From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 15:24:53 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
> off. Sure, Ashcroft's decision may only be temporary; sure, we may
> disagree with it; my point is that is that it is legitimately Ashcroft's
> decision. How would we feel if a transhumanist Attorney General were
> mocked in the media for putting a curtain over, say, a painting of God
> judging sinners?
### I think that the crux of the issue here is not so much the legitimacy of
Ashcroft's decision (assuming that he made it), but rather the fact that a
high-ranking official of our government is behaving in an (IMO) childish
manner. I do think many of the list members will agree that this type of
visual censorship, whether motivated by religious zealotry, or
(inconceivably), a transhumanist's disdain for symbols of faith, is just in
bad taste. Also, it *is* a little step towards the Taliban - let's just hope
it is not the first step in a long journey.
So, the main problem is - it's a shame to be governed by nincompoops.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST