daniel says:
"AttemptingReason says:"I would not call myself religious, but I think that it should not matter in this case."
I think that, in this debate, it actually does matter. Opponents to public display of the Commandments will point, quite correctly, to the fact that our legal system is adaptive and is not tied to ancient, fundamental laws. On the other side of the fence are those that claim Christianity is part of our country's history, and arguably, it is. The colonies were Protestant, as were the Founders. I would like the Commandments to be displayed if only as a "look how far we've come based on these fundamental moral principles," rather than "WE'RE CHRISTIANS and anyone who is not is un-American and shall be smote." That would be a mistake. The goal we should be reaching for is when students are reading the Holy Bible, the Qur'an and many other religious and non-religious texts side by side with an equally open mind to all."
Part of my point is that the commandments do not represent some sort of foundational morality for the US. What was it about our avoidance of graven images that made the United States great? Why is keeping the sabbath holy an integral part of federal law? Well, it isn't, but that is the point. The first four commandments are specific directions on the dos and don'ts of worship that have no relevance in other affairs, especially for non-Christians. As for the others, they may be considered vague moral guidelines, but do they even approach the relevancy to US history as the ideals of free enterprise, freedom of the press, or "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" My conclusion is that the 10 commandments don't have enough historical relevancy to warrant their display, even if they had no innate religious preference.
The eggs are donated, or about to be thrown away, so no problem there. The DNA of the mother is removed and DNA from the patient is injected, making a clone, so no fertilization really goes on. The cells are harvested mere days later, before any differentiation occurs, so there is no chance of suffering, since there isn't even a notochord, let alone a brain yet. Since the embryo is a clone, I think there would be more ethical issues if it was allowed to mature, compared to harvesting cells. Unless I am very inaccurate in my understanding of the process, I think the benefits of embryonic stem cell research, in terms of reduced suffering, outweigh the reasonable objections. On a side note, there has been a lot of progress in making pluripotent stem cells from the patient's own tissues, so the issue may become moot.
I would not call myself religious, but I think that it should not matter in this case. I think that it is plain that the ten commandments are not the root of the laws of this country, so they do not deserve to be publicly endorsed by our government, even if doing so would not endorse one religion over others.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)
Blatantly supportive of one religious sect over all others.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."(Exodus 20:4-6)
Also blatantly sectarian. Plus, visiting the iniquities of the father onto his descendants is a travesty of justice not suitable for display on our courthouses.
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (Exodus 20:7)
Three for three, sectarian. You'd think other moral advice would be more pertinent.
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11)
I feel like a broken record.
"Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." (Exodus 20:12)
Nice sentiment. Too broad to be much use though. Should you still honor your parents if they touch you in the "naughty place?"
"Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13)
Simple, broad, and obvious.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
Okay.
"Thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15)
It's a good thing God thought this up, society sure would suck if no one realized that they aren't supposed to steal.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Exodus 20:16)
This is the only part that seems fitting for a courthouse. But, its also obvious.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exodus 20:17)
Nice sentiment. However, I feel the implied ownership of the wife and servants to be inappropriate for a modern society.
I apologize for the long post. My point is, the ten commandments of the Old Testament are overtly sectarian in nature, and thus unsuitable for display or endorsement by our government. To do so would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment, which would be an affront to the foundation of this country.
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Intelligent Design out of public schools
The modern re-conception of Intelligent design is not science. It's proponents have merely dredged up the old arguments used by Paley in the time of Darwin, and slapped a molecular biology veneer over it. Like all creationist movements since evolution became accepted, it has produced no research in support of itself, and makes no falsifiable claims. They have only tried to undermine the average person's understanding of evolution, while wedging ID into schools through appeals to biblical literalist school board members. I disagree with perm735, I believe that as long as the federal government provides significant funding to a school, it is justified in requiring a competent curriculum. In response to Bold Strike. This may be a "world of scientific uncertainties," but reason demands that a line be drawn. Questioning the validity of evolution, based on the evidence we have now, would be like questioning whether the holocaust happened, based on the fact that we don't know the names of everyone involved. For info about evolution/ID/Creationism, I recommend the videos of cdk007 on youtube, and the talk.origins archive. Please surprise me by checking them out, Bold.
Since the first post is ambiguous in its intentions, I abstained from voting. However, My view is that all valid scientific viewpoints should be fairly represented in United States schools. Impressionable children should never be exposed to a one sided, artificially constricted viewpoint, when real alternatives exist. So ID is out. Intelligent design has no scientific basis whatsoever, its proponents have generated no research supporting the "theory" and have focused almost exclusively on shoehorning their way past the due processes of science by going directly to the media and the school boards. Ever since the Dover trial, the Discovery Institute and its ilk have been advocating the idea of "teaching the controversy," but there is no controversy. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and is reflected in the huge consensus among scientists from all walks of life. Anyone interested in more info can check out the talk.origins archive, just google it.
