Keep god out of it – The Daily Targum – Opinions – The reality is that those people objecting to this sort of research are mainly religionists who are strictly against any type of cloning. This cannot occur in a democracy where we are supposed to separate church and state. Advancements in medicine are going to happen in the future, but if we hinder our own progress for the sake of religious beliefs, it means the country has failed at its duty of separating church and state.
It seems to me that separation of church and state means that the government will not prefer or establish any religion (such as the Church of England). A recent interpretation of the 1st Amendment seems to imply that religious values and principals have no place in affecting civil law, and I think that statement is contrary to both the constitution and the concept of freedom of religion.
Clearly no one should be forced to finance, or establish religion views that they do not personally believe in. By such a standard, the “(extlink)Alabama 10 Commandments Monument”:http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/ is a clear violation of the governments power to tax.
Also protected however is an individuals right to believe and make decisions based upon those beliefs. Mr. Patel clothes his argument in the language of inclusiveness and tolerance, but I question whether he really espouses tolerance for any beliefs and reasoning but his own.
bq. It is disingenuous to think that an embryo a few days old is of any sentimental value. There are no parental or emotional attachments to a clump of cells invisible to the naked eye. Alex Epstein, a contributing writer to the Ayn Rand Institution, explained these questioned pre-embryos very well in an article published last year on the organization’s Web site. He wrote, “They have the potential to grow into human beings, but actual human beings are the ones dying for lack of this technology.” The potential cannot outweigh an actual human being. A pre-embryo cannot be a human being when it is, in reality, microscopic bits of protoplasm in the developing stages to becoming an actual embryo. Therapeutic cloning culminates in the better life of another being. As far as I’m concerned, this defines the very definition of morality. I do not want to belittle the debate emerging over stem cell research and cloning. It is important that all sides understand what is best for our society. *In any debate – but especially ones in which can result in happier and healthier lives – it is wrong to bring in God’s will to the argument.*
While I appreciate Mr. Patel’s stance, and the pragmatist in me can sympathize with parts of his argument, the federalist and believer of individual rights is appalled. Who is Amit Patel to say why or why not people can feel base their decisions on their own reasoning? Why is a decision based on their religious views less valid than an argument predicated on “happier and healthier living” or “the better life of another being.”
The whole point of democracy is supposed to be that citizens have a say in the policy of their government and a degree of control over its policies. I think we hit a dangerous slope when we only give credence to people with “the right” opinions and reasoning.
1st Amendment != Anti-religion
Tags: age · ANT · ci · cle · government · HTML · it · merging · Personal · tar · tax · web
Keep god out of it – The Daily Targum – Opinions –
It seems to me that separation of church and state means that the government will not prefer or establish any religion (such as the Church of England). A recent interpretation of the 1st Amendment seems to imply that religious values and principals have no place in affecting civil law, and I think that statement is contrary to both the constitution and the concept of freedom of religion.
Clearly no one should be forced to finance, or establish religion views that they do not personally believe in. By such a standard, the “(extlink)Alabama 10 Commandments Monument”:http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/ is a clear violation of the governments power to tax.
Also protected however is an individuals right to believe and make decisions based upon those beliefs. Mr. Patel clothes his argument in the language of inclusiveness and tolerance, but I question whether he really espouses tolerance for any beliefs and reasoning but his own.
bq. It is disingenuous to think that an embryo a few days old is of any sentimental value. There are no parental or emotional attachments to a clump of cells invisible to the naked eye. Alex Epstein, a contributing writer to the Ayn Rand Institution, explained these questioned pre-embryos very well in an article published last year on the organization’s Web site. He wrote, “They have the potential to grow into human beings, but actual human beings are the ones dying for lack of this technology.” The potential cannot outweigh an actual human being. A pre-embryo cannot be a human being when it is, in reality, microscopic bits of protoplasm in the developing stages to becoming an actual embryo. Therapeutic cloning culminates in the better life of another being. As far as I’m concerned, this defines the very definition of morality. I do not want to belittle the debate emerging over stem cell research and cloning. It is important that all sides understand what is best for our society. *In any debate – but especially ones in which can result in happier and healthier lives – it is wrong to bring in God’s will to the argument.*
While I appreciate Mr. Patel’s stance, and the pragmatist in me can sympathize with parts of his argument, the federalist and believer of individual rights is appalled. Who is Amit Patel to say why or why not people can feel base their decisions on their own reasoning? Why is a decision based on their religious views less valid than an argument predicated on “happier and healthier living” or “the better life of another being.”
The whole point of democracy is supposed to be that citizens have a say in the policy of their government and a degree of control over its policies. I think we hit a dangerous slope when we only give credence to people with “the right” opinions and reasoning.