Fetal stem cell reasearch veto

---

That would be the name that Java_Addict is using currently on Messenger.

OldFolks -- "I do not deride belief in god and if you reread I made no mention of it or of Christianity or any other religion for that matter."

...and in his previous post - "What you have to remember about these people is that, in their view of the world, logic and reason have no weight when faced with the will of god. The will of god seems to be their answer for everything and their admonishment of responsibility for anything."

Who are "they" if not a religious group? How were you speaking of this group if not in a derisive manner?

I can accept that you were temporarily blind (and couldn't see you previous post), and that you had amnesia as to what you previously posted...hopefully to be momentarily corrected.

Mr. U -- "the absolute problem with fundimentalism is the "we are right" attitude."

Sorry...didn't notice that definition anywhere in the dictionary...did you in one that you didn't post?

A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the fundamentals...in the case of Christianity, a person who is focused on the Bible as having many of the answers. It was not this, but fear and paranoia that resulted in the Salem witch trials...the same kind of fear and paranoia I see in OldFolks post at the top of the page.

OK, now answer again without making judgements on people's intentions.

"Who are & "they" if not a religious group? How were you speaking of this group if not in a derisive manner"Don't confuse faith with popular religious movements."They," in the instance you are quoting, refers to a quasi pseudo-religious political movement the purports to speak for all of Christendom and if John Hagee has his way Orthodox Judaism as well. It refers to a group that seemingly dismisses contrary views, be they philosophical, political or scientific as immoral and unholy and therefore not worthy of contemplation. Or, in the most extreme cases, views even contemplation of ideas different from it's own as sinful. It refers to a group that seeks faith based governance, as long as that governance is a reflection of it's own faith. A group, that (by my ear, anyway) seems disinterested in working within society but instead wants to force society to mirror it.As to your belief that I chastise faith, you could not be more wrong. Please, don't use the devises of a radio talk show host, emotionalizing my arguments, to make them into something they are not, namely an attack on faith. Regardless of what politicians, preachers and pundits say, it is possible to chastise a faith or a belief without chastising faith and belief. I do not care at all to who, what, whether or not , or why a person prays, keeps faith or how they live their life. However, I do care when their actions or their faith seek to dictates to me, to science or to government or seeks to retard society at large.I have grave concern when any group seeks to corrupt science, picking and choosing only scientific points that lend credence too or validates its assertions and defames or ignores all else. I have grave concerns when any group seeks to squelch the merit of reasonable arguments for the reaction of emotional appeal, in seemingly every forum of society it visits. I have grave concern when any group seeks to supplant ethics with morality. The two, are not mutually exclusive but are not one in the same, by any means. Unadulterated history shows this was a country, largely, founded by deist and that our system of governance was based in ethics. Morality finds its provenance in the church, it evolves over time, it differs from sect to sect and follower to follower. Morality should remain a personal guild post but must not be allowed to usurp the role of ethics in society. To subject a society to the rule of morality is to limit, if not extinguish its freedom. Despite what many fundamentalist preachers pundits and politicians would claim, seeking to protect democracy and secular society form religion is not anti-faith. It is in fact quite the opposite. I don't wish my or any other faith to be belittled at the hands of a dominate religion. It is out of my respect for faith that I question the motives of popular faith based movements. You end your post saying I (OldFolks) have a fear and paranoia. You are correct. If history teaches us anything, it is that liberty is the first victim of religious zealots.

Who are “they”if you can't connect a pronoun with it's associated noun in a stetement, it's going to take a lot of typing to make any statements. In reply to: Mr. U – “the absolute problem with fundimentalism is the "we are right" attitude.”Sorry…didn’t notice that definition anywhere in the dictionary…did you in one that you didn’t post? Paraphrased... "1- A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."= we are right In reply to: A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the fundamentals…in the case of Christianity, a person who is focused on the Bible as having many of the answers. ahh, ok, I see that you are in fact familiar with paraphrasing

“OK, now answer again without making judgements on people's intentions.”You first.“You end your post saying I (OldFolks) have a fear and paranoia. You are correct. If history teaches us anything, it is that liberty is the first victim of religious zealots.”Take a look in the mirror as, according to your postings, you qualify in all respects.“ahh, ok, I see that you are in fact familiar with paraphrasing”You asked me for my definition…not a dictionary definition that you ostensibly provided. So, it was not paraphrasing (you’ll have to take my word that I did not paraphrase myself).

just that you didn't seen to understand my paraphrasing

"Take a look in the mirror as, according to your postings, you qualify in all respects."Would you care to expand on this?Why?What part of my post do you take issue with?What is your reasoning?A flippant response does not a reason make.

You seem to have missed my post, so I'll repeat it for your benefit:--------------------------------------------------------------------What is your definition of "fundamentalist"?So far in this thread you've told people that they're wrong, they're closed-minded, and they don't understand. Everywhere in the world, in all of history (maybe with the exception of Moorish Spain, which was Islamic), theocracies have been a disaster for their citizens, and the mortal enemy of democracy. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a case in point. New England in the 1600's was not a bastion of free thinking -- or democracy. Europe in the Dark Ages was no Club Med.Can you actually address the arguments, or is "you closed-minded people just don't get is" all you got?" Can you tell us where theocracy has worked well? (Keep in mind that if you have the Ten Commandments, you probably won't have much use for the Bill of Rights. What will be done with the heretics?) What does freedom of though and freedom of inquiry mean if the governing authorities think they already have the absolute answers to all of the important questions?And why does fundamentalist religious thought line up so well with authoritarian political thought? I have my own ideas, but I wonder what you think about it. --------------------------------------------------------------------Now would you please say something substantive, rather than beating on the other people in this thread and calling their intentions into question? It reminds me of the "you're not a patriot if you don't agree with me" argument.In reply to:A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the fundamentals…in the case of Christianity, a person who is focused on the Bible as having many of the answers."Fundamentals"? "Focused"? "Many"? Isn't a Christian fundamentalist one who believes that the bible is the inerrant word of God, and is absolutely true and correct (according to his interpretation)? A fundamentalist believes that Johah really did spend some time inside a whale. Literally.That would seem to put religion at loggerheads with science, democracy, and tolerance. That's certainly the way it has worked in theocracies throughout history.Thor, you really should think about it and reply with something good; even if you don't have much of a chance of changing the minds of the other people in this thread, you might influence some other reader of this thread.

Do you realize how condescending you sound? Nobody likes it when they are talked down to like that... You would get a lot more positive replies from people, maybe even some that defended your point of view, if you didn't act like they were brainless shit.

hes a dick.were learing stem cell crap in bio, u can do it thearetically buy getting a human sex cell, taking out the nuclus, putting in the dna from another of ur body cells and manipulate it to what u wanna #it into...theyve grown human skin like that so far.

Yes, George Bush used his first veto. Yes, it's a terrible decision on his part influenced by both his religious beliefs and his inability to understand the importance of this research.But he's been fairly restrained when compared to former presidents

In fact, the most restrained president since Warren G. Harding. Read about him on the White House's own Web site. He's cut from the same cloth as our very own W. Thanks for the depression, Warren.

In reply to:“OK, now answer again without making judgements on people's intentions.”You first. Ah, the "nuh uh!" approach. Haven't heard that since I was 10.Why don't you actually answer questions properly without attacking others? Contrary to popular belief, proving someone else's argument wrong does not make you right. Why don't you put some effort into actually proving your point, rather than disproving others.

Let's see...hmmm...ummm...well, to be honest, it's not worth taking the time since you've apparently already made up your mind. Go fish.Besides...if you care to go back and look, I have no real point to prove anyway. Somebody made a bunch of erroneous statements condemning a bunch of folks (he-he) he didn't (and probably still doesn't) understand. If he did, he'd realize he's got a lot more in common with them than most other folks in terms of attitude, temperment and such.Maybe next time you'll refrain from judgement of your own long enough to listen...but something makes me doubt it.

I have no real point to prove anyway.It looks like you've made your points, which are:o insult and continue to insult the intensions and motivations of the people you disagree witho never make the slightest effort to address the specific points that are raised; just dismiss them out of hand, and an indication of the other person's ignoranceo assume that the only objective in replying would be to convince the few people who have posted to this thread, rather than also making a case to the many other people who have read this thread.Let me try yet again: Isn't a Christian fundamentalist one who believes that the bible is the inerrant word of God, and is absolutely true and correct (according to his interpretation)? A fundamentalist believes that Jonah really did spend some time inside a whale. Literally.

In reply to:o insult and continue to insult the intensions and motivations of the people you disagree witho never make the slightest effort to address the specific points that are raised; just dismiss them out of hand, and an indication of the other person's ignorance This is word by word exactly what you do!!!! Coincidence??

Not correct, and please go away unless you have something constructive to add to the thread; hopefully something constructive pertaining to the thread's subject. Please don't hijack threads just to attack people you don't like. It's very impolite.

You do it all the time! You've tried to even hijack my "Beginining to date" topic! You think no one is going to notice?

Are you now going to try to cover up? Look through some of your reall old threads.

Your posts have nothing to do with the subject of the fetal stem cell research veto, or the motivations behind it. You are trying to hijack a thread to carry out a personal vendetta. If you must, go start another thread on the topic in the Community Forum, or go vent in the Chit-Chat thread.

If you have anything on-topic to add to this thread, please do so. If all you want to do is attack another member of the board, please do it elsewhere, or have a discussion with a moderator.