its never going to happen, stupid instiutions such as the contemperary churches of today, along with the stupid masses have the final say in our stupid government
this isnt really a gray area though. abortion is killing, the only REAL argument is why certian people seem to think that abortion is bad and in most cases seem to think taht droping bombs on schools because we are in a war is ok, the same 'christian right' that gives us epic fights over a womans right to choose also thinks its a great idea to go too the other side of the world and just start blowing shit up. its not gray areas its flat out hypocracy.SODAssault said:Understood. I've already heard the majority of "when does life begin" arguments, and I agree, the whole thing is, for lack of a better word, a clusterfuck in terms of clearly-defined laws. "When does life begin" doesn't seem to be so much of a case based on fact as it is a case being argued over opinions and pre-conceived notions, and neither of which are provably wrong, and therefore neither side is more legitimate than the other.Wyatt said:-snip-
But until the issue is solved in its entirety, we're going to continue to operate in the gray area.
EDIT: And by "we", I mean everybody. Pro-choice continuing to practice abortion, and Pro-life continuing to campaign against it.
Wyatt said:Wall of text.
It's Texas. One day it will be a law, and then when they can't get anyone to come play football at their colleges because their education laws stink, they'll change it back to the way the majority of the country teaches (that YEC is not valid and evolution is).SODAssault said:Here's a fun fact: the Texas Board of Education is pushing to make young-earth creationism taught exclusively over evolution. They're also attempting to make Abstinence the only form of birth control taught in schools (see how well that worked for Bristol Palin? Flawlessly, am I right?) These are both based on people with fierce religious beliefs in government positions trying to force their religious doctrine on others. (Oh, but it's a-okay by the First Amendment, because it's not technically a law. La-dee-fucking-dah.)
They can clone stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Thousands of people are donating their cord blood to research, and that only adds to the reserve. Only problem was until 2006, cord blood fell under the specific embryonic stem cell wording of the stupid ban.MoganFreeman said:They found a source of stem cells that doesn't use frozen embryos.
Everybody's happy now.
To the first point about the decentralization of the federal government:Nimbus said:Ridergurl10 said:If we did this we wouldn't be the UNITED States, we would be a loose confederacy, as much as it sometimes sucks national laws and legislature are necessary. If you don't like the people in office vote for someone else. It's the beauty of a democracy.thiosk said:The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.
Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.
What if you don't like the alternatives, either? That's the problem with a democracy.
So, here's the question:McClaud said:It's Texas. One day it will be a law, and then when they can't get anyone to come play football at their colleges because their education laws stink, they'll change it back to the way the majority of the country teaches (that YEC is not valid and evolution is).SODAssault said:Here's a fun fact: the Texas Board of Education is pushing to make young-earth creationism taught exclusively over evolution. They're also attempting to make Abstinence the only form of birth control taught in schools (see how well that worked for Bristol Palin? Flawlessly, am I right?) These are both based on people with fierce religious beliefs in government positions trying to force their religious doctrine on others. (Oh, but it's a-okay by the First Amendment, because it's not technically a law. La-dee-fucking-dah.)
The only things more powerful than God in Texas are the Longhorns and the Cowboys.
(BTW Kansas tried this a few years ago, and since their kids weren't getting into universities because they couldn't explain evolution, Kansas realized how fucking retarded they were and went back to teaching evolution. Pissed off Senator Brownback something fierce, but them's the breaks)
This is true.Ridergurl10 said:Also just because religion works it's way into some laws does not mean there is no separation of church and state. Separation of church and state simply means that there is no state religion, which there isn't in the US. So we do have a separation of church and state.
I disagree with you here to some extent. The separation of church and state means that the government may not promote or enforce religion on anyone, but it guarantees religious freedom. I would suggest that this means there have to be certain laws protecting religion. For instance laws against dismissing workers based upon their religious beliefs, or writing into law that employers can't compell Christian employees to work during Easter Sunday or Christmas day. While such laws may not acknowledge religion directly, they do acknowledge religious belief among the population.Knonsense said:The separation of church and state means that political *establishments* and religious *establishments* must stay separate. No laws may be made that acknowledge religion.
Knonsense said:Fetal stem cell research is unrelated to the church. Religious establishments may take a stance in the matter, but that does not make it an exclusively religious issue.
Fetal stem cell research brings with it ethical questions that are independent of religion and religious establishments. If you claim that the value of life and the ethics it carries with it belong in the domain of religion and have no place in government, then murder (by definition, wrongful killing) does not exist in law. Obviously this is an extreme case and I don't want to come across as some slippery slope retard, but if the government finds itself making decisions based on the principle of avoiding any kind of intersection with religious issues, then it's dependent on religious establishments, which is the opposite of what separation of church and state is supposed to mean.
Thank you, I didn't have the specifics off the top of my head.McClaud said:They can clone stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Thousands of people are donating their cord blood to research, and that only adds to the reserve. Only problem was until 2006, cord blood fell under the specific embryonic stem cell wording of the stupid ban.MoganFreeman said:They found a source of stem cells that doesn't use frozen embryos.
Everybody's happy now.
a human fetus's native enviroment is the womb. in no way does a native enviroment determin the validity of life. id say my point is 100% accurate and relivent.SODAssault said:The analogy comparing fetuses to astronauts and submariners is actually not very good, at all. No human is able to live under the sea or in the vacuum of space, but we can live in the environment native to us. All humans can live in their native environment, so to argue that a fetus is a human life by using that analogy is a contradiction.
in my opinion life BEGAN when God created it, ill also allow for the other opinion that life began in some slime pool a billion years ago just for the sake of making a point. that point is that when sperm meets egg its a simple continuation of that original creation of life. the 'circle of life' isnt a process of stops and starts. its an ongoing thing, life is passed on by the life before it and will in its turn usualy pass on life of its own. it might be arrogent to say that sperm/egg = life, but isnt it just flat out stupid to say it doesnt?While I agree that all humans are brutal killers at heart (some latent, some... not so much), and am not bothered at all by the prospect of murder in its many forms, I still contend that abortion is not murder. I don't need to justify it to myself or anybody else in order to make me feel better about it; it simply cannot be accurately stated with any measure of certainty whether or not life begins at conception.
There's a word to describe people that state, with certainty, something that they can't be bothered to provide physical evidence and reasoned logic to prove; that word is "arrogant".
im fully aware this isnt a choice/life thread. im not shure mind you what the thread actualy IS, but since pro choice/pro life is the basis for stem cell research regulations and since you brought up that topic as an example of why we should 'remove' religion from the Government, id say its topical if nothing else.If you've got the end-all argument to prove that abortion is murder, then at the very least, make your own thread; at best, show it to everybody in Washington so they can finally shut the hell up about the issue. Provide me with incontrovertible evidence, and I will gracefully concede the point.
Until then, keep this close in mind: this isn't a pro-life vs. pro-choice thread.
whos being arrogent now? seems to me that its kinda funny that after 4000 years, pretty much all of western civilization including every civilization FROM that bronze age to our 'ultra modern' one have tryed to DISPROVE God and havent be able too at every turn. id be awful carefull about flat out saying something is a myth or wrong, when all of human history and 'science' has been unable too prove that as fact.And I certainly don't want to leave important decisions in the hands of people that choose to believe in Bronze-age superstitions and self-contradictory tales.
whos going 'off topic' now?Here's a fun fact: the Texas Board of Education is pushing to make young-earth creationism taught exclusively over evolution. They're also attempting to make Abstinence the only form of birth control taught in schools (see how well that worked for Bristol Palin? Flawlessly, am I right?) These are both based on people with fierce religious beliefs in government positions trying to force their religious doctrine on others. (Oh, but it's a-okay by the First Amendment, because it's not technically a law. La-dee-fucking-dah.)
great point. i also find myself in 100% agreement with you. i tryed to make this point in my overblown way when i spoke of morality and religion going hand in hand but as usual i got too windy for my own good and didnt quite nail it down like you did.kawligia said:Separation of church and state means that government will not give benefits to any religion's members and will not enforce a religion's laws that do not have any other rational justification for being law other than religious belief.
Opposition to stem cell research is NOT a part of Christianity. The bible does not say "Thou shalt not perform stem cell research." Those people DO TEND to share the belief that stem cell research is wrong b/c of their similar beliefs about the origins of life, but it's still not an actual part of the religion. A law against stem cell research is not a religious law any more than "Do not commit murder" is a religious law simply because Christianity accepts it.
You can be one and not the other. I consider myself a Christian and I am 100% in favor of stem cell research.
Well since atheist states have fared just as badly as full on theocracies it is difficult to really make this case credible. The best route, as always, is freedom. Allow people to choose for themselves. In this regard, the USA is a secular state. That people are religious living the USA doesn't make it a religious state at all.Pandalisk said:The separation will never happen for the simple fact that religious politicians cant help but try and force their dogma into the goverment policy ect
the fact that the church has been a dominative force in politics since the olden times (though its wanning quite a bit they dont have the power they once had)
and many other factors, means that this is impossible unless you have an athiest goverment, with an athiest majority of population (agnostic works too) and even then the religious will scream of at the tops of thier lungs at the heretic state and how it should be burned to the ground because of the unjustice of it all
for separation of governments you need
A/ athiest/agnostic/logical or at least reasonable religious, people in power
B/ athiest majority, since the masses of religious will certainly oppose the separation of state and religon
and probably some other factors but i am tired, in short, Separation will never happen, at least not yet,maybe in some european countries since after reading what i think is about a year old, report, athiesm is on the rise in europe
Its not about the effectiveness of the state were talking about, its the separation of it that matters, now maybe i was being a bit extreme in my words i give you that, but we still need a state separated from religious ideology because nothing but trouble can be caused by it, now i have nothing but respect for those who leave their religion at the doors of congress etc and pick it up again when they leave, but those extremist that attempt to pass religious dogma and pass religious laws on those who do not follow that faith. you are going to cause a nightmare! i have nothing against religious people in power its when they use their power to force their opinions onto others that i hate with a passion, its a massive threat to that American constitution of yours toocuddly_tomato said:Well since atheist states have fared just as badly as full on theocracies it is difficult to really make this case credible. The best route, as always, is freedom. Allow people to choose for themselves. In this regard, the USA is a secular state. That people are religious living the USA doesn't make it a religious state at all.Pandalisk said:The separation will never happen for the simple fact that religious politicians cant help but try and force their dogma into the goverment policy ect
the fact that the church has been a dominative force in politics since the olden times (though its wanning quite a bit they dont have the power they once had)
and many other factors, means that this is impossible unless you have an athiest goverment, with an athiest majority of population (agnostic works too) and even then the religious will scream of at the tops of thier lungs at the heretic state and how it should be burned to the ground because of the unjustice of it all
for separation of governments you need
A/ athiest/agnostic/logical or at least reasonable religious, people in power
B/ athiest majority, since the masses of religious will certainly oppose the separation of state and religon
and probably some other factors but i am tired, in short, Separation will never happen, at least not yet,maybe in some european countries since after reading what i think is about a year old, report, athiesm is on the rise in europe
A/ Happened in the USA before (Abe Lincoln was an atheist).
B/ Not true at all.
A site, with religious people, supporting seperation of church and state:-
http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/
And another...
http://www.aclu.org/about/
And there are more...
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://interfaithalliance.org/about
Now that, I can (almost) completely agree with. A few little points I do disagree with though.Pandalisk said:Its not about the effectiveness of the state were talking about , its the separation of it that matters, now maybe i was being a bit extreme in my words i give you that, but we still need a state separated from religious ideology because nothing but trouble can be caused by it, now i have nothing but respect for those who leave their religion at the doors of congress etc and pick it up again when they leave, but those extremist that attempt to pass religious dogma and pass religious laws on those who do not follow that faith. you are going to cause a nightmare! i have nothing against religious people in power its when they use their power to force their opinions onto others that i hate with a passion, its a massive threat to that American constitution of yours too
Yes, but you can easily find examples from secular states and atheist states which do more or less the same thing. Idiotic people make those decisions, and they make those decisions because they are idiots. That they happen to be religious doesn't really make a big difference, religion doesn't make one an idiot.Pandalisk said:an example? lets learn a little history shall we? THE GODDAMN PROHIBITION
Back in 1919 protestant nut groups decided the government should force their god given right to hate drink, so to deliver us all from their temptation they muscled through a constitutional amendment forbidding the manufacturing sale or transportation of alcohol for beverage purposes, but people wanted their hooch and a whole underworld of bootleggers, a violent gangmen and lowlife stepped up to supply the demand, alot of people were fucked up by improperly made alchohol and alot of people killed over prohibition disputes, it was a big fuck up and it proves my point perfectly why religion should be separated from state.the freedom to get blind fucking drunk is every americans right providing they dont hurt anyone while doing it and thats the way it should be, the religious Set Fire to your rights for gods sake.
Once more, that is different. Rather than address it here, I will just link this short column from the Independant [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-atheists-and-believers-have-got-religion-wrong-461594.html]. It makes a case the circumstances drive those wedges inbetween people, rather than what they actually believe.Pandalisk said:and also i'm rather confused that you think people are that accepting of one another, thinking that people wont cry at in uproar if someone in power is a different religion than them, or people in power wont persecute those of different religions to him/her under their government. I can tell you my friend, have never lived in Good O'l ireland huh?