Law professor Geoffrey R. Stone makes the following observation in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune:

Perhaps you noticed an interesting confluence of events on July 19. On that day, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have authorized the expanded use of federal funds for stem-cell research, the House of Representatives voted to enact legislation depriving the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear any case challenging the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the House voted to purchase a municipal park in San Diego on which a 29-foot-high cross stands.

What these three acts have in common is a reckless disregard for the fundamental American aspiration to keep church and state separate

To be sure, I’m all for keeping church and state far away from each other but one of the three examples Stone points to doesn’t belong. The phrase “under God” has, at least, religious connotations, as does a giant cross standing in a state-owned park. But the ethics of stem-cell research?

In vetoing the bill that would have funded stem-cell research, Bush invoked what he termed a “conflict between science and ethics.” But what, exactly, is the “ethical” side of this conflict? Clearly, it derives from the belief that an embryo smaller than a period on this page is a “human life”–indeed, a human life that is as valuable as those of living, breathing, suffering children. And what, exactly, is the basis of this belief? Is it science? Reason? Logic? Tradition? Morals? None-of-the-above?

What Bush describes neutrally as “ethics” is simply his own sectarian religious belief.

I’m not interested, at the moment, in the ethics of stem-cell research in particular. As far as I know, there’s no halakhic problem with it. What bothers me is Stone’s overtly anti-religious definition of “ethics”. He starts off correctly recognizing that the ethical question involved is whether or not an embryo is “a human life that is as valuable as those of living… children”. But here comes the intellectual sleight of hand: “And what, exactly, is the basis of this belief? Is it science? Reason? Logic? Tradition? Morals? None-of-the-above?” What the basis is for ethical beliefs is indeed an interesting and important question. But it has nothing to do with what Stone claims to be talking about. The fact is, it’s clearly an ethical belief and no scare quotes are required around “ethical”.

Stone’s anti-religious sympathies come through, unambiguously, in the next sentence: “What Bush describes neutrally as ‘ethics’ is simply his own sectarian religious belief.” Take the words “religious” and “sectarian” out of that sentence and the response would be… duh. But Stone’s implication is that somehow “sectarian religious belief” doesn’t qualify as a source of genuine ethics. Though, I suppose Stone thinks his “non-religious beliefs” do. That sentiment requires a distinction that the First Amendment doesn’t allow.