THE CLONING BATTLE MAY ALREADY BE OVER, says this MSNBC story, with the pro-therapeutic cloning forces having won. I think that’s rather optimistic, at least from my standpoint.

By the way, in a response to an earlier post of mine Christian blogger Phillip Winn takes issue with the idea that Christian bloggers are necessarily anti-cloning. “I am on that list myself, and I certainly don’t support any government-imposed limits on cloning, therapeutic, reproductive, or otherwise.”

Well, yes. The notion that Christian bloggers must be anti-cloning wasn’t mine, but Minute Particulars‘ — I certainly don’t think that Christianity necessitates opposition to cloning. Orrin Judd on the other hand, disagrees — and thinks that Christianity should trump Constitutional principles where the President is concerned. (At least I believe that’s what he’s saying.) Such a belief isn’t exactly unreasonable, of course, but it doesn’t seem all that different from the claims of anti-Christians who say that you can’t appoint or elect a Christian conservative (which is how Judd characterizes Bush) to high office because they’ll ignore the Constitution in favor of their Biblical interpretations. Judd seems to think that’s their moral duty, which is fine — but if you think that way, then you can hardly call it anti-Christian bigotry when those who don’t share those interpretations feel that being a “Christian conservative” makes you untrustworthy where the Constitution is concerned. You’ve already admitted it. In fact, based on Judd’s post, he’s not just admitting it, but celebrating it.