| Topic Name: |
Idea for Stem Cell Controversy |
| Message Name: |
No, you still don't get it |
| Date Posted: |
06/02/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
Please refer to my initial posting...if those against stem cell research find they depend on those findings sometime in the future, they should not have that option of its services.
I don't need someone else's morals (in this case usually based on religion) effecting my or my loved ones' quality of life.
Seperation of church and state is just an afterthought these days. |
| Message: |
Your initial post said, "when stem cell research finally breaks through and cures cancer or Parkinson's, all those who oppose it cannot benefit."
What you don't seem to understand is that those who oppose it wouldn't WANT to benefit from it because they wouldn't use ANY of the cures based on moral grounds. And if you're a journalist covering this story, you need to understand their viewpoint.
You don't understand the separation of church and state either. That phrase doesn??t exist in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. It's from a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote on January 1, 1802??11 years after the First Amendment was ratified.
But you might want to brush up on the First Amendment if you're a journalist. It says the state can't make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or favoring one particular religion. It says nothing about religion's influence on society. It guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
FIRST AMENDMENT
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
|
|
