At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life i

This article references a post last month on The Huffington Post.

There are basic human morals that exist independent of a [or “my”] belief in God. That’s the message Dems should be sending!

Some believe the origins of morality are intrinsically connected to the evolutionary process. (Creationists are not likely among those who believe this.) As humans evolved, a need to discern the difference between right and wrong developed in opposition to strict concepts of survival and “every man for himself” mentality. It’s not that people stopped wanting to survive. But, earlier versions of us began to realize that policies of self-interest alone were counterproductive to perpetuating the species. So a few core concepts began to develop, the most ingrained ones involved killing and protection (strict or nurturing).

From these core concepts, we can examine what we might agree are “basic human morals.” First let me say, although I minored in cultural anthropology in college and it’s remained an interest of mine for the last 20-some years, I’m not an expert in multicultural ethics. That said, here’s my list of basic human morals I respectfully suggest are at least philosophically universal among the cultures I’ve studied:

• relatively universal taboo against cannibalism;
• prevalent taboos against incest, pedophilia and child abuse;
• widely held abhorrence against rape, though much of the world continues to subjugate or objectify women (and some men) which makes a more prevalent taboo difficult to reach;
• abuses of other individuals through slavery, human trafficking, forced prostitution;
• a general abhorrence of torture;
• respect for human life (laws against murder prevail, but philosophically societies have diverse understandings of what it means to respect human life);
• in many cultures, but not all, concepts of equality between races and gender (this issue is given a lot of lip service in many societies, which provides a general sense that this is morally correct whether or not it’s a concept that’s actually followed and promoted through public policy)
• in many cultures, but not all, respect for animal life (some societies overtly exhibit respect for animal life, and many more have laws against animal cruelty, though laws on conservation of endangered species are less prevalent); and
• in many cultures, but not all, respect for the environment (though few societies overtly exhibit these concerns, there are wide-spread laws against polution and arson; there is also a general respect of nature — though in the United States, for example, many people deny the existence of global warming despite compelling evidence. There is similarly lip service on environmental issues in many societies, which provides a general sense that such concerns are morally correct whether or not they are followed and promoted through public policy).

Some of the concepts identified above are a part of faith-based morals and many exist independent of any spiritual or faith-based principles. But let’s examine one specific issue: killing. This has been appropriated by many religions, in particular Christianity, as one of the most fundamental issues of morality.

We know:

• there are people who willingly kill (for different reasons) and people who refuse to kill (for any reason);
• there are also people who believe in God and people who don’t;
• there are people who believe in God and are willing to kill; and
• there are people who don’t believe in God and are not willing to kill.

Logical conclusion: morality (respect for life) is not inherently religious. It can therefore exist beyond and outside of a religious belief.

Similarly, on the issue of cannibalism, I can’t imagine any Christian today saying such a practice is moral, and yet the Bible has many references that could be viewed to condone cannibalism.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. — Jesus Christ. [The Eucharest] (John 6:55)

With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed. (Lamentations 4:10)

I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives. (Jeremiah 19:9)

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:29)

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. (Deuteronomy 28:53)

Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers. (Ezekiel 5:10)

This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him. (2 Kings 6:28-29)

Logical conclusion: morality (taboo against cannibalism) is not inherently religious. It can therefore exist beyond and outside of a religious belief. Moreover, these excerpts from the Scriptures further suggest that basic human morals trump even religious teachings which would appear to condone not only cannibalism, but infanticide.

Obviously, no political candidate has to campaign against cannibalism. It’s a universal taboo and (I sincerely hope) extremely rare. What I find interesting in the Scriptures I quote above is not that they actually may condone infanticide, but rather that, at least metaphorically, they may be condoning a sacrifice, choosing one life over another — something the religious right vehemently opposes (notwithstanding their support of a President who may not practice what he preaches).

Let’s briefly discuss our newly identified basic human morals in terms of the recent stem cell bill vetoed by Mr. Bush.

I was recently reminded of a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle:

There is a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, there’s a cooler with 100 embryos. In another room, there’s a baby. You have only enough time to go to one room for a rescue. Which do you save, the baby or the cooler?

In some of my prior comments on this issue, I’ve argued that the veto had more to do with privatizing medical research and denying federal funding than with any moral concern over saving human lives. If this had truly been a moral issue, President Bush had only two alternatives: sign the bill so that life-saving medical research could be supported through federal funding; or seek a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. He did neither. What a moral dilemma. Or maybe there is one other alternative: it’s possible that he truly and morally believes embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but he falls short of seeking a ban to avoid alienating the majority of his political party.

At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life i

Some of the concepts identified above are a part of faith-based morals and many exist independent of any spiritual or faith-based principles. But let’s examine one specific issue: killing. This has been appropriated by many religions, in particular Christianity, as one of the most fundamental issues of morality.

We know:

• there are people who willingly kill (for different reasons) and people who refuse to kill (for any reason);
• there are also people who believe in God and people who don’t;
• there are people who believe in God and are willing to kill; and
• there are people who don’t believe in God and are not willing to kill.

Logical conclusion: morality (respect for life) is not inherently religious. It can therefore exist beyond and outside of a religious belief.

Similarly, on the issue of cannibalism, I can’t imagine any Christian today saying such a practice is moral, and yet the Bible has many references that could be viewed to condone cannibalism.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. — Jesus Christ. [The Eucharest] (John 6:55)

With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed. (Lamentations 4:10)

I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives. (Jeremiah 19:9)

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:29)

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. (Deuteronomy 28:53)

Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers. (Ezekiel 5:10)

This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him. (2 Kings 6:28-29)

Logical conclusion: morality (taboo against cannibalism) is not inherently religious. It can therefore exist beyond and outside of a religious belief. Moreover, these excerpts from the Scriptures further suggest that basic human morals trump even religious teachings which would appear to condone not only cannibalism, but infanticide.

Obviously, no political candidate has to campaign against cannibalism. It’s a universal taboo and (I sincerely hope) extremely rare. What I find interesting in the Scriptures I quote above is not that they actually may condone infanticide, but rather that, at least metaphorically, they may be condoning a sacrifice, choosing one life over another — something the religious right vehemently opposes (notwithstanding their support of a President who may not practice what he preaches).

Let’s briefly discuss our newly identified basic human morals in terms of the recent stem cell bill vetoed by Mr. Bush.

I was recently reminded of a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle:

There is a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, there’s a cooler with 100 embryos. In another room, there’s a baby. You have only enough time to go to one room for a rescue. Which do you save, the baby or the cooler?

In some of my prior comments on this issue, I’ve argued that the veto had more to do with privatizing medical research and denying federal funding than with any moral concern over saving human lives. If this had truly been a moral issue, President Bush had only two alternatives: sign the bill so that life-saving medical research could be supported through federal funding; or seek a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. He did neither. What a moral dilemma. Or maybe there is one other alternative: it’s possible that he truly and morally believes embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but he falls short of seeking a ban to avoid alienating the majority of his political party.

At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life i

• there are people who willingly kill (for different reasons) and people who refuse to kill (for any reason);
• there are also people who believe in God and people who don’t;
• there are people who believe in God and are willing to kill; and
• there are people who don’t believe in God and are not willing to kill.

Logical conclusion: morality (respect for life) is not inherently religious. It can therefore exist beyond and outside of a religious belief.

Similarly, on the issue of cannibalism, I can’t imagine any Christian today saying such a practice is moral, and yet the Bible has many references that could be viewed to condone cannibalism.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. — Jesus Christ. [The Eucharest] (John 6:55)

With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children, who became their food when my people were destroyed. (Lamentations 4:10)

I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives. (Jeremiah 19:9)

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Leviticus 26:29)

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. (Deuteronomy 28:53)

Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers. (Ezekiel 5:10)

This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him. (2 Kings 6:28-29)

Logical conclusion: morality (taboo against cannibalism) is not inherently religious. It can therefore exist beyond and outside of a religious belief. Moreover, these excerpts from the Scriptures further suggest that basic human morals trump even religious teachings which would appear to condone not only cannibalism, but infanticide.

Obviously, no political candidate has to campaign against cannibalism. It’s a universal taboo and (I sincerely hope) extremely rare. What I find interesting in the Scriptures I quote above is not that they actually may condone infanticide, but rather that, at least metaphorically, they may be condoning a sacrifice, choosing one life over another — something the religious right vehemently opposes (notwithstanding their support of a President who may not practice what he preaches).

Let’s briefly discuss our newly identified basic human morals in terms of the recent stem cell bill vetoed by Mr. Bush.

I was recently reminded of a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle:

There is a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, there’s a cooler with 100 embryos. In another room, there’s a baby. You have only enough time to go to one room for a rescue. Which do you save, the baby or the cooler?

In some of my prior comments on this issue, I’ve argued that the veto had more to do with privatizing medical research and denying federal funding than with any moral concern over saving human lives. If this had truly been a moral issue, President Bush had only two alternatives: sign the bill so that life-saving medical research could be supported through federal funding; or seek a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. He did neither. What a moral dilemma. Or maybe there is one other alternative: it’s possible that he truly and morally believes embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but he falls short of seeking a ban to avoid alienating the majority of his political party.

At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life i

Obviously, no political candidate has to campaign against cannibalism. It’s a universal taboo and (I sincerely hope) extremely rare. What I find interesting in the Scriptures I quote above is not that they actually may condone infanticide, but rather that, at least metaphorically, they may be condoning a sacrifice, choosing one life over another — something the religious right vehemently opposes (notwithstanding their support of a President who may not practice what he preaches).

Let’s briefly discuss our newly identified basic human morals in terms of the recent stem cell bill vetoed by Mr. Bush.

I was recently reminded of a pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle:

There is a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, there’s a cooler with 100 embryos. In another room, there’s a baby. You have only enough time to go to one room for a rescue. Which do you save, the baby or the cooler?

In some of my prior comments on this issue, I’ve argued that the veto had more to do with privatizing medical research and denying federal funding than with any moral concern over saving human lives. If this had truly been a moral issue, President Bush had only two alternatives: sign the bill so that life-saving medical research could be supported through federal funding; or seek a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. He did neither. What a moral dilemma. Or maybe there is one other alternative: it’s possible that he truly and morally believes embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but he falls short of seeking a ban to avoid alienating the majority of his political party.

At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life i

At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life is sacred, he would let the baby burn, literally. The evidence of that is in Iraq and Afghanistan. By not calling for a cease fire in Israel and Lebanon, he continue the trend. All the burnt and broken babies are the proof of that!

I watched Ann Coulter on Donny Deutsch the other day. Take a look at the video interview. When he wasn’t handling her through sexual compliments (she’s not immune), they spoke about the Middle East conflicts. Coulter, a Christian, gave us a clear view of the neo-conservative solution to these conflicts. She lamented that we could no longer handle things as we did during WWII, with carpet bombing. Now we have “surgical strikes” which means we keep missing the targets. She and the neocons want to wipe out the whole region of brown-skinned people. They expect that’s how they’ll kill a few terrorists.

[Maybe several of us should finance the opening of hundreds of invitro fertilization clinics throughout the Middle East. It might be that the only way to save the region from Ms. Coulter and her ilk is to fill it with stem cells.]

In the meantime, we know Switzerland (which has remained steadfastly neutral) recently found they have terrorists hidden in their communities. We also know some would-be terrorists were found again in South Florida. A couple of the 9/11 hijackers had lived in South Florida and other locations throughout the U.S.

What can we expect next from Mr. Bush and his supporters? Carpet bombing in Jeb’s state? This is the hypocrisy of the their “morality.” The neocons embrace collateral damage as if it’s a God-given right — as long as white Christians aren’t among the casualties. And if some are, it simply makes for good press.

History shows us the many ways in which religious fanaticism almost always leads to immoral acts — yet another proof that morality and religion are not intrinsically connected. When Democrats stop accepting and reinforcing the right-wing notion that you can have morality only when you embrace a narrow set of Christian values, they’ll see a broadening of support from all sides. This broader moral base will easily trump the more narrow Christian right, and might even bring some of them along. I say this because Mr. Bush has led a campaign of hypocrisy and theocracy long enough. It’s sullied Christianity and excluded everyone else.

Another way Democrats can break through the exclusionary myth that morality can exist only through a religious belief is by repeatedly spotlighting Mr. Bush’s (unconstitutional and immoral) signing statement giving him and his minions perceived loopholes so they can continue to torture detainees. Torture is immoral, unacceptable and not something Americans want even remotely identified with this country. Above all, there can be no loophole in basic human morals.

Add your comments to "Morality Transcends Religion - Breaking Political Myths."