When I referred to morals, I was referring to the morals of scientists. Their job is to ask “can it be done” and do not ask “should it be done”. I believe that those scientists do not have any higher moral authority to make decisions than any one else, and might have an incentive to proceed down the slipperly slope more than a non-scientists. It was not to disparage housewives or dishwashers… but to the contrary say that they likely would have something to say about this as well. President Obama said that we need to put the decisions back in the hands of scientists (“leave science to scientists”), but I think that is the wrong place to put it.

Sometimes I wish I was one of those pompous asses making 250K. I am not even close.

The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature – as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion – only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

The Founding Fathers did not see a society without God, but to the contrary… they did not want an official religion where the Executive stood as the Head of State and Head of the Church. Religious freedom was a bedrock.

We do not let murder victims decide the fate of murderers, so we should not let those suffering from a terrible disease what the most moral answer is. If one’s child were in danger, a person would risk the lives of many others to save that child. Same with scientists. The scientist will tell you what is possible and say that it must be explored. They are no more qualified to determine the moral values around an issue than a member of a politician, a housewife, or a dishwasher. We defer our great moral questions not to the scientists, but to our moral leaders.