[Wetzel]

Ok, I just found started reading this thread today. First off, I am a fairly devout Lutheran. Mostly due to my paster I had from whenI was 6-16. He was a scholar first I belive. HE went and read the orginals in the Greek and Hewbrew and whathave you. He then but them in cultural context of the times. Logic and religion do go together, in my opinion. BTW, all statements contained herein are mine and are not represenative inanyway of my team.
Now, to reply to some individual points...

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
In all scientific studies, cloning works, and thereputic cloning can help people who have lost limbs, eyes, incurable diseases, etc.
...

I doubt this is true, simply because it hasn't gotten that far yet. I have no evidence other then statistical logic.

Originally posted by Replic

...
Religion IS politics, there is no seperation. People are ran by their beliefs and morals, or supposedly are. In order to look like he's letting morals and not politics guide him, he is following religion as closely as possible.
...

I agree. Its his morals that define him as religious. (Or is it the other way around?) I thought that someone standing up for what they believed was a good thing. Granted, they should listen to arguments against what they believe, and of swayed, then change their mind after thought.
At least by using his morals rather then politics there is a better chance to understand which way he will vote on a given issue.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
i guess the "seperation of church and state" never really happened. it's time's like this where i believe democracy comes close to failing. one idiot who manages to make it to the top can screw everyone over. hopefully smart senators (like those behind Daschle and his counter bill) will prevail
...

The seperation of church and state means that there is no established church. In other words, one is not favored or discouraged more or less then any other. Precluding religion from politics and government compleatly would shut out the morals and beliefs of a large percentage of Americans.
I unforunatly must take offense at the 'smart senators' bit. That is basicly saying that those who don't share your viewpoint are stupid. I would have to draw a parallel to FIRST. If you think the best way to win is to be a ball bot, would you think that goal bots are stupid? I hope not. There are merits to both sides of the argument. Please refrain from calling one side or the other stupid.


LittleLee, thanks for stoping with the all caps, it bought back memories of the Apple, and reminded me how old I am getting.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
now, why can't government and religion mix? well, a very simple reason. each religion has different ideas. catholicism is very strict, belives in traditions, and so on, while sometihng like say, Hinduism, is a very different religion, with very differnet views. take that, and the amount of diversity within a nation, and you have a potential deadly mix. look at India. durig their independence movements, religion and government mixed. the result, chaos. same thing with Israel
...

So what about the special interest groups? They are just as diverse as the religions. Envrionmentalists, car manufaturers, abortion activists(for and against), gun control, anti-globalization, the list goes on and on. I see great diversity there, and many don't get along. I do not see the fighting here among religions that there is/was in other countys, and I belive that is because of our freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by Replic

...
Politics are controlled by people who believe in a religion, thus bringing them together. It is impossible to seperate. And for the record, Aethism is a belief and therefore might consitute as a religion, so no, aetheist presidents will do no better than WASP ones. For those of you that don't know what WASP is, according to statisitcs (though I may be wrong with Bush...) every president up to Clinton had been White Anglo Saxon Protestant, EXCEPT for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I do not know Bush's religion so I'm not sure if this is true anymore
...

I agree that they are married. Bush is Protestant, so it does hold up.

Originally posted by Replic

...
As for cloning- the payback from it could be amazing. Diseases convential medicine can't cure could be cured. Limbs lost will no long be life-changing but a temporary experience as a new limb is quickly grown. To hold back this research is ludicrous!
...

It could be amazing. Diseases could be cured. I agree with that. But that could is two sided. For now, my DNA is uniquely mine. DNA is even used in court to determine guilt or inocence. I think that things like this are being forgotten in the wake of 'THIS could BE A CURE FOR CANCER'. I think that there are many aspects that need to be considered, but are being forgotten. Coloning is a mojor technological feat. Once we start on humans, I do not see it stoping. That is the major reason that I currently do not support human cloning. There should be time to think these things through. What is the legal status of a 'clone'? Would they be the property of their creator? Full human cloning is technological fesable today. You say that the abiliy to raise an army of 'super soldiers' is "purely fictional and nearly impossible to do so". So was flying at one time. I feel that one the ball gets rolling with a arm here or a liver there, that it will lead to full cloning eventualy. As to the government regulating it so that it dosn't happen, abortion was illegal in places yet it still happened. It happened in a (usally) dangerous and unsafe maner by black market abortionists. So a moratorium on research to debate and discuss these issues seems like a good idea to me.

Originally posted by Replic

Why does the pope, a person with power only in the Catholic's religion, get to exercise power over Bush?

So they have the same opinion on something. Bush has said all along that he dosn't like human cloning. Also, the Pope is the head of the Catholic church, a large block of voters. While all Catholics will not vote the same way, the majority of them share common beliefs and will tend to vote the same way.

Originally posted by Unidan

Please, if you want to insist upon that debate, let's look at this fact: Gravity is a theory, it has not been 'proven', since there's no way to test every theoretical spot where gravity can apply to see if something might magically float away; but, you don't see many people questioning gravity.
If you want to use religion as a deciding matter, do your research like the scientists that have toiled over laboratories to find out methods of cloning, and how to benefit mankind.
My point of view is: If you want to include religion in science, then science should have a say in religion.

I agree. My pastor spent a lot of time studying old texts. Putting things in the cutural context of the times when things were writting to understand the meaning at the time, and how that translates to today. I make no claims to being able to repeat what I have learned from him. All I can say is that, to me, it makes logical, scientific sense.
Nice paper BTW.


I am goning to leave alone the cult/religion discussion.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
bush made a choice that goes against my beliefs, and i believe infringes upon my rights, if the bill is infact passed into being a law.
...

I'm afraid I do not understand which rights you are refering to.

Originally posted by Ian W.
[b]
...
if i develop a disease that's incurable. cloning WOULD have found a cure, if bush hadn't stopped it
...
[b]

Cancer was suppost be be defeated during the 80s. Not there yet. Point of that is that many things may seem like they will work, but then don't pan out.

Originally posted by Unidan
To blatantly rip off someone elses idea:

History up to a point can be learned, it has patterns, and the decisions that have been made in the past have led you up to that point, but do the decisions of the past have to affect the decisions of the present?

Without taking time to base your own decisions leads you to pre-meditated ignorance.

Anyways, the point is, if he wants to just 'automatically veto' any bill that comes in without giving any consideration, why have we elected him as our leader? Religion or not, biasing the fate of millions on beliefs that might only apply to a small percentage of people isn't going about things the right way, scientifically nor religiously.

The matter isn't about religion, it's about eliminating ignorance, just unfortunately, we have pseudo-fundamentalists bringing it forth, giving the populous no choice in the matter.

I basicly agree with this. Nicly put Unidan.

Originally posted by Ian W.

...
i mentioned the fact that when bush said no to any cloning law, i got rather mad, because by doing that, he is effectively signing the death sentence for millions of people. now, how can anything, science, religion, or otherwise, say that this is good?
...

Is there millions of people now that would benifit from coloning? I think not. By the time it was researched and tested, it would be 20 years from now for it to be mainstream, or close to it. And as of yet, I have not seen any concreate scientific results that it would help. So by blindly putting faith in somthing that looks initially promizing is logicaly unsound to me.