July 21, 2006

WHAT ELSE WOULD DRIVE IT?:

The backward veto (Seattle Times, 7/21/06)

President Bush's veto of an effort to expand federally funded embryonic stem-cell research shows once again how far he is willing to go to appease religious conservatives and set our country backward.

Once again, private religious beliefs drive public policy.


At least they acknowledge that signing the bill would have required setting aside one's religious beliefs. If you're going to advocate amorality it's best to do so honestly.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 21, 2006 7:03 AM
Comments

The logical inconsistencies of the radical secularists make an absurd case and reasonable discussion almost impossible. Multi-cultists and ethical relativists are just as foolish.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. at July 21, 2006 8:26 AM

The paper's ideal politician is Mario Cuomo, who professed to put his religious beliefs in a lock box when he was governor of New York, as if seperation of church and state means all elected officials of the state must seperate themselves from their own moral code of conduct, if it has any basis at all in religion that goes against the liberal credo.

Posted by: John at July 21, 2006 9:06 AM

Just another step in the left's march towards abandoning democracy.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 21, 2006 9:32 AM

They're not opposed to religious beliefs driving public policy, so long as the subject religion is the Church of What's Happenin' Now, Baby.

Posted by: Mike Morley at July 21, 2006 11:06 AM

Every single time this drivel is spewed forth, it needs to be crushed by asking whether Martin Luther King should have been able to be politically active.

Posted by: b at July 21, 2006 11:41 AM

b:

No, more important--what other basis is there for ending slavery and Jim Crow but religion?

Posted by: oj at July 21, 2006 11:45 AM

True enough. But anyone who would write this nonsense is obviously 1) mind-bogglingly historically ignorant, and 2) probably a baby-boomer. So going back longer than 50 years is hopeless...

Posted by: b at July 21, 2006 11:58 AM

Dumb. Consideration for human life is not a ritual matter, such as whether altar bread is to be leavened of unleavened, nor is it a theological matter, such as whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son of from the Father to the Son. Likewise it is not an ecclesisiatical matter, such as whether tax money should support a particular religious establishment.

Rather it is a moral question, which religious consideration may, but need not neceessarily, inform

Posted by: Lou Gots at July 21, 2006 1:00 PM
« WHEN HONESTY IS A LIE: | Main | SELF-LIMITED SCOPES (via JAB): »