>> |
Anonymous
>>72740 Or they could be trying to raise a laugh in their own ways, whether or not we agree with their caliber of humor.
>>72957 I prefer laïcité, even if such a policy would only exist by name. By practice, the development of opinions cannot rely on secular knowledge alone, and a person's religious belief(s) will continue to provide undertones and back-support for one given motion or another. In the United States, such a thing would never come to pass because the current voting system may only be possible through the continued, though bias, support from church officials who encourage masses of people (double-meaning ahoy) to vote for such and such a person. And given the annoying level of Catholicism and Protestant levels in the country already, implementing the schism would be a nearly impossible task.
Back to Bush and another forty years of wandering in the desert. I forget who the person was who thought that philosophers should be the people running countries but that they were smart enough not to try, but I always felt that the current direction of political activity is further from an ideal way of running a country - hell, keeping a planet intact, I dare say. Bush and UberRepublicans are so conservative that they refuse to see things beyond their own nose, striking out climate control issues, stem cell research, etc. (on the other hand, I am not too familiar with Democratic views on their prior to Bush; can someone fill that in for me?). You know, I've always been hoping someone at some meeting asks Bush's official if the president would push for a ban on known, working stem cell reinjection treatments if they were discovered because they'd "still be harming the potential for life."
|