Religious Stance on Stem Cell Research

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Well tax exempt status for certain religious communities for one.

Here's a very specific example, as brought up by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion - some parts are paraphrased, most are take directly though.

On 21 February 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody has to obey, against the taking of hallucionogenic drugs.

The drug in question was dimethyltryptamine in the form of a tea they drank. They believe that they can understand God by doing so. They don't have to produce evidence, simply saying thing believed it was sufficient enough. Yet, there is plenty of evidence that cannabis eases the nausea and discomfort of cancer sufferers undergoing chemotherapy. Yet the Supreme Court ruled in 2005, that all patients who use cannabis for medicinal purposes are vulnerable to federal prosecution (even in the minority of states where such specialist use is legalized).

Well, to be fair, that's the US we're talking about. In Canada, pot smoking for medicinal uses has been decriminalized. Also, I'm sure that the usage of the drug for the church is strictly regulated.

Another example:
In 2005, a twelve year old in Ohio won the right in court to wear a t-shirt to school saying: "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told him not to wear the shirt, the parents sued the school and won.

The parents might have had a conscionable case if they based their argument on the First Amendment's guarantee freedom of speech. But free speech is deemed not to include 'hate speech'. But hate only has to prove it is religious, and it no longer counts as hate. So they appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Here's the question then... is that hate speech? If I had a t-shirt that said "theft is a sin" would that be hate speech against theives? I haven't said I hate them, I just said it's a sin. It's an opinion. I could see it if the shirt said things like "gays should die" or something. That's hateful. The t-shirt, in current form though, is more propaganda than hate. Just my opinion though, and one I'll likely get flamed for...

[FireFly]

Back to stem cells though. I think religion is more concerned with the method of extraction than anything. If science can find a way to extract stem cells without creating life and then killing it, that would be fine. It's the creation of life and the killing of it that bothers them.

[AC]

Originally Posted by yyc

But on the other hand if 150 cells can be thrown away for the greater good of humanity, when does the cell count stop at which we stop and say this is unethical?

The debate comes into play as to when a developing fetus/baby becomes a human. But this becomes an abortion issue, and is actually an issue outside of this one.

Originally Posted by yyc

Are my medical problems bad enough that i ask that a metally challenged person be cut apart since me and countless others suffer?

Ummm.... what? Where did this come from? Who is advocating the murder of people?

[AC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Here's the question then... is that hate speech? If I had a t-shirt that said "theft is a sin" would that be hate speech against theives? I haven't said I hate them, I just said it's a sin. It's an opinion. I could see it if the shirt said things like "gays should die" or something. That's hateful. The t-shirt, in current form though, is more propaganda than hate. Just my opinion though, and one I'll likely get flamed for...

What about the more recent 'God Hates Fags' group?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

What about the more recent 'God Hates Fags' group?

Also hateful. I mean, it says hate right in it. Can't be much more obvious.

*edited to add* also incorrect. I mean, God loves all his children. Love the sinner hate the sin. Says so right in the Bible. Therefore, it's also incorrect and the "God Hates Fags" group is a bunch of liars.. which is another sin that God hates, but He'll forgive them for it, if they ask for it.

[AC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Also hateful. I mean, it says hate right in it. Can't be much more obvious.

Sorry, I missed your initial point. The question you bring up is a valid one, as there is debate over what counts as hate speech.

For example, personalised criticism of homosexuality (e.g., expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values; to others, however, it is an expression of homophobia and is therefore homophobic hate speech.

Personally, I think when the subject moves from a moral value, to one of a person's lifestyle, specically their sexuality, any form of negative stance is inflamatory and should be deemed as hateful.

Originally Posted by FireFly

*edited to add* also incorrect. I mean, God loves all his children. Love the sinner hate the sin. Says so right in the Bible. Therefore, it's also incorrect and the "God Hates Fags" group is a bunch of liars.. which is another sin that God hates, but He'll forgive them for it, if they ask for it.

But it also says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and these people will burn in the depths of hell for it. Why can religious people pick and choose which parts of the bible represent 'true' moral beliefs and what cannot? It seems that people quoting the bible to support such inflamatory viewpoints are as justified in doing so as those who quote the bible in other regards. Frankly, I dont think quoting the bible is a legitimate way of proving something as it is written by men to support a specific viewpoint - especially considering the wide doubt regarding those who wrote it, and historical fact.

Edit: also:

Originally Posted by FireFly

*edited to add* also incorrect. I mean, God loves all his children.

Except the numerous times throughout the bible where god resorts to killing infants, right? Aside from his infanticidal tendencies, he loves his children.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Sorry, I missed your initial point. The question you bring up is a valid one, as there is debate over what counts as hate speech.

For example, personalised criticism of homosexuality (e.g., expressing the belief that homosexuality is "immoral" because it conflicts with a person's religious beliefs) is, to some, a valid expression of one's values; to others, however, it is an expression of homophobia and is therefore homophobic hate speech.

Competely disagree. I can feel that homosexuality is a sin but that doesn't mean I hate homosexuals. Certainly there are some people that would use it as hate speech and homophobia, but in no way does one guarantee the other.

But it also says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and these people will burn in the depths of hell for it. Why can religious people pick and choose which parts of the bible represent 'true' moral beliefs and what cannot? It seems that people quoting the bible to support such inflamatory viewpoints are as justified in doing so as those who quote the bible in other regards. Frankly, I dont think quoting the bible is a legitimate way of proving something as it is written by men to support a specific viewpoint - especially considering the wide doubt regarding those who wrote it, and historical fact.

I never said homosexuality wasn't a sin. I never said they won't burn in the depths of Hell for it. The Bible leaves no question as to the morality of the action. However, the Bible leaves no question as to what it means when it says "Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone" as well as "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Religious people cannot pick and choose... but they do. What does that say? Well, I'm not allowed to cast the first stone because I have sinned. I'm not allowed to judge as I'd rather not be judged. There are a lot of "Christians" out there who 'choose' to forget those messages, but those teachings of Jesus are the most important ones in the Bible. That's why it's called the New Testament. And any 'Christian' that chooses to forget them is in serious detriment of being judged themselves.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

Except the numerous times throughout the bible where god resorts to killing infants, right? Aside from his infanticidal tendencies, he loves his children.

The difference would be that in the Bible, God kills children out of love... to save them from something... Humans are not God however and are not supposed to determine who lives and who dies. Who's time is it to go and who needs to be saved from what. That's not our job. A Christian would say that a stem cell researcher who has decided to make and take life has decided it's okay for him to play god... and that's ego.

Again, there are other ways to extract stem cells. Any particular reason we need to make and take life for them? Because the scientists that consider themselves to be God are too impatient to wait until they can do so. It's easier for them to make and take life than it is to extract it from life without killing it. It's what we as humans have done to the world as a whole.. it's easier to kill the earth than it is to extract only what we need.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Back to stem cells though. I think religion is more concerned with the method of extraction than anything. If science can find a way to extract stem cells without creating life and then killing it, that would be fine. It's the creation of life and the killing of it that bothers them.

The problem is that religion arbitrarily decided when the soul comes into play. Apparently they decided that a soul is implanted at the moment of conception even though I'm sure the bible never got into the nuts and bolts of how a sperm fertilizes an egg.

Religion doesn't have any problems with killing something that doesn't have a soul so all organized religion has to do is arbitrarily decide that the soul is implanted into the embryo at the exact moment when brain waves begin to be detected.

It's that easy.

I'm sure that it'll happen eventually but organized religion has a track record of opposing science until they are for all intents and purposes forced to accept progress. I think they know that the more advanced science becomes, the less place and power there is for religion and that's a factor in why religion constantly opposes science so vigourously.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

The problem is that religion arbitrarily decided when the soul comes into play. Apparently they decided that a soul is implanted at the moment of conception even though I'm sure the bible never got into the nuts and bolts of how a sperm fertilizes an egg.

Religion doesn't have any problems with killing something that doesn't have a soul so all organized religion has to do is arbitrarily decide that the soul is implanted into the embryo at the exact moment when brain waves begin to be detected.

It's that easy.

I'm sure that it'll happen eventually but organized religion has a track record of opposing science until they are for all intents and purposes forced to accept progress. I think they know that the more advanced science becomes, the less place and power there is for religion and that's a factor in why religion constantly opposes science so vigourously.

Wow. You arbitrarily decided that "religion" decided... I'm quite sure that there was no group conference where the Hindus and the Christians and the Buddists and the Muslims all got together to decide when a 'soul' was formed. Actually, I'm just certain that some people feel the potential for human life happens the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg. Nothing more, nothing less. And that the potential for human life was enough for religious purposes. I don't recall the soul being mentioned... but that could be me.

And while religion may not have problems with killing something that doesn't have a soul... What about PETA? I mean... a unicellular organism is still a life form, no?

Furthermore, even science opposes science until they are forced to accept proof, but why don't you conveniently decide that that doesn't matter either.

[AC]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Furthermore, even science opposes science until they are forced to accept proof, but why don't you conveniently decide that that doesn't matter either.

As opposed to religion which demands no proof at all...?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Back to stem cells though. I think religion is more concerned with the method of extraction than anything. If science can find a way to extract stem cells without creating life and then killing it, that would be fine. It's the creation of life and the killing of it that bothers them.

That actually may not be far off. There was a study just a couple months ago that dealt with the creation of embryonic stem-cells by coaxing somatic cells to de-differentiate and essentially revert back to an embryonic stem-cell form. So hopefully this entire debate will become redundent within a year or two, but really any delay is pointless.

ps. kudos on the Saramago reference from earlier in the thread. My all-time favorite author.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

As opposed to religion which demands no proof at all...?

Well, if we're talking about stem cell research since I'd like to keep this on topic as much as possible, what has science decided is the arbitrary age in which a fetus becomes human? How did they determine that? Is it not true that if you let the fertilized egg be, it will develop into a human? Why then would you have to wait until any further along to consider it human? That's not even the religious person in me who wants to know that? I demand proof that before 3 or 6 or 8 weeks that isn't a human. Cause I'm 100% certain that it is if you leave it alone.

WIll there ever be proof there's a God? No. I can admit that. I choose to believe it anyways. You're right. I demand no proof that there is indeed a creater because I 'feel' the truth in it. I'm sure it's hocus pocus to most of you, and I don't really give a rat's behind.

But if you're going to use your own rules to say that religion is false, you're bound by them. They're your own rules. Like I, as a Christian, am bound by mine. (As arbitrary as you believe them to be.)

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by octothorp

That actually may not be far off. There was a study just a couple months ago that dealt with the creation of embryonic stem-cells by coaxing somatic cells to de-differentiate and essentially revert back to an embryonic stem-cell form. So hopefully this entire debate will become redundent within a year or two, but really any delay is pointless.

ps. kudos on the Saramago reference from earlier in the thread. My all-time favorite author.

That's exactly it! If scientists would stop worrying about religion stopping stem cell research for religious reasons, and start working towards a way around those reasons.... they'd already have a way around those reasons and there'd be no debate! Just shut up and do it so we can all benefit! Just quit making and killings things cause it's 'easier' and takes less time!

[skins]

isn't this more of a ethical issue than a religious one?

also, I thought that stems cells could be drawn from other places besides embryos. can anyone else comment on that?

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Wow. You arbitrarily decided that "religion" decided... I'm quite sure that there was no group conference where the Hindus and the Christians and the Buddists and the Muslims all got together to decide when a 'soul' was formed. Actually, I'm just certain that some people feel the potential for human life happens the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg. Nothing more, nothing less. And that the potential for human life was enough for religious purposes. I don't recall the soul being mentioned... but that could be me.

And while religion may not have problems with killing something that doesn't have a soul... What about PETA? I mean... a unicellular organism is still a life form, no?

Furthermore, even science opposes science until they are forced to accept proof, but why don't you conveniently decide that that doesn't matter either.

Well here's a shred from Wikipedia:
"According to the accepted Confucian view, a person begins with birth; a person is an entity that has a body or shape and psyche, and has rational, emotional and social-relational capacity through a lifetime of experience, learning and innovation. Therefore to most Chinese, a human embryo, lacking the characteristics of a person, cannot be equated morally to a person or a personal life.[36] Stem cell research in China is thus unlikely ever to be prone to the intense moral politicking that characterizes the field in the West."

"The Confucian-influenced countries in East Asia—China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan—all have supportive policies toward stem cell research. India still has no policies covering stem cell research but is currently formulating them."

So it seems to me that the problem is basically the religions of the west arbitrarily decided that life starts at one point and the religions of the east arbitrarily decided that life starts at another point.

If they can't find a way around creating and destroying embryos, then the religions of the west will have to adapt their views like they have so many times before in the past, or risk becoming the next Amish.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by SpitFire40

Sure there is... spirituality is the middle ground. I consider myself pretty spiritual but the furthest from religious, religion is picking one side and believing in a certain set of beliefs and practicing that. Being spiritual to me is believing in the earth, nature, SCIENCE, and people in general.

Now, where religion conflicts with this is the religious believie these embryos have their own spirit, and are considered beings. I don't think so, you develop a your spirit as you live life. There's no chance for these embryos to do such a thing, so why not make use of them to improve, and save other people's lives??

Ok. I buy that. You're right. For the hardcore religious types, though - and I am generalizing, I know - they don't really seem to accept that grey area. If you have their level of faith, there is no question. If, like yourself, you are not faithless, but not hardcore enough, and support stem cell research, you're still going to hell. You will be punished just like everyone else lacking in faith. Although you may have a shot at getting off with purgatory or just the first circle of Dante's Hell

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

If they can't find a way around creating and destroying embryos, then the religions of the west will have to adapt their views like they have so many times before in the past, or risk becoming the next Amish.

Um, I'm fairly certain that they'll never change their views as there are other ways to do stem cell research. And the point skins makes about ethics does indeed come into play.

Now it's fine if you don't beleive that an embryo isn't a human. Super. But for the sake of not starting a major civil war over it, how about the scientists just extract the cells a different way. There is no right or wrong answer and it's not necessarily a religious one. SO how about we agree to disagree, and find a different way to get the cells to do the research. That way we're all satisfied. Or is that too much common sense for the scientists? Is it more about being right than about finding cures?

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Um, I'm fairly certain that they'll never change their views as there are other ways to do stem cell research. And the point skins makes about ethics does indeed come into play.

Now it's fine if you don't beleive that an embryo isn't a human. Super. But for the sake of not starting a major civil war over it, how about the scientists just extract the cells a different way. There is no right or wrong answer and it's not necessarily a religious one. SO how about we agree to disagree, and find a different way to get the cells to do the research. That way we're all satisfied. Or is that too much common sense for the scientists? Is it more about being right than about finding cures?

Because other methods are less effective/efficient/convenient/cheap/whatever other reason there might be. I don't actually know much about it, or what alternatives there are available, but if it was just as easy to go about it a different way that won't upset the naysayers, I'm sure they would go for it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

Because other methods are less effective/efficient/convenient/cheap/whatever other reason there might be. I don't actually know much about it, or what alternatives there are available, but if it was just as easy to go about it a different way that won't upset the naysayers, I'm sure they would go for it.

It's cheaper to just dump your sewage into the lake... why don't we let that go too? Sometimes you just need to suck it up. If we weren't so insistant on having it 'our way' there would be a lot less conflict in the world. How about we show a little tolerance for those who believe differently than we do? Maybe it isn't as easy, maybe it isn't as cheap, but you know what? If MILLIONS more people would feel better about doing it another way, why can't we? Is the almighty dollar that great? It's likely just as fast as 'growing' the cells...