Perhaps. But I’m not talking about whether there is a “chilling effect” or not. I’m adressing the issue of politicians looking to their religion to inform them on ethical decsions.
The suggestion made above was sell beyong the ideaa of providing “cover”-- it was suggested that they were trying to deliberatly confuse people about two different branches of research. Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. They’re just as likely to confuse the voters whom they don’t want to confuse.
They introduce bills all the time that have no chance of passage. In fact, that is a sure sign of political pandering. Why not do it now? They did it with SSM and with the “withdraw immediately form Iraq” idea.
You are forgetting what it was that I was defending. My point was that politicians are perfectly within their rights to use religious moral convictions when making decisions. Whether or not I personally think this can be justified morally is a different issue altogether.
Exactly. I’m all for emrbyonic stem cell research, and I suspect you are, too. But I’m an atheist-- were I a Christian, I’d probably be against it, too.
If this is true, and both viewpoints are equally confused, the Republicans would have a net gain in support, because 63% of the voters support embryonic stem cell research. Even if 37% who oppose it are equally confused, there is a net gain for Republicans.
Well, actually, this is the area where my libertarianism breaks down…I am Catholic, and so I see “life” issues a little differently than you do. (Although I respect your position 100%) It may be true that the embryos used are going to be destroyed, and in that case, I am not sure I would oppose the research. However, I have a HUGE, HUGE moral problem with those embryos existing in the first place.
As far as religious people in government, I have no problem with that. I agree that the government is secular, but people are not, and we are supposed to have a representative government. If the people elected GW, then they have a right for him to be the kind of man they elected. I don’t believe in running the government according to polls. People elected GW for a myriad of reasons, not just on this one issue. If 63% of them disagree with him on ESC research, that doesn’t mean that he has to take than into account when deciding on what bills to veto. I would much rather elect someone I disagreed with on a certain issue, but still have him hold to his personal conviction on it, than have him blowing whichever way the wind tells him to.
So, are they within their rights, or is it wrong? You said:
Whether or not you see “real world logic” (which the President may or may not see, as this is a pretty subjective area), or whether or not you think that the possible good it could do for people outweighs the moral evil of destroying embryos (another matter of opinion), doesn’t matter. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that religious people have to set aside their religion when making decisions in government.
The two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m within my rights, legally speaking, to, say, promote the concept that white people are genetically superior to all other races. That does not make it right, morally speaking.
As for religion in government, certainly, it would be impossible for a religious person in office to wholly seperate their religious beliefs from their moral convictions. However, I also feel that it is a moral wrong to impose laws that have no basis other than religious beliefs on a population that does not necessarily share those religious beliefs. There are good, non-religious reasons for feeding and clothing the poor. I am not aware of any good, non-religious reasons to oppose stem cell research. If Bush has no reasoning to veto this bill other than his own interpretation of scripture, then he is doing a disservice both to his office, and to his country.
'course, this is Bush we’re talking about here, so this should come as a surprise to no one.
It may surprise you, but there are atheists, not to mention people of every other religion besides Christianity, who are pro-life. GW may have formed his convictions because of his religion, but that does not mean that there are no good, non-religious reasons to be pro-life. My personal views on this have very, very little to do with being Catholic, and I could easily see myself leaving religion behind (I struggle with spiritual issues) before I would ever change my mind about this.
Who’s talking about abortion? I thought we were talking about stem cell research. Which, as you are surely aware, does not cause the destruction of any embryos which were not slated to be destroyed anyway. If you have a problem with that, then you need to stop worrying about stem cells and start working to outlaw the ferilization techniques that led to their creation in the first place. Outlawing stem cell research won’t save a single embryo.
Especially since another bill (which Bush is expected to sign) specifically prohibits “embryo farming”, or creating embryos for the express purposes of research.
To be fair, it’s the federal funding that would be outlawed, not the field itself (although that alone would probably have a significant effect on research in the field).
No, there are not. Care to prove otherwise ? Being “pro-life” is, in fact a denigration of life; by claiming a few cells have the value of an actual person, the “pro-life” view reduces people to nothing more valuable than a smear on a petri dish.
This affair is a case in point; the “pro-life” movement is willing to sacrifice any number of people for it’s cause by suppressing/hindering stem cell research. They don’t care about the people who will suffer and die, because to a “pro-lifer” actual human life is expendable.