Stem Cells

Apr. 9th, 2009 02:30 pm
mik3cap: (Default)
Apparently the only people who really have an issue with stem cell research are Catholics and Christian fundies. That's a pretty seriously small minority. Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism have no issues with using stem cells for research purposes, as the research occurs to cells before any of those belief systems consider them "alive". Only Catholics and fundamentalists/cultists believe in personhood at conception/fertilization.

Don't ever let them paint this issue as one where "religions" believe using stem cells is wrong! The vast majority of people in the world believe using stem cells to research healing is fine.
mik3cap: (Default)
There must be no intersection of religious law and state/federal law. I do not elect priests and imams. They do not make resource decisions for me. I do not pay them my taxes. They do not enforce my laws.

I reject and ignore sharia law, and any other religious laws. I do not recognize any religions as having any place in my life. The secular state is vital - and supporting and solidifying the secular state is THE ONLY MEANS by which any religion can hope to avoid future religious persecution! Only a non-partisan, non-religious organization can provide impartial arbitration and resource management amongst people of varying (or no) religion.

Religious people should pray long and hard for the survival and thriving of the secular state; or woe to them when the forces of persecution and prejudice come knocking on their door!
mik3cap: (Default)
I was listening to NPR yesterday, and was witness to yet another of the endless attempts by homophobic, power hungry, politicizing bigots to take civil rights away from people. This time it was a discussion of the upcoming political tempest in a teapot - since gay marriage worked so great for Republicans in 2004, they're going to take aim at gay adoption in 2006. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of children currently adopted by gay singles and couples, there are 16 or so states working towards legislation to ban gay adoption; legislation that will no doubt be ready to bring out the "religious whackjob" (as they are called by Tom DeLay's staff) voting contingent in November.

What I really hate most is that any time I hear one of these "debates" no one ever confronts the anti-gay/lesbian speaker for exercising a moral prejudice against people they've never met. They never start with questioning their base assumptions - why are you assuming a negative environment for children cared for by gay/lesbian parents? Why do you implicitly suggest that homosexual is equivalent to over-sexed? And I'm always pissed off when they discuss "gay lifestyle" and "sexual choice" as if sexual preference were something you could just suddenly decide on the spot and change.

How many gay/lesbian people do you actually know? If gays and lesbians aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else, what is it about them that makes them so different? What's the difference between discriminating against someone based on skin color, religion, or sexual preference? At what point in your life did you "choose" to be straight? Can you choose not to be straight?

These are the questions that bigots need to be confronted with. I really don't think it's that hard to show someone they're being a bigot - it's just that people are rarely confronted with the truth of their bigotry, under the guise of "everyone's entitled to an opinion." I couldn't agree less! The long and short of it is: bigots aren't entitled to be bigots, and misinformed people are not entitled to being misinformed.
mik3cap: (Default)
"But isn't there any hope?"

"For what? We hope or despair because of the way we've been programmed. Genes and randomness. That's all there is, and none of it matters."

"Does that mean you're not going to get married and have children?"

"I have no innate desire to get married or have kids. That's beyond my control. And really it makes no difference, since the planet's fast running out of natural resources and we won't survive to the next century."

"But what if you're wrong? What if there is a god?"

"If that makes you feel better."
mik3cap: (Default)
Who wants to tear this guy's essay apart?

It basically amounts to: "Oh yeah?? Well I can rephrase your argument concerning lack of evidence just by replacing the names in the writing, so it doesn't count!" Not that he actually tries to prove Jesus existed or anything, because hey, that one's a given. He just tries to make people who deny existence without evidence seem like "lunatics".


mik3cap: (Default)

June 2010

6 7891011 12
131415 16 171819


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 04:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios