“President Bush will likely cast the first veto
of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, White House aide Karl Rove said today. ‘The president is emphatic about this,’ Rove said in a meeting with the editorial board of The Denver Post.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Pandering boob.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pmOf course he’ll veto…a quiet signing statement after the fact won’t serve his interests this time. This is political grandstanding, so he’ll be as obvious and loud about it as possible.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:12 pm“We were all an embryo at one point, and we ought to as a society be very careful about being callous about the wanton destruction of embryos, of life…”
and
“we have far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.”
Says the non-scientist. It’s amazing how easy it is to spot ignorance.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:15 pmProblem is he lost the stamp so he’s going to write it in crayon. “VEETOE”
What a topic to use his veto power on. What a backwoods slug. This man does anything to keep ‘Merca down and out in science. You would think this idiot is running for re-election. Wonder how this will play in other elections.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:19 pmUnfortunately, many many Republican senators are up fpr reelection and the public wants thias research! George isn’t doing his party any favors.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:19 pmYes, there is no quibbling when it’s a matter of injecting religious belief into the law of the land… at least not from the so-called “Americans” currently in control of Congress. They continue to shove the lid off of Pandora’s Box, setting precedent for Governmental involvement in Religion and vice versa. I wonder, do they anticipate the civil war that will break out when the Evangelicals declare THEIR brand of Christianity to be the official American belief system? Will we have a Catholic v Baptist brand of “sectarian violence” on the streets of Chicago?
July 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pmIf GWB is so interested in protecting human life why did he coldly ignore so many clemency pleas to stop the execution of the downtrodden, retarded, and insane in TX.
Death in Texas
By Sister Helen Prejean
[snip]
[Tucker] Carlson asked Bush if he had met with any of the petitioners and was surprised when Bush whipped around, stared at him, and snapped, “No, I didn’t meet with any of them.”
Carlson, who until that moment had admired Bush, said that Bush’s curt response made him feel as if he had just asked “the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed.”
Bush went on to tell him that he had also refused to meet Larry King when he came to Texas to interview [Karla Faye] Tucker but had watched the interview on television.
King, Bush said, asked Tucker difficult questions, such as “What would you say to Governor Bush?”
What did [Karla Faye] Tucker answer? Carlson asked.
“Please,” Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “please, don’t kill me.”
Carlson was shocked. He couldn’t believe Bush’s callousness and reasoned that his cruel mimicry of the woman whose death he had authorized must have been sparked by anger over Karla Faye Tucker’s remarks during the King interviews. When King had asked her what she planned to ask Governor Bush, Karla Faye had said she thought that if Bush approved her execution, he would be succumbing to election-year pressure from pro–death penalty voters.
Election-year pressure?
Bush was receiving thousands of messages urging clemency for Tucker, including one from one of his daughters. “Born-again” evangelists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, normally ardent advocates of execution, urged him to commute Tucker’s sentence.
When Pope John Paul II urged Bush to grant mercy to Tucker, Bush responded disingenuously in a letter to the Pope, saying, “Ms. Tucker’s sentence can only be commuted by the Governor if the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends a commutation of sentence.”
On several occasions, Bush stated publicly that in deciding Karla Faye Tucker’s fate, he was seeking “guidance through prayer,” adding that “judgments about the heart and soul of an individual on death row are best left to a higher authority.”
But there was no way Bush could avoid the godlike power thrust on him as governor.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pmEmbryonic stem cell have the potential to become many different lines of cells. Adult stem cells are established and don’t change. Just be straight with your REAL reason, George, ya freakin’ pandering putz.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:27 pmHe’ll protect your embryos parents, but as soon as they grow up, he’ll send them to a unnecessary war to die for this country and then be forgotten.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:29 pmHe’ll protect your embryos parents, but as soon as they grow up, he’ll send them to an unnecessary war to die for this country and then be forgotten.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:29 pmthis would be a perfect bill for a veto…
July 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pmshow those true pro-life colors…
and nancy could smack his smug-ass face…
I’m sure Drunky is “Emphatic” about this issue right now. Watch him flip flop as usual one day when something that stem cell research could help isnt available to one of his own.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:33 pmThere is a very simple solution to this potential problem. King George loves his “Signing Statements” so the Congress should attach one to the bill for him. The statement should say “Whether you veto this or not, Asshole, it is now law. Go cry on Rove’s shoulder.”
July 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pmWHAT AN IDIOT!!!
The intent is to clones cells anyway. It’s not even an issue of encouraging abortions. I’m sure that he’s aware of that, and is ignoring the fact so that he can take a stance on the issue, just for the benefit of pandering to his pshychotic religious whacko base. And as for being “pro life”, how many freakin’ lives could they save with this sort of technology? He’s screwing up potentially beneficial health advances, for all of mankind, purely for the sake of politics. And in this case it’ll probably backfire on him and his party anyway. What a raging insufferable MORON!
They’d all have us back in the dark ages if possible… except for their precious military technology, that is.
This is just yet more crimes against humanity… WHEN WILL THE MADNESS STOP??? WHEN???
July 10th, 2006 at 5:39 pmwho gives a shi* what that fat fu*k Rove says anymore, why is his threat a headline. Let the moron cast his first veto, whatever, everything needs to be rolled back once we have a true democratic gov’t anyway
July 10th, 2006 at 5:42 pmToo bad mama-rove didn’t abort. the world would be a much better place
July 10th, 2006 at 5:42 pmBush will veto it in order to protect us from the ”human-animal hybrids.”
July 10th, 2006 at 5:43 pmSo, an embryo is sacred, but the lives of Iraqi Children, Women, and Men - who WERE living and breathing already in the world - are not. Seems to me to be bizarre logic, and quite hypocritical.
The problem, as I see it, with American political discourse is that it is dominated by ignorant fanatics, on either side, and your intellectuals and philosophers aren’t recognized or listened to.
Hmmm, seems the “enlightened society” has been extinguished and that the inmates are running the asylum.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:46 pmBush is not emphatic about anything. He believes in nothing but himself.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:48 pmIt is acutally refreshing to see the President stick to his guns on stem cell research. Contrary to popular belief, embryonic stem cell research really has not shown the promise for miracle cures that leftist wacko kooks would have you believe. IT is a dead end, and dumping tax dollars down this particular black hole is not what we need. We are already dumping enough cash down that black hole we all know as Iraq.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:52 pmSo, on the one side, we have virtually every endocrinologist in the world believing stem cell research could yield countless incredible cures for all manner of illness and disease and on the other hand, we’ve got Conservative Dem and a bunch of religious fanatics. You know, I think I’ll go with the experts on this. And please take that “dumping tax dollars down a hole” bull shit and stuff it where the sun doesn’t shine. You and you’re ilk have already flushed $400 billion down the hole we know as Iraq.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:57 pm#20-Con Dem,
Just so I know what weight to give your in-depth analysis, what are your medical research qualificiations? And, furthermore, from which medical school did you graduate?
July 10th, 2006 at 5:59 pm#21-
Actually, I’m against the war. It was a mistake, and I think we all know it. Please, tell me about “virtually every endocrinologist in the world”. Give me some examples of research that has yielded anything. The truth is, embryonic stem cell research has yielded nothing significant, and all the money in the world can’t change that. It is voodoo science.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:01 pmbut then again - how many times have we heard this “likely cast first veto” line?
what’s up? something’s always up…
and “conservative dem” - it doesn’t wash… you don’t have to pretend to post here… we can appreciate real conservatives… i could be wrong about you, but i just want you to know that…
July 10th, 2006 at 6:01 pmno offense…
#23-Con Dem,
Once again, your credentials?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:03 pmTo all-
Again, I challenge anyone to produce any significant breakthroughs in stem cell research. In the mean time, check this out.
http://www.family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024064.cfm
July 10th, 2006 at 6:04 pmWhat? No signing statement in lieu of the veto?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:04 pm#25-
My credentials? I’m a conservative Dem. How about you?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#25-
From which med school did you graduate, smart guy?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:07 pmtalk about a culture of life that bush wants to have.
Doesn’t that also mean that if we had the means to keep someone alive, we would use those means.
And what about assisted suicide that conservatives frown upon so much. Isn’t that caused by cronic illnesses that could be cured through stem cell research .
GOD wants us to be HAPPY, not miserable
The way I see it:
Either allow stem cell research so we can cure cronic illnesses, or allow the use of medical marijuana so we can cope with the pain.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:07 pmConservative Dem, you’re either being intellectually dishonest or you are purposely closing your mind to what’s going on. On virtually every front, there are new discoveries every week. In England, they have successfully grown new brain cells in mice. In Canada, they have been able to restore nerves to a paralyzed mouse using stem cells. In Canada, under something called the Toronto protocal or something like that, they have gotten scores of lifelong diabetics to be able to live without insulin injections using stem cells to create new beta cells in the pancreas. A simple google search will give you all the info you need, so please don’t bother us with uninformed blather.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:08 pm#24-
Yeah, I’m kind of like a Dell Miller type of Democrat. In other words, the only type of democrat that actually has a chance of winning an election.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:09 pm#24-
Yeah, I’m kind of like a Zell Miller type of Democrat. In other words, the only type of democrat that actually has a chance of winning an election.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:09 pm#26-Con Dem,
Sir or Madam,
You are quick to provide absolute claims regarding the viability of this research and to categorically dismiss it as “voodoo science”. Since only a moron would make such claims without having any education or qualifications regarding this issue, I am requesting to know what your credentials are.
I await your considered response.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:09 pmAh, that’s Zell Miller
July 10th, 2006 at 6:10 pmHold up, I just came back and saw Conservative Dem’s link to Focus on the Family. Forget it. If you’re looking at this site for info on Stem Cells, all you will get is lies. Conservative Dem, Focus has no problem with fertility clinics in which hundreds of embryos are destroyed on purpose every day and those that aren’t used are thrown in the garbage. They, like you, are a bunch of assinine bullshitters.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:12 pm#31-
Yes, this is all true, but these discoveries were not found through EMBRYONIC stem cells. Just about all new significant discoveries have been made using chord blood and other non-embryonic stem cells. Do your research.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:12 pm#29-Con Dem,
I am making no absolute claims or assertions regarding this science. So, you have no qualifications, education, or credentials but you expect everyone to accept your claims as facts. Interesting.
Thank you for answering my question. I see now to disregard you “expertise” appropriately.
May peace be with you.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:13 pmHumanist-
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. What do want from me? I’m as well qualified as the rest of these people to comment on this topic, yet I don’t see you grilling them on their qualifications.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:14 pmAgain, I challenge anyone to produce any significant breakthroughs in stem cell research.-Con Dem
The problem with your challenge is that you likely won’t accept anything except for a cure for cancer or something similar as a “significant breakthrough”.
Scientists have been able to clone cells using existing human embryonic stem cells. That’s a significant breakthrough. The promise is what lies ahead, but clearly more research is needed.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:15 pmBlueDog-
Focus on the Family is no less credible than this site. Or any other left-wing wacko site that you people take as gospel truth.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:16 pmZell Miller ain’t no democrat. He sold his soul to the devil back in 2004 he’s now a Republicrat. A republican in denial.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:17 pmCon Dem is clearly a troll folks. Don’t feed her.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:18 pmHAHHA!!! did somebody post FOCUS ON THE FAMILY as a source!! Get out of town!! Jesus H. christ!
July 10th, 2006 at 6:19 pmI won’t debate or gather evidence to debate a fundamentalist christian about stem cell research. It’s like trying to debate digital vs. analog wristwatches with a headhunter from Borneo. Fundamentalist Christians have nothing of value to bring to this table. The Bible is singularly incapable of dealing with this issue and I resent having to debate any modern scientific advancement through the dark, backward prism of foolish rules written thousands of years ago. Stem cell research will continue to be one of the greatest potential medical advances irrespective of any outdated and disgardable ancient mythology.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#39-Con Dem,
There is a difference between discussing an issue and offering opinions, and the absolutes that you so generously deliver. So, basically you are just offering up what ye thinks. That’s a good start, but you may want to adjust your delivery so that you do not make such an ass of yourself. Especially regarding an issue as sophisticated as this.
“Beliefs” are okay when it comes to matters of faith. When it comes to science, though, no amount of “belief” is going to make the world flat. Something for you to ponder.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:20 pm#42-
Again, people like Zell are about the only chance we have of winning elections, particularly in the South. You may not like it, but that is the truth, man.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:21 pmHumanist-
You need to read up a little more on Focus on the Family. Everything you need is in there. All your “beliefs vs. science” talk is just a smokescreen. Science IS a belief. Nothing more.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:24 pmHow can Democrats make the stem cell legislation veto-proof? By naming it after Ronald Reagan.
For the details, see:
July 10th, 2006 at 6:24 pm“Stem Selling: The Ronald Reagan Life Legacy Act
“
Again, people like Zell are about the only chance we have of winning elections, particularly in the South. You may not like it, but that is the truth, man.-ConMan
Bill Clinton says “were you born an idiot, or did you work at it your whole life?”
July 10th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#47-Con Man,
Goodness, so what research caused you to come to such a radical conclusion? Or is this just your opinion?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:26 pmScience IS a belief. Nothing more.-ConDem
Major, major troll. Why even come here? You’re not interested in discussion.
We ought to be able to kick trolls out of this place. Seriously.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:29 pmConservative Dem: “Science IS a belief. Nothing more.”
This is one of the primary ways people display the fact that they don’t understand science at all, what it is, how it’s performed, everything about it. It’s very common for fundamentalist Christians to suffer from this misperception. Science is and has always been the enemy of religion. Let’s face it. Science is killing religion. Even a grammar school child, if he thinks about it and has read the Bible can recognize it. God tells us, for example, that there are two sources of light, the Sun and the Moon. God is wrong about that.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:29 pmScience IS a belief. Nothing more.
Comment by Conservative Dem — July 10, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Umm actually science is backed by empirical evidence. Belief is a belief. Science fact.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:30 pmWhat about the human-animal hybrids?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pmWon’t someone please think about the human-animal hybrids?
It is acutally refreshing to see the President stick to his guns on stem cell research. Contrary to popular belief, embryonic stem cell research really has not shown the promise for miracle cures that leftist wacko kooks would have you believe.
Comment by Conservative Dem
I guess that Con-Dem thinks that scientists are lefty wackos. Cue twighlight zone music.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pmGeorge W. Bush can’t even pronounce the word “Emphatic.”
July 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pmScience is and has always been the enemy of religion. Let’s face it. Science is killing religion.-Bluedog49
Sorry Blue but I have to disagree pretty strongly on this one. I’m about as serious a scientist as you’ll find around here (tenured prof, top-notch school) and also happen to be a man of faith. Science is not killing religion. It is very possible to be a practitioner of science and also be a religious person. There are simply things that are beyond science, beyond the range of human understanding.
Regarding the Bible, one has to accept that this is the word of God as spoken through man. As such, it is not flawless. Man is flawed, and we should expect things to be lost in the translation.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pmScience IS a belief. Nothing more.
Comment by Conservative Dem
From that statement alone, I already know everything I need to know about Conservative Dem.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:36 pmI hope every fundamentalist christian who rails against stem cell research will remember to step aside and allow those who didn’t complain first access to cures provided by this technology. In fact, I think that if fundamentalist christians really believe what they do, they should sign contracts guaranteeing that they will never attempt to use any cures developed from stem cell technology.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:37 pmAnyone seen any guesses of the likely vote breakdown?
I know Rove says there aren’t enough votes for an override but I’m curious how close it really is.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pmDrSinker, OK, maybe that was a little strong, but you’ve got to admit that science deals blow after blow to fundamentalist readings of religion. The gaps in which you longingly look for evidence of devine intent are getting smaller and smaller, wouldn’t you agree?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:39 pmBy all means, let’s have a vote — up or down as conservatives like to say. I want every republican (and democrat, for that matter) up for congressperson or senator to explain to the voters his position of stem cell research.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:42 pmDrSinker, OK, maybe that was a little strong, but you’ve got to admit that science deals blow after blow to fundamentalist readings of religion.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists don’t give a damn what science has to say. That’s why they’re fundamentalists. About the only blows that are dealt occur in the courtroom, when fundamentalists are prevented from indoctrinating others (e.g. intelligent design in the classroom).
July 10th, 2006 at 6:46 pmWTF?
Did that guy really post that?
July 10th, 2006 at 6:46 pmhe did spudge, he also has not returned. I guess my computer working is because I believe the computer works, not because of the effects of electricity applied to materials that re placed into a specific pattern.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:50 pmI believe in America. My gut tells me it exists.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:54 pmScience is based on facts - facts are things proven to have occurred in PHYSICAL reality - note the emphasis on physical as opposed to spiritual.
Belief is not based on facts - that’s why it’s called belief -doesn’t necessarily make it less true or real, just means it’s not proven by facts - belief is not something proven by tests in PHYSICAL reality.
Can we all just understand those finer points
Science and beliefs can overlap or not depending on the belief and the scientific facts.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:57 pmFrom: http://www.family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024064.cfm (Posted by Conservative Dem)
Well, the article very clearly states that stem cell research has YET to yield any results. Considering the limited amount of research being made, due to governmental restrictions, it comes as no surprise. There is no mention, in this article, that positive results aren’t to be expected once further research is done. Read it carefully, it’s very cleverly worded, in order to create a certain impression without quite resorting to out-and-out lying. Only a feeble minded moron like Conservative Dem would read this as a definitive statement on the failure of the research.
Gee, what a surprise! Now we see where the bias really comes from. The article, that Conservative Dem linked to, is from a PRO-LIFE WEBSITE! Now, there is no way that a pro-life-whack-job-religious-nutcase website would misrepresent scientific and medical data to further promote their own warped ideologies… is there? NAAAAHHHH…
LOL!
Nice try IDIOT!!!
July 10th, 2006 at 7:01 pm63 - I totally agree.
I would love to seen an extended debate on the floor about stem cell funding.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:02 pmSo, Chase, as a conservative, are you at all concerned with poll number showing an overwhelming support for this technology. I would think that those who make their opposition to this research and technology clear could lose votes. Religious fanatics are going to vote for them anyway. Opposition to promising medical technology doesn’t seem to me to be a good strategy for picking up moderates or independents, who favor this research by about 7 to 3.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:06 pm#70 an extended deebate on the floor?
Do still hold the belief that the Congress is capable of meaningful debate?
That is a belief
There is little basis in fact that the Congress of the US can debate any issue with any intelligence
July 10th, 2006 at 7:06 pmSorry Blue but I have to disagree pretty strongly on this one. I’m about as serious a scientist as you’ll find around here (tenured prof, top-notch school) and also happen to be a man of faith. Science is not killing religion. It is very possible to be a practitioner of science and also be a religious person. There are simply things that are beyond science, beyond the range of human understanding.
Regarding the Bible, one has to accept that this is the word of God as spoken through man. As such, it is not flawless. Man is flawed, and we should expect things to be lost in the translation.
Comment by DrSinker — July 10, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
Errr, care to explain Dinosaurs for everyone here? What are they?
A. The bones of Demons?
B. Satan put them there to test your faith?
C. Adam and rode them for fun?
D. They are the bones of serpents, like the one in Genesis?
Or are there soem new theories that I have yet to hear off. Please do share. I’m dying to know mister Scientist/Man of Faith.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:08 pmExtended debate?
Where are the facts showing the Congress capable of extended debate on any topic.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:08 pmYou must be joking
Dr.Sinker: “There are simply things that are beyond science, beyond the range of human understanding.”
And when confronted by these things, I’d rather we turn to science to begin the process of attempting to explain them and not drop to our knees and start talking to ourselves.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:22 pmgosh, JPV - what’s with that ‘tude?
July 10th, 2006 at 7:30 pmi think you should read DrSinker’s last paragraph again - there is nothing threatening or counterintuitive to progressive ideals there…why pick a fight about that?
“Man is flawed, and we should expect things to be lost in the translation.”
…after translation after translation after translation and so on…
is all i would add…
My sister’s child came down with Type 1 diabetes in the late ’80’s. The head of Stanford’s Pediatric Endocronoloby Department told me at the time that stem cell research looked very promising. He said he felt that if religious factions stayed out of the way, he could see a cure by the mid-’90s. They didn’t get out of the way and we still don’t have a cure. This is just one of the many reasons I have so little regard for fundamentalist christians.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:32 pmErrr, care to explain Dinosaurs for everyone here? What are they?
Or are there soem new theories that I have yet to hear off. Please do share. I’m dying to know mister Scientist/Man of Faith.-JPV
What, precisely, did I state that implied I don’t believe the current scientific theory regarding dinosaurs. Nothing, as far as I can tell.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:33 pm#76 - katy - thanks! I didn’t think I’d written anything to inspire JPV’s response either.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:35 pmDrSinker is here to defend science, not to attack it, if I understand his/her posts correctly.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:35 pmWhat, precisely, did I state that implied I don’t believe the current scientific theory regarding dinosaurs. Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Comment by DrSinker — July 10, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
How do you reconcile it with the Bible? Do you believe that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed contemporaneously?
July 10th, 2006 at 7:37 pmWell, by “extended debate” I mean have members air their positions on the record.
Something like the quasi-debate they had on Iraq. While not a “debate” in the truest sense of the word, at least there was some talk on the subject.
Pardon me for using Congressional parlance.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:38 pmAnd when confronted by these things, I’d rather we turn to science to begin the process of attempting to explain them and not drop to our knees and start talking to ourselves.-Blue
Look - I’m not suggesting we give up the scientific method anytime soon. I’m just suggesting there are inherent limits to human understanding, to our ability to break down what happens in this beautiful world of ours to a set of basic laws.
Many, many of my colleagues are men and women of faith. I’d like to think that part of it has to do with how we are humbled by the apparent limits of science on a daily basis, while also amazed by what we continue to discover.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:38 pmHow do you reconcile it with the Bible? Do you believe that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed contemporaneously? -JPV
What don’t you understand regarding my statement that what is written in the Bible is inherently flawed?
July 10th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#73 Errr, care to explain Dinosaurs for everyone here? What are they?
JPV,
I am startled by your assumption that faith can only be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It strikes me as woefully ignorant and simplistic. You are setting up a false dichotomy in which faith and science must be opposed to one another, in which faith must contradict all rational thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been a practicing scientist for 20 years, and though I am not religious, I believe in spirituality, and have respect for the many accomplished and thoughtful scientists I know who are religious. Science and religion can be perfectly compatible, and can even augment one another in our lives.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:41 pmDrSinker, I agree that science is humbling by nature. The more we know, the more we know we don’t know yet in some cases. One of the ironies in this Religion vs Science thing is that religious see scientists as arrogant know-it-alls while professing to know exactly how the universe was created and how the world will end. It’s the certainty of religious conviction that I find arrogant.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:44 pmHere’s how to get Bush to support stem cell research. Tell him that research is showing if stem cells are injected into a precise area of the brain the person will become an obedient neo-con automatron.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:47 pmI am startled by your assumption that faith can only be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. It strikes me as woefully ignorant and simplistic. You are setting up a false dichotomy in which faith and science must be opposed to one another, in which faith must contradict all rational thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been a practicing scientist for 20 years, and though I am not religious, I believe in spirituality, and have respect for the many accomplished and thoughtful scientists I know who are religious. Science and religion can be perfectly compatible, and can even augment one another in our lives.
Comment by RealScientist — July 10, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
You can rationalize anything in any manner that you choose. The fact is, that the majority of religious doctrine demands an unfailing belief in the LITERAL teachings of the Bible. I doubt that your point of view would be excepted as anything, other than heresy, by much of the Christian community.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pm“There are simply things that are beyond science, beyond the range of human understanding.”
Only if religious dogma doesn’t trump scientific method.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pmA great quote from Obama along the lines of the discussion we’ve been having here:
Pretty much hits the nail on the head for me.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pmI’m sorry, I meant to say that science and religion could only be compatible if dogma doesn’t trump scientific method.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:51 pmA great quote from Obama along the lines of the discussion we’ve been having here:
Comment by DrSinker — July 10, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
exactly! i’m trying to post the link for that speech, but TP seems to think it’s spam…
July 10th, 2006 at 7:52 pmIf Obama believed in Zeus, he would be widely dismissed as crazy. But, he believes in the God of Abraham. Can any scientist give a rational, non-historical, empirical reason why belief in one is more appropriate than the other. What evidence is there that Zeus doesn’t exist and the God of Abraham does exist?
July 10th, 2006 at 7:54 pmWhat don’t you understand regarding my statement that what is written in the Bible is inherently flawed?
Comment by DrSinker — July 10, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Sorry, I guess I missed that one… and yes, I’d also say that the Bible is indeed quite flawed . Especially considering that it’s a load of crap, half of which was made up by the Romans during the Nicean Council.
Sheesh, read some history folks. Never ceases to amaze me how people fanatically devote themselves to such warped cults, like Christianity, without ever even reading their real histories.
How someone, claiming to be a scientist, can actually endorse such crap is beyond me.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:55 pmThe fact is, that the majority of religious doctrine demands an unfailing belief in the LITERAL teachings of the Bible. I doubt that your point of view would be excepted as anything, other than heresy, by much of the Christian community.
JPV,
You are simply wrong on this point.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:56 pmThe fact is, that the majority of religious doctrine demands an unfailing belief in the LITERAL teachings of the Bible
Comment by JPV — July 10, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
that’s just wrong… not a majority at all…
July 10th, 2006 at 7:57 pmwho told you that?
How someone, claiming to be a scientist, can actually endorse such crap is beyond me.
JPV,
You don’t seem to know much about either religion or science.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:58 pmIt took the Catholic church, or as I like to call them, the Romans, hundreds of years to admit that they were wrong about Galileo and Copernicus. People with alzhiemers or diabetes don’t have that kind of time.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:58 pmIt took the Catholic church, or as I like to call them, the Romans, hundreds of years to admit that they were wrong about Galileo and Copernicus. People with alzhiemers or diabetes don’t have that kind of time.-Blue
Blue - you probably didn’t mean for this to be funny, but for some reason I got a laugh out of your post. Imagine Lewis Black saying that - classic!
July 10th, 2006 at 8:04 pmit’s a great speech:
go to obama.senate.gov/speech/
‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address
(damn spam filter) :-)
July 10th, 2006 at 8:04 pmThe fact is, that the majority of religious doctrine demands an unfailing belief in the LITERAL teachings of the Bible. I doubt that your point of view would be excepted as anything, other than heresy, by much of the Christian community.
JPV,
You are simply wrong on this point.
Comment by RealScientist — July 10, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
Like I said, you can rationalize what you like. My experience with Christians has taught me that the vast majority of them are two-faced hypocrites. Eager to rationalize anything for their own selfish desires. Something about the belief system, apparently seems to attract a special form of neurosis. You seem no different.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:05 pmMy experience with Christians has taught me that the vast majority of them are two-faced hypocrites. Eager to rationalize anything for their own selfish desires. Something about the belief system, apparently seems to attract a special form of neurosis. You seem no different.-JPV
You should attend a mass or fellowship hour at a United Church of Christ, perhaps one of the most progressive churches around. You will be very surprised by the attitudes there. I don’t know what Christians you’ve met, but they’re not the ones I’m familiar with.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:09 pmEager to rationalize anything for their own selfish desires. Something about the belief system, apparently seems to attract a special form of neurosis. You seem no different.
JPV, you’ve jumped the tracks here.
I don’t practice religion of any kind, and am a harsh critic of those many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who are intolerant bigots. But your claim that the vast majority of them are two-faced hypocrites is way out in left field. You need to get out of the house once in a while and meet some people.
The more I know about the natural world, and the better I understand the scientific laws that govern the natural world, the more beautiful and incredible it seems to me. There is room for a divine being in this world, and in no way does believing that preclude rational thought and behavior.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:11 pmYou don’t seem to know much about either religion or science.
Comment by RealScientist — July 10, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
I’m admittedly not an “expert” on science. I can however guarantee that I have read far more about religion than you ever will in your entire lifetime. You seem to be reacting in the standard manner of denial, that most “believers” tend to respond with, when their illogical beliefs are questioned.
Some reading may do you some good…
http://www.amazon.com/ gp/ product/ 0964487349/ sr=8-1/ qid=1152576683/ ref=sr_1_1/ 002-1623106-1788810?ie=UTF8
July 10th, 2006 at 8:11 pmYou should attend a mass or fellowship hour at a United Church of Christ, perhaps one of the most progressive churches around. You will be very surprised by the attitudes there. I don’t know what Christians you’ve met, but they’re not the ones I’m familiar with.
Comment by DrSinker — July 10, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
I’m sure that they are all very nice to your face and in public. Believe me… I’ve seen it all.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:13 pmThe more I know about the natural world, and the better I understand the scientific laws that govern the natural world, the more beautiful and incredible it seems to me. There is room for a divine being in this world, and in no way does believing that preclude rational thought and behavior.
Comment by RealScientist — July 10, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Fair enough. I too believe in a “God” but not the one in the Christian Bible.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:15 pmWhat? His first veto? Won’t his usual signing statement make this law null and void? Oh, only he is exempt from laws, not the rest of the nation.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:17 pmYou seem to be reacting in the standard manner of denial, that most “believers†tend to respond with, when their illogical beliefs are questioned.-JPV
On the contrary, I find RealScientist’s responses to you quite measured and fair. I don’t find he’s in denial regarding anything, at least not based on what he’s posted here.
You should think about what it means that two people here, with arguably some substantial scientific credentials, are saying that Christian faith (or any other faith, for that matter) is not “junk”.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:18 pmI’m willing to bet we’ve both read quite a bit on religion as well.
I can however guarantee that I have read far more about religion than you ever will in your entire lifetime.
And that somehow makes you an expert on how all Christians behave? You read about it? Something like 80% of Americans profess to be Christians, and from my experience actually interacting with them I have concluded that an awful lot of them are very nice people.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:21 pmNow this is an issue that I have 100% no clue about. Conservative Dem claims that there is no evidence of success with human embryonic stem cell research. I have yet to see someone actually refute that with anything other than ad hominem attacks. This troubles me.
I’m not religious at all, nor am I against abortion, but I’m honestly asking someone to show that advances are being made with embryonic stem cell research. I’m not questioning it, merely looking for some good information to clue me in on the issue.
Seeing as how I have admitted that I know absolutely nothing about this issue, I hope you guys will be helpful.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:22 pmI’m sure that they are all very nice to your face and in public. Believe me… I’ve seen it all.-JPV
Sorry, but I don’t think you’ve provided much here for us to believe you.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:22 pmSeeing as how I have admitted that I know absolutely nothing about this issue, I hope you guys will be helpful.-Seixon
There’s plenty to be found - just Google around a bit. I’m guessing that you’re not actually that interested, however, and are just looking to taunt folks for the sake of it.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:25 pmAnd actually, Seixon, if you see my first response to ConDem, there’s a refute there. It’s not ad-hominem.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:26 pmDrSinker,
No, I’m seriously interested in knowing more about it. I’m just not interested enough to go researching it. I want someone to provide me with a good source where I can get a hold on the issue, especially if there’s anything showing advances being made in human embryonic stem cell research.
As for your response to Con Dem:
Scientists have been able to clone cells using existing human embryonic stem cells. That’s a significant breakthrough. The promise is what lies ahead, but clearly more research is needed.
The first part of it was a bit ad hominem, but this part was not, you’re right. However I’d love to see some sources for this though, as I don’t really feel up to surfing on this topic.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:33 pmSeixon,
It strikes me as extremely unlikely that learning about stem cell research is what you are going after here. I have never yet seen you show any good faith in debating here. In fact, I find your pathological dishonesty in this regard to be revolting.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:43 pm#77
July 10th, 2006 at 8:44 pmsmall world, my daughter was diagnosed with type 1 Diabetes as well at Stanford in late 80s too. I had the exact conversation - (Dr. Dinni Cola or something like that was the doctors name). My daughter is now 23 and allready suffering from
numb toes and stuff - though she has excellent control. It infuriates me to no
end that these a-holes have so much power - based on their “beliefs”.
They are evil in my mind - worse than the pharisees of old.
No, I’m seriously interested in knowing more about it. I’m just not interested enough to go researching it.-Seixon
You’re not exactly inspiring me to do your work for you - sorry.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:46 pmThe man is a slug. He doesn’t think - he simply reacts.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:46 pmThis will prove to be political suicide for him - and hopefully for his party as well - if he vetoes the bipartisan stem cell research. Most thinking people recognize the advantages that will become available in the field of medicine, except not the non-thinkers - they believe that they hear the voice of god in their ears and he has told them that this is the work of satan.
I know it’s not nice to wish ill on someone, but he may live to see the day when a grandchild could benefit from treatment that would have been available if he were not to goddamn ingorant and stubborn.
The world will pass us by - they are already considering the US as less than it once was for so many reasons, and this will be another world wide example of the backward thinking of the so called “religious leaders” who have huge influence on our culture and politics and government.
You should think about what it means that two people here, with arguably some substantial scientific credentials, are saying that Christian faith (or any other faith, for that matter) is not “junkâ€.
I’m willing to bet we’ve both read quite a bit on religion as well.
Comment by DrSinker — July 10, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Perhaps you have. But how diverse of a range of material have you really read?
IMO, the only version of the gospels that even comes close to Christ’s true teachings is the book of Thomas. Some 200 hundred gospels were destroyed by the Romans. The 4 remaining “canonical” gospels were heavily edited by the Nicean Council. 2 more were recently discovered and it will be interesting to see how much they corroborate the book of Thomas.
Christ most likely learned most of his teachings from the Essenes. I think Thomas reflects much of this. His teachings were probably much closer to Pagan beliefs than the rubbish that the Romans re-wrote. Probably a duality based on a Male/Female duality (creative) not a God/Satan duality (destructive). Hence all the demonization of sex, women, and all the fear of phallic symbols, such as snakes and horned animals. It makes sense to me that the Romans would want to shape Christianity into a destructive belief system, since that would serve their Imperialistic purposes just fine. Witness the use of Christianity in modern day US Imperialism.
Anyway, I am convinced that the subversion and corruption of the original word of Christ, by the Romans, was the single most destructive event in the history of mankind. A vast majority of the world’s population, have had their minds altered ,by their devotion to a corrupt and ultimately evil belief system. Due to centuries of indoctrination, they will always be blind to this truth. And to me… this is a horrible, horrible crime.
Just look at the world around you if you need any proof to what this mindset has wrought upon mankind.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:48 pmthis is perfect for bush he pleases his base and the gop congressmen can say we went against bush but he vetoed us.perfect plan by rove.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:55 pmSeixon,
Let’s find some common ground. You know about computers and I know about computers. So what’s your favorite high level programming language?
July 10th, 2006 at 8:57 pm#86 bluedog49
July 10th, 2006 at 8:58 pmOne of the ironies in this Religion vs Science thing is that religious see scientists as arrogant know-it-alls while professing to know exactly how the universe was created and how the world will end.
That says it pretty well.
Let’s find some common ground. You know about computers and I know about computers. So what’s your favorite high level programming language?-RealScientist
Yeah - I’m interested to hear his response too. I know what my answer would be.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:01 pmWell, I guess we’ve discovered how to shut Seixon up. Ask him a technical question.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:19 pmWhatever > I see Bush protects embryonic stem-cells, but sends young Americans off to Iraq to die as cannon fodder? He is a messed up weird president who needs to resign or be impeached!
July 10th, 2006 at 9:35 pmThe push-button mass murderer does care about them fetuses!
July 10th, 2006 at 9:43 pmOne of the reasons GWB would likely veto a stem cell bill is because ‘Big Pharma’ has no desire to see diseases actually be ‘cured’, where is the money in that? They want to treat your symptoms, not stop the reason for them. And if it helps to placate the ‘Fundies’ at the same time, even better.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:49 pmanything good for mankind gets the boooooot. he’ll protect embryos but send young american lives to be murdered for his ‘dirty’ work. NOW THAT IS A COWARD.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:08 pmScience IS a belief. Nothing more.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pmComment by Conservative Dem — July 10, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
WOW! Now, thats probably the stupidiest thing Ive read.
#126 - I don’t now and probably never will understand hostility toward the unborn.
I know this isn’t the the exact topic, but I just can’t comprehend those who cheer and applaud abortion. I’m personally torn on the subject but one thing is clear: it’s a horrible thing that should occur as infrequently as possible and be prevented when other means are available.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:24 pmwho cheers and applauds abortion? (I didn’t understand 126 to be supporting this–can’t speak for 126, but it seems possible 126 is making a point about what he/she believes to be an ironic contrast between value placed on fetuses versus value placed on humans who walk the earth, emerged from the womb)
This is a red herring, one of the straw men arguments Bush likes to build and knock down (”some argue for surrender…”). no one reasonable (does anyone even unreasonable??) cheers and applauds abortion. I do believe that a woman’s health, life and body is more important than a fetus that has not reached viability. even after viability, I still go with the woman’s life and health over the fetus. It’s not an easy choice by any means but it seems clear to me that living breathing human beings, including women, take priority over fetuses.
But that’s sort of a tangent. the real point is that no one “cheers and applauds” an abortion. it’s not a happy event, even for those who are pro-choice. But the alternatives to providing safe, legal abortions are worse, in my view
July 10th, 2006 at 11:56 pmScience IS a belief. Nothing more.
Comment by Conservative Dem — July 10, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
science is not a belief, it is a way of thinking, a way of searching for truth. Science does not dictate any particular outcome–it relies on experience and testing to seek truth.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:58 pmwho applauds abortion? planned parenthood and NARAL among others.
“the fetus?” the baby. it is a baby.
i would rather not get off on this tangent either tonight.
July 11th, 2006 at 12:13 amScience is a belief. Nothing more. - Conservative Dem
Did you use a computer to type that statement, Mr. Conservative? Did you just believe that computer into existence? Or did science have something to do with it?
Did you or one of your ancestors get ever get a bacterial infection? Were you treated with antibiotics? Did you just believe those antibiotics into existence? Or did science have something to do with it?
Did you drive a car or take a bus to work, assuming that you actually work? Did you just believe that automobile into existence? Or did science have something to do with it?
“Nothing more”. How absurd.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:50 amHere’s an interesting tidbit from the Genetics Science Learning Center at the University of Utah, not exactly a bastion of atheism:
“Newborn infants no longer need their umbilical cords, so they have traditionally been discarded as a by-product of the birth process. In recent years, however, the multipotent-stem-cell-rich blood found in the umbilical cord has proven useful in treating the same types of health problems as those treated using bone marrow stem cells and PBSCs.
Umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants are less prone to rejection than either bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells. This is probably because the cells have not yet developed the features that can be recognized and attacked by the recipient’s immune system. Also, because umbilical cord blood lacks well-developed immune cells, there is less chance that the transplanted cells will attack the recipient’s body, a problem called graft versus host disease.
Both the versatility and availability of umbilical cord blood stem cells makes them a potent resource for transplant therapies. ”
So why is this never, never brought up? Every baby born has an umbilical cord! The more born, the more stem cells for all!
But I guess that doesn’t froth up the right-wing, anti-abortion followers of GWB and BushCo.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:21 amToo bad, it sounds pretty promising. But I fear it will be decades before we can undo the damage the past 6 years have brought.
Hey Chase, we’d rather you didn’t too. Goodnight.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:24 amFirst let me say, JPV does not speak for all Atheists and niether do I.
The following is my take on Christianity.
That said, the trouble with religion isn’t that it proposes an answer, it is that it expects us to take the first answer available as being the truth, rather then questioning it. Further, it places the emphasis for all moral behaviour on some supreme being, with the exception of Budhism. It is in essence an attempt to hearken back to childhood, when mommy and daddy took care of you, and punished you when you were naughty.
Strangely, if you read the Bible there is evidence that it doesn’t view a fetus as a person just yet, therefore “The Bible tells us so” doesn’t even qualify as true when used as an argument against abortion, and certainly has no place whatsoever in a argument about stem cell research. For those who have actually read the book, the religious perspective most Christians hold is in fact mystifying, because the Bible quite clearly does not say anything about it.
It is further mystifying, that a document which bans freedom of religion, advises stoning your children to death for backtalk, has a whole section devoted to rules around slavery which doesn’t include a ban on slavery, holds that the maximum period a contract can be valid for is 49 years (including contracts of sale) and holds that this same all powerful being hates figs, is considered to be the source of all human morality. We have not only moved beyond the Bible, we have actually formed a society which in a lot of cases directly contradicts it. Indeed the very basis of capitalism is a direct contradiction of “thou shalt not covet.” In truth, there are only three commandments which are really in our law at all “Thou shalt not murder” “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not bare false witness.” The rest are directly contradicted by freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the most popular economic system of our age.
Even Jesus doesn’t get much say in how we live our lives. His ideal of free love (Love One another, as I have loved you) got nothing but open scorn when the hippies decided to take him on his word on that, his statements on Church governance are in direct contradiction to both the Protestant and the Catholic churches (He was anti public prayer, and very anti any sort of church hierarchy, viewing priests more as teachers then intercessors.)
Now, as an Atheist I have read the book, read up on Christianity’s history (where, if I said that I was an Atheist in any age when Christianity was supreme I wouldn’t get to say it twice) and I have noted the behaviour of a lot of Christians around me. Frankly, for all Christians claim to be more moral then anyone else, I haven’t seen it. Mostly, if someone comes to me asking if I want to invest in a Christian venture it is a con, if someone claims to treat their workers in a christian manner it means they pay them slave wages while making them pray for profits, and if someone claims to be a very good Christian, they are in jail or going there for some crime or another. The best Christians I know aren’t good Christians, they are just good people.
And all of this is besides the fact that the basis of Christianity is so unlikely, as to make the argument about as valid as saying that the world was created by a giant space squid and we need to get ready to move it on our space programs, because the world is in fact an egg and about to hatch (hence the continental plates.)
Now back to the argument on stem cell research and whether GWB is in fact a moron.
Stem cell research shows promise, GWB never really has. That’s all one really has to say on the matter.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:00 amonly an idiot would give a shit about your take on christianity or anyhting else for that matter
July 11th, 2006 at 8:26 amReply to liberal idiot:
If that is true, then why did you take the time to respond?
Apparently somebody ‘gives a shit’…
July 11th, 2006 at 8:30 amPeople who discredit science shouldn’t benefit from it. So to all you fundamentalists, give up your radios, televisions, playstations, refrigerators, automobiles, computers, medications, etc, etc, etc
July 11th, 2006 at 8:57 am“It’s like trying to debate digital vs. analog wristwatches with a headhunter from Borneo.”
:) Exactly.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:58 amWhich is to say conservative idiot, you don’t actually have an argument to counter anything I posted there.
July 11th, 2006 at 11:04 amAgain, people like Zell are about the only chance we have of winning elections, particularly in the South. You may not like it, but that is the truth, man.
Comment by Conservative Dem
July 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm===============
Are you serious?
An unhinged loudmouth who talks about wishing that he could challenge an individual to a dual?
He’s completely fallen off the political radar screen.
I suggest you rethink your position.
133 “who applauds abortion? planned parenthood and NARAL among others.”
that’s really weak. Your making this ridiculous unsupported assertion that does not make it true. It’s BS
“the fetus?†the baby. it is a baby.” what is this, the conservative PC cops? fetus was still a word last I checked, and I think it makes a lot of sense to distinguish in utero fetuses from babies. The dictionary agrees with me on this one
July 11th, 2006 at 11:45 pmType Ii Diabetes Medicine
Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:53 amWeight Loss Pill Identifier Pills
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pmValentine
I have seen many sites before and most of them do not look this good. I cannot wait to let my friends know about this site. Thanks for the excellent content.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pmEric
Thanks for the blog!
March 31st, 2008 at 4:01 am