The Billiken's Bluff

Again, my attempt to use the comments window to "throw tripe" at St. Nick's posts was getting a little control with so much silliness to respond to. So more copy-pasting, "create a new post" clicking on the ol' blogger page, and just like magic theres more N Dot "pretentiousness" for everyone to enjoy!

I can't comment much on the first half of the Saint's post, largely because I'm still a little fuzzy on the point being made. Maybe I'm just not seeing the forest for the trees and throwing out babies with bathwater here, but to me it seems like the Saint views being characterized by foreign press in brief articles and sending fewer athletes to the Olympics somehow signifies the fall of the American empire (clearly something any solid Anti-Bushocrat would break out the champagne for) or at least a blow to our ego? I dont know, if you say so. I know I'm not shedding any American tears over too-brief articles in the Mirror or the potential for a weak attendance at the Olympics by American synchronized swimmers in 2016.



What any of this has to do with American "moral superiority," is way, way beyond me. That devil was definitely not in the details.

But about the religion stuff: I'd have to think that the proposition that religion in its many forms has served for hundreds of years and continues to serve as a "moral compass" for populations around the globe is pretty untouchable. Not only is it not a "naive consideration," but it is one of those, you know, historical facts. You'd have to have donated all your stem cells for research to try to argue otherwise.

Certainly there is a valid argument to be made against the Federal Marriage Amendment. But I think the logic that has led you to rail against ideological ideas ending up in the constitution is a little spotty, to put it mildly. Clearly the government has an interest in setting up laws that promote a society of people with moral standards, respect for the sanctity of human life, etc. - that's what is behind moves to limit stem cell research. Yes religious ideologies have a stance on this issue, but does their having the stance negate the possibility that the government should look at the issue?

I'm more or less for stem cell research myself, but as a point I don't believe issues that involve difficult moral questions automatically fall outside the scope of the government - and I certainly would love to hear the Saint explain to me how my "precious little quote" from the constitution in fact forbids the government's role in such regulation, because his post certainly does not accomplish this. Are they establishing "a religion" to limit this kind of research?

Christianity also forbids murder, for instance, or stealing. These involve admittedly simpler and less controversial moral issues - but moral issues nonetheless. We need to balance the prospect for scientific and medical advances with some degree of consideration to morality as it relates the use of human life/material in research (Ever see Extreme Measures with Gene Hackman? Don't - it sucks and has Hugh Grant, but it makes this point), and to that end I can't see how the U.S. government can be barred from taking up an interest in the issue simply because a crowd of Anti-Bushocrats look down on religious people and couldn't fathom the actual limits of the "seperation of church and state" to save their lives.

And finally, this:

And just for the record, the constitution doesn't ban handguns either, so I guess that means Jesus like shotting cans off a wooden fence post?

What the hell? Now you really lost me.