| Topic Name: |
Idea for Stem Cell Controversy |
| Message Name: |
nice try futurerule... |
| Date Posted: |
06/03/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
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."
|
| Message: |
Point #1: Please stop trying to tell me "people who oppose it wouldn't want to benefit from it." We both know that's bull. It's like atheists suddenly praying to God when facing an extreme situation. If you truly believe that someone against stem cell research finds themself facing a situation where their loved one is laying in a hospital bed and the only way to improve their deterioration is to use innovation stemming from that research that they would refuse it, you know nothing about the human condition. In fact, depending on the situation, it might even be criminal.
Point #2: I said nothing about the 1st Amendment so please take your text book knowledge elsewhere. It is uniformally understood that in present day America the seperation of church and state extends beyond lawmaking. You couldn't be more wrong when you write, "It says nothing about religion's influence on society." Interpretation allows today's society to be free of any ruler(s)' influence based on their personal religious beliefs. No, it is not against the law to do so but by making decisions that effect the public based in part or in whole on one's religious beliefs, by definition, infringes upon another's.
I'm guessing you are young and quoting from your hardly scuffed text book. As someone who is intimately familar with the legal system at a very high level, it is commonly known that it is not the written law that that matters as its interpretation.
Word of advice, unless presenting in front of the Supreme Court, please do not quote the Constitution in a future debate, it unmasks a grave lack of experience.
|
|
