be equivalent to a fully grown human being, you're simply a moron.

I think you're being foolish. The full genetic structure is there. it's simply a matter of time for development. I could choose to reduce a fully grown person into a "cluster of differentiated cells," but just because that's what a human is in some sense, doesn't reduce the value of the person. Yes, they are "unthinking," but the full human potential is still there.

[Patchingko]

The potential is there, but they aren't a human being yet and you know it. You'd rather they become a human being than be used to save other human beings. It's not equivalent to murder of one person for the sake of another because they aren't people yet. Saying otherwise is foolishness right there.

[Doom]

hey kids it's bioethics class

[Lord Golbez]

I don't see why one would make the restriction that until they can think, they're not human. As it is, t would seem to me that the restriction is rather vague.

[TO]

whats wrong with destroying life? it has its uses.

im pro stem cell research, pro choice, pro suicide, pro rednecks accidentally shooting each other in a drunken stupor, etc.

anything that gets the freeway moving faster

[Patchingko]

I don't see why one would make the restriction that until they can think, they're not human. As it is, t would seem to me that the restriction is rather vague.

Cells differentiating to the point of being equivalent to a human being. Just having the genetic structure of a human being doesn't make something equivalent to a human being. I said nothing about "thinking".

But hey, if you want to avoid the issue that it's a death sentance for a number of fully grown people, that's fine by me. I don't have any guilt about it.

[Mitsurugi CP]

Hypocrisy for fun.

What I find funny is that Creationist Christians attempt to argue about the validity of life from a genetical standpoint when much of the basis of Genetic Theory lies in Evolutionary theory. Explain that one.

Sadly, many Christians today don't practice what they preach. Piousness has been replaced with arrogance and gloating. They assume to "know" the will of God, a being by their definition who is infinitely more intelligent and powerful than the entire human race combined, and if that weren't bad enough, they feel a need to force their beliefs on others. They are playing the role of the Romans and the Pharisees in the time of Jesus. These aren't people who are close to God - quite the opposite. People can talk about how much they read the Bible, but it seems as if some of the most important passages and meanings are skimmed over - teachings such as the Beatitudes.

As for stem cell research, these cells are being harvested from DEAD FETUSES. You can't get much deader than that. And these are from abortions, so it's not like the researcher is to blame for what happened.

Someone else decided to abort their baby. Researchers will make sure that fetus did not die in vain. That fetus has the potential to become a hero as opposed to becoming a decomposing pile of tissue.

[Undine]

hey kids it's bioethics class

Ya rly mang. At least we haven't started arguing about the definition of thought... yet...

[Kage]

The moment that you think god is your personal god, it is no longer a valid god.

[Lord Golbez]

Someone else decided to abort their baby. Researchers will make sure that fetus did not die in vain. That fetus has the potential to become a hero as opposed to becoming a decomposing pile of tissue.

That's an interesting point, and I don't fully disagree with it. My real problem is the idea that the baby would be better for stem cell research that might cause some deliberators to choose abortion.

As for Creationist Christians, I'm not one so I couldn't really say.

[j0hn Ayanami]

The moment that you think god is your personal god, it is no longer a valid god.

Does that god still exist though?

[Kakeru]

So... we all agree that the human race is a bunch of arrogant fuckbags right? I mean, I haven't exactly heard anyone defending the human race... So I guess I'm just right about this.

[Mitsurugi CP]

Someone else decided to abort their baby. Researchers will make sure that fetus did not die in vain. That fetus has the potential to become a hero as opposed to becoming a decomposing pile of tissue.

That's an interesting point, and I don't fully disagree with it. My real problem is the idea that the baby would be better for stem cell research that might cause some deliberators to choose abortion.

As for Creationist Christians, I'm not one so I couldn't really say.

Actually, that last part was sarcasm.

And I don't see why stem cell research would encourage people to have an abortion. The process itself can have many negative consequences for the female as well. It's also an expensive process. You're not going to go have an abortion so someone can have a research specimen.

[Kage]

people talk about abortions as if everybody wants to kill their own offspring without any emotions.

[Patchingko]

You're not going to go have an abortion so someone can have a research specimen.

Where do you think Garbo came from?

OH SIHT!

[WaWard]

Hey guys, how about that Dubya guy?

[fire2ash]

He's smart.