Religion is not a hindrance to advancing as a people scientifically, intellectually, or otherwise. To state otherwise is patently false and ignores the totality of human existence. [inlink]jason,298[/inlink] --jason
Jason, don't know about patently false, that sounds like a bit of an exaggeration in country where we have been fighting to teach evolution [inlink]paul,3438[/inlink] in school for a century and where people are dying of all sort of diseases that can be cured or alleviated by advancements associated with stem cell research.
I think you could say, "Believing in religion, without acting upon it, is not a hindrance to advancing as a people scientifically, intellectually, or otherwise. " But who believs in religion without acting upon it. And if they do, do they really believe?
I would like to use this example speech at whitehouse.gov by the President George Bush in regard to Stem Cell research as an example of when religious influence hinders science.
I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet, and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection. And I have found widespread disagreement . . . Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America. --GW Bush
I don't want the social and legal policy I am subjected to based on my ultimate executive's prayer power in any way.
Surely, we can develop other methods of getting stem cells in the future so that we can avoid having to use embryonic ones. But the embryonic stem cell method exists here now and many people could be helped by the research that will be dead by the time we catch up with other methods. Furthermore, I am terrified of other countries having access to this technology before we do. Especially China.
Saying "I believeeeee in God" has never hindered me in any way, and it never will. -jason
That is fine for you because you are the one believing but what about the people whose lives affected by the social and legal policy agenda set forth by the believers. Belief in God is not safe in a free society where the people with the belief are also able to make social and legal policy based on those beliefs, for people that do not believe in the same God or do not believe in God at all. And if the people making policy that believ in God do not let God's desires influence them, then do they really believ in God?
There isn't anyone alive who can say with any matter of truth or authority God is real or not.[inlink]jason,298[/inlink] --jason
I think this is precisely why many people are uncomfortable submitted to the desires of God's moral and ethic code.
I agree with twisted. And ask a question. What moral base do you want our leaders to work from?
"Free society" requires respect for other beliefs otherwise we are reduced to self interested individuals and are working to eliminated the basic structures of "community".
You know I believe in God, but you have your beliefs as well. I feel community means I respect you and the imposition that your beliefs my cause me. If I feel too uncomfortable, there are vias to resolve it, even legal ways that could possibly effect the nation.
That's why I appreciate this post because the one thing that insures my and your freedom is: open discussion.
P.S. If you feel so strongly about stem cell research I think you could really help to make it legal. How about that for a belief?
"Belief in God is not safe in a free society where the people with the belief are also able to make social and legal policy based on those beliefs, for people that do not believe in the same God or do not believe in God at all."
Correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but wouldn't that make JFK, RFK, MLK, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, etc all dangerous leaders? Are you saying only people who don't believe in any god should be allowed to make legal policy? That's a pretty big leap from the freedom of religion and belief guaranteed by the Constitution. I think your concern is addressed in the separation of church and state part. Of course, that brings up another problem - the same one that plagues both legislation and religion. Intrinsically self-evident, moral codes are only as effective as the fallible human beings interpreting them. But that's all we got. You can argue a human with your exact profile will "interpret" better than another. But everyone else feels the same way.
So maybe you should run for public office? I might even vote for you.
p.s. - I think there are a lot of things fucked up about this country. But in my opinion, the basic tenets are still be best out there. I'm sad so many people abuse/twist them. But that doesn't make them wrong. Same thing goes for religion, in my book.
Thanks for the fair post, Paul.