I'm British, so I have a question about this whole Democrat/Republican thing.
Can someone tell me how it's possible for a political party to remain a legitimate contender despite its obvious—and even flaunted—religious bias/agenda and general philosophy of ignorant redneckism?
You can argue that this is not the case, that the Republicans are just conservative, but they are against stem cell research on the grounds that embryos are people, and more importantly, that it should matter whether they are people or not, given that stem cells and genetic engineering could spell the end of sickness and old age.
Should there by ethical constraints? Yes, but nothing beyond common sense, nothing beyond basics like "murdering people is bad", "betraying people is bad", "assuming people are guilty without evidence is bad" etc. You don't need primitive bullshit to arrive at that conclusion.
Politics and religion should be separated. Religion is a hobby. A hobby that should be discouraged as much as sexual exhibitionism and drug abuse, at least on the same basis. Take drugs, you get a slap on the wrist; sell drugs and you're locked up. Same for religion, since it is a drug for stupid people, at least if you think of drugs as crutches for weak or downtrodden people.
So anyway why are religious people given political office? Executive power should be in the hands of somebody objective, rational and curious, three qualities which are orthogonal to the religious person's values.
I'm not saying the Democratic candidates/incumbents are better leaders or more rational or whatever. I'm just curious as to why the very premise of religion being intertwined with politics/executive power isn't a problem for the American citizenry.