Too bad Joe is gone. I was going to discuss "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." I love this line, as much as it's misused. You see, it DOESN'T say that I can't take a log out of my brother's eye when I have a speck in mine. That's probably why the best counsellors for alcoholics have been alcoholics themselves. And why Catholic politicians might be swayed by their Catholic constituents, no?

Joe,
Brother in Christ, thanks for dialoguing with us. Wish more Prot's would do so,
--former Prot

OK, I lied, one last post.
David B: Sounds good to me. That's the most civil thing I've heard yet on here. :) Agree to disagree, agreed!
Ok, now I'm gone.
/Flame on!

Well Joe,
Let's agree to disagree (I hate line). I hope you haven't found my comments to be rude.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now; I think by this point we have successfully beat this dead horse many times over, and the discussion has (often by my own fault) strayed far from the original post about being upset by Catholic lawmakers voting in what has been demonstrated here as very un-Catholic ways. Which is understandable, given from what you all have said.
I still maintain that the stem cell debate is not as simply black and white that a lot of you are making it out to be; whether you choose to agree with me or not (and I am guessing you will opt for the "not" there)
In sum, I'm glad that as a non-Catholic I can make my own opinion on it based on the available facts out there, instead of inheriting what is handed down as how I should feel about it from a bunch of guys in Rome.
I'm sure now there will be more inflammatory posts to me after my exit, "Oooh I'll pray for him because he is so hateful, blah , blah" etc. That's fine, because I won't be here to read it!
Flame on!
//proud to be Protestant, and form my own opinions.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

David B:
OK, I understand what you mean about the Pope now. Thanks for clearing it up, I wasn't sure what you meant in some of your earlier posts.

Joe,
The Pope can sin if he wants to, but he will never find any teachings of the church to back him up. He has the authority to speak on ESCR, but that doesn't mean that he also has Carte Blanche to order people to sin.

The Church is the Body of Christ, with Him as the Head of His Body, and we the parts. The Head is perfect, the parts are not. But He is making us perfect. Eventually, the parts will be perfect.
Christ has given the Church His Authority, and guaranteed that, through the Holy Spirit, she will never, in her official teachings, never teach in error on matters of Faith and Morals. But He never guaranteed that His Church's leaders would always speak those teachings when they should, nor did He gurantee impeccability. Every pope can echo the words of St. Peter: "I am a weak and sinful man."

David:
My point is only that they don't always base their actions on the teachings of the "perfect" Church, unless in the case I mentioned earlier you think the Church teachings told the Pope et al. to exterminate the heretics?

Joe,
What's your point? Men are sinners, but when the Pope or the bishops base their condemnation of ESCR on Church teaching, it is the truth, and not their fallible opinions.

Sailorette:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Sailorette:
So you think hypocrisy is OK, then?

More than the sum of the parts.
However, I disagree with the basic statement-- you don't have to be perfect to judge, or society would fall. If only those who have never had a dark mark against anything they've been involved in can judge, society can't go on.

"Agreed. But the Church IS perfect, and has authority on Faith and morals, and uses that authority in condemning ESCR."
Maybe I am completely ignorant, and if so I apologize, but isn't that authority within the Church held by ... men? The Pope, cardinals, bishops, and such?

"nobody is perfect and can judge others."
Agreed. But the Church IS perfect, and has authority on Faith and morals, and uses that authority in condemning ESCR.

Bill:
As someone who frequently cuts himself shaving, I hear you on that remark. :-)

No argument, Joe A. The Church is full of sinners (as I'm reminded every time I shave). Her worst enemies have always been those within rather than those without. (Cardinal Richlieu comes to mind).

David,
I am merely trying to point out that over a long enough timeline, nobody is perfect and can judge others.
There were no teachings, I know, but the fact is that there was a time where the upper echelons of the Catholic Church were not above murder to stamp out heresy.
I know this strays a bit from the stem cell discussion, I apologize. But I did want to mention it.

Joe Attardi,
Though there have been many bad Catholics, I am sure you will never find any official Church teachings telling anyone to commit murder. The Church herself never condones any sin, even when her own children (including the Popes)are the ones doing evil.

From http://www.ordotempli.org/the_cathars.htm:
Arnold Aimery, the Papal Legate at the siege of Beziers, ordered his men: "Show mercy neither to order, nor to age, nor to sex....Cathar or Catholic, Kill them all... God will know his own....".

Are you familiar with the massacre of the Cathars at Montsegur? The Catholic Church hasn't always been so unflinchingly in support of the preservation of all life...

I have a theory about why the vote was so much more slanted against babies than most abortion-related votes have recently been.
At least with abortion, women are usually claiming (truthfully or otherwise) that it is a difficult decision to make, or that they were "forced" into it, due to their circumstances ("I'm still in school" or "My baby and I would have to live in poverty our entire lives"). With ESCR, though, nobody's even pretending this is a difficult moral decision to make - instead, it is treated as "for me, for my benefit, for my family's health" or even better, "for the technological future of our country." God forbid our country fall behind in the dangerous, immoral technology sector. We need to do this for me! Besides, the damage has already been done (fertilized ovum from IVF) - time to reap the spoils of war, er... I mean, science.
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is promoted by groups like campusprogess.org - they are stressing the potential, possible benefits, ignoring all the horrible failures so far, as well as ignoring the numerous (and expanding) successes of more ethical means of stem cell research.
Colleges without a strong base in faith are fortresses of the "science above all" kind of thinking. They are taught that science and utilitarianism trumps any and all personal concerns. They treat the human being as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of themselves. (I've posted more about this at my blog
"Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, 'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.' ... for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?" Luke 23:28-31

francis03:
I see it a lot. Especially on other sites with message boards that I frequent, most Christians I see are usually caught up in judging and condemning the people who don't agree with them, or with the doctrine passed down by the folks in Rome.

"In vitro fertilization is against Catholic teaching."
Oh, OK. I didn't know that. I won't ask why; that's likely to open up a whole new flame war, which none of us want.

Joe,
I am often uncomfortable with what I feel is the mean-spiritedness and piling-on that occurs around here. I feel that some posters are rather poor ambassadors for Christ and his Church.
To respond to a question you just asked, Catholics do oppose in vitro fertilization. The moral issues you raise with regard to what to do with frozen IVF embryos are significant, and need to be wrestled with. I think-- and maybe someone can corroborate this-- that a big part of the problem people have with this research is that in addition to using embryos that "are going to die anyway," it also involves creating lots of new embryos specifically to kill them and do research on their cells. This seems to me to be one of the more heinous acts I can think of.

Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. This is for Joseph again. Since you suggested that I "could fill your organ donor card requirement early", are you suggesting that I kill myself, or be killed? How very Christian of you. Maybe I should pray for you, having such hateful feelings towards another person.

I've missed a few posts over the weekend I see!
First off let me apologize for something. I did not mean to sound like a troll when I first sounded off in this argument. It wasn't the best approach, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone with the way I phrased my remarks.
That being said, a few points:
(1) Hey Joseph, since you put 'insignificant' in quotation marks before my reference to a 'clump of cells' you seem to be adding that word to my quotation. I never said it was insignificant.
(2) Again Joseph, I never said anything about feeling contempt for embryos. Hang on, let me re-read the thread to make sure. Nope, I didn't. So I'd appreciate if you would stop embellishing the things I said.
(3) As for the reference to Godwin's Law - I realize now re-reading everything that it was made out of context and I am willing to retract that. However, I don't appreciate people saying I'm "hiding" behind it and such. Why is it that several of the responses to things I've said have been modified to be more inflammatory?
(4) Kathy: Do you normally pray for people simply because they disagree with you?
So, in short: Several people have been embellishing the things I said when quoting them to demonize me, then suggest that everyone pray for me. I don't appreciate my words being twisted in this way.
I was not trying to say that an embryo was insignificant, or otherwise expendable. I guess I was mostly trying to get people to just at least consider the other side before passing judgment on me because I don't agree with the agreed-upon stance here.
I do have this to add to the discussion, too: Why aren't you opposed to in vitro fertilization in general? Many embryos die in the process to attempt to get one inside the mother to attach and grow?
I'm simply saying this: A lot of these embryos will die/not survive anyway. And, I doubt that tax dollars will be spent to preserve them frozen, indefinitely.
I can totally understand you being opposed to it, and that's fine. What I took issue with even at the beginning was that the comments here seemed more intended to demonize those who voted in favor of, or support, this research, instead of talking about the issue itself.
Hopefully this post came across less inflammatory than some of my others. Thanks for listening.

Amen to that, Kathy Haas.

How about if the rest of us pray for Joe?

Joe
Since everyone on the planet began as this "insignificant" clump of cells, I would be carefull about dismissing their worth in such a cavalier manner. When Bush announced his veto, the prescious children behind him began as rescued blastocysts. Obviously they werent summarily destroyed. Maybe you could tell them that research is more important than their lives? Maybe since you too began as this cell clump you hold in contempt, you could fill your organ donor card requirement early. After all, it's in the name of curing diseases.

I think Joe A. is trying to misapply Godwin's Law to his own advantage. According to Wikipedia:
The law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse...should be avoided...
What would he have hidden behind if the commenter had used the Japanese prison camps of WWII as an analogy? I don't think there's a Japanese corollary to Godwin's law, and I believe either way the comparison stands on its own and was not used gratuitously.
BTW, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Chinese ESCR research programs have had some pretty spectacular failures of late--by 'spectacular,' I mean, 'unimaginably tragic and horrific for the poor patients who were chosen for the clinical trials.' Anybody know any more about this matter?

I'm from the corrupt state of IL where two flaming liberals are in the Senate (Durbin and Obama), and Mark Kirk, my Republican rep. who I generally like was proud to have helped usher this bill through the House, and I live in a community where the biggest uproar over a life issue centered on culling the deer population. And the Chicago Tribune went for the utilitarian argument. And our governor showed his testicular virilty (his phrase, I'm NOT making that up!) but doing an end run around the General Assembly and signed an executive order committing $5 mil of money the state doesn't have toward embryonic stem cell research.
Congrats to those who graciously reminded Joe he, too, once was and still is a clump of cells.

The end doesn't justify the means. No matter how much "good" is expected to come from it.

That last post was mine, BTW.

Hey.... the guy who said that embrio research isn't the same as what the Nazis did is right.
The Nazis took prisoners and did immoral research.
The folks that want to the embrio research are talking about growing thousands of their own and doing immoral research.
Much larger pool of possible victims, and I find it much more horrifying to create someone specifically so you can tear them to bits.

A further thought on Catholic politicians who don't vote Catholic.
Imagine a candidate runs on a pro-NASA platform, canvases to people that favor NASA. Says, "Hey, I'm one of you. I'm part of your culture."
After election, this person consistantly cuts NASA's budget , generally makes statements that are from the Flat-earth Society home page and says "I'm personnally in favor of gravity but..."
Would the people who were swayed to vote for him be a triffle upset?

1st of all, Joe, my are you high comment was out of line. My apologies.
2nd, Michael, thank you for the information. Although I work in a field where I am exposed to MRI's and other spin off technologies.
This said,I do equate embrionic stem cell research with Nazi crimes against humanity.
The embrio is a human being. If he or she is not granted the right to exist, no other right exists either.

"And claiming it's apples and oranges doesn't prove it."
Yes, watching a Secularist Relativist try to use logic and build working arguments is a lot like watching a child play-pretend adult by putting on their parents clothes.
Precious.

sigh

(See Godwin's law.)
Godwin's law is a childish ad hominem attack used to evade an obvious counter-example to an argument. (Always, not just here.)
And claiming it's apples and oranges doesn't prove it.

Joe,
You believe you are invoking a "middle ground" when in fact you siding in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
Laws define moral boundaries. They are not friendly suggestions on what you should do. That is the nature of law.
To suggest a Christian dispense with his beliefs as a lawmaker is well, to ask them to perform a moral lobotomy.
By requiring political leaders to do this, you are in fact, placing an unconstitutional restriction on the free practice of religion as well advocating a thought-police standard for how people can vote.
In your view of how government should work, a Muslim senator and would be forced to vote like all the other Secularist senators because to let his supernatural understanding of the universe sway his vote would be, in your eyes, impermissible.
Funny how when you think you have toppled dogma, you get, yet more dogma.
If you want Secularist government where the sanctity of human life is not an issue, please move to China -- where abortions are mandatory and embryonic stem cell research is all rage.
Ni shi wo de zui hao tongzhi ah!

"This is a tough issue; it's not so black-and-white ,there's a lot of gray area. But a lot of people are acting as if it's a completely black-and-white issue, and it's not so simple."
This sounds like rhetoric straight from the mouth of satan.
Yea! Oklahoma voted correctly!

I see -one- Democrat Senator that doesn't have to be hung by the neck until dead according to the Nuremburg Code.

Have embrionic stem sells, er, cells been used to treat disease one? No.
Have adult cells? Yes.
As a tax payer, why support my money being thrown down another big hole?
Not to jump into the fray here, but I'd like to clarify a few things about research and ESC research in particular.
First, ASCs are not nearly as curative as ESCR opponents make out. The main reason for this is that they are basically organ transplants and one has to contend with histocompatability issues. So, yes, ASCs have been used to treat disease but they haven't actually treated all that many people. But that's all really beside the point.
The real point is that ESCR falls under the rubric of basic research, which is research that is generally several degrees removed from immediate applicability. This confuses many people. Why am I paying taxes for research that isn't curing anybody? Well, we really don't know much about development. We know that ASCs are older than ESCs, and that they are further along in the differentiation pathway. We don't know how they get there. We'd like to study the steps before they get destined to becomes, say, a blood cell. So we look at ESCs to try to figure that out. The real potential to cure disease from ESCR is not necessarily the actual use of the ESCs in treatment regimens, but from treatments that arise because we have a better understanding of cell differentiation and development.
It isn't throwing your tax dollars down a big hole. It's just that many people don't grasp the idea of basic research so it merely appears that way. For example, your tax dollars (and lots of them) went to developing gigantic machines with big magnets to help chemists study the intimate details of small molecules, which is pretty esoteric. And guess what came from that seemingly trivial piece of research? MRIs. Which are invaluable to the medical community.
Which brings us to federal funding. ESCR is basic research, which is funded primarily by the federal government for several reasons. One, the NIH is the largest grant-making organization and it is properly prepared (unlike smaller, private NGOs) to fund the most promising research, so much less money gets wasted. Two, for-profit funding is, well, for profit. Basic research is too many steps removed from a sellable product. All the earliest steps in research are funded by the government because it is considered a public good.
But all of this is completely irrelevent. If killing embryos is bad, killing embryos is bad, regardless of whether or not its your tax dollars or if ASCs have more immediate clinical relevence. If it were the other way around, and ESCs had demonstrated more promise than ASCs, would that magically justify killing embryos? No.
I guess my point is this: when properly informed about ESCR and when it is put in the context of the reality of biological research, ESCR is emminently justifiable as valid research we should be spending money on. The question is, how powerful would it have to be justify the destruction of embryos?

Joe,
You are mistaking natural law as an artical of faith. All people, regardless of faith, are obliged to respect natural law. It is against natural law to kill innocent people for our own gain. Secondly, just because someone may be planning to destroy embryos doesn't give you the right to kill the embryo first so some secondary good can come from its death.

At least the senator that I voted for (Senator Ensign) voted against this bill. He darn well better have! He sends a letter to our annual Pro-Life rally on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I'm glad to see that he's more pro-life than a lot of others.

Joe, I don't know whether you're married or have children. But most people who do start referring to "the baby" and "our baby" as soon as they find out they're pregnant. In fact, even "popular-guide-to-pregnancy" books do it. So I submit that in ordinary English usage, a tiny embryo is both "a clump and cells" AND "a baby."
Besides-- you recognize that at least a clump of cells dies when an embryo is destroyed. I'm sure you also recognize that this clump of cells gets half of its genome from its father, and half from its mother. This means you recognize that the tissue genetically does not belong to the mother. But at the same time, it IS human tissue. So-- whose tissue is it? Any pregnant couple can tell you: it's "the baby's!"
As to Catholic politicians not voting like they're Catholics-- of course they're legally free to do so; nobody disputes that. You seem to have a problem with Catholics WANTING them to vote like Catholics. You say that to ask them to do that is to ask them to alienate everyone else they represent. But by this same rationale, you should NEVER expect a politician to do ANYTHING for you, because doing so would alienate some other people he/she represents! This is nonsense. Democracy depends on people voting for representatives whose laws will please them, and on people complaining when the laws passed by the representatives don't please them. Although you acknowledged that this is a "good point" when I brought it up earlier, you didn't address it. If you don't intend to do so, I hope you'll lay off the folks around here who are exercising their rights to free speech and participation in the political process.

"So many so-called Christians I see are more worried about politics and everybody else rather than themselves."
Genuine concern for others, especially those most vulnerable to exploitation, and putting others before ourselves is a huge part of what it means to be Christian.
"This is a tough issue; it's not so black-and-white ,there's a lot of gray area. But a lot of people are acting as if it's a completely black-and-white issue, and it's not so simple."
Embryonic stem cell research intentionally kills innocent human beings. If you want to give your life for research, go for it. But taking others' lives is wrong. Black and white.

"The analogy of cutting your hair is specious: cutting your hair does not involve killing human life, the ends of your hair are dead anyway."
As I said, that probably was a lousy analogy.