@farmerman,
It makes no difference to the argument here what the ICR is pushing near the school gates.
Quote:Theyve been ******* with school texts, science curriculum in several states and "edge testing" skirmishes in fly over states.
So have a motley collection of atheists, do-gooders, attention seekers and a number of ladies of a certain age whose entire exterior appearance is a bare-assed lie as is their pretending to know what they are talking about.
The thread is concerned to identify the silly causes. To pre-judge the matter without entering the debate proper is the epitome of blind, subjective bigotry. You have consistently refused, fm, to consider the outcome of the cause you promote.
A cause is judged silly if its outcome is contrary to our interests. It is even sillier when it is pursued without reference to the outcome in direct proportion to the effort put into the pursuit. It is considered silly to get on the wrong train with the intention of reaching a certain destination and even sillier to get on trains with no destination in view.
If the outcome of your cause is contrary to your own interests, which it is, then your silliness asymptotes the infinite.
How many presidents can you name who were not baptised?
How many presidents can you name who didn't have their children baptised?
How many presidents can you name who "married" in a government office?
How many presidents can you name who were buried without clergy?
I assume the cause of the ICR is partly to avoid us declaring that the presidents who were baptised, had their children baptised, and were married and laid to rest with the benefit of clergy, were and are not silly. If one equates a belief in God with a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the belief in mumbo-jumbo acting at a distance, as with voodoo, then it follows that all such presidents were and are extremely silly because it is definitely silly to believe in voodoo and the FSM.
When are you going to at least try to adhere to the simplest principles of science fm? Your post could just as easily have been written by a fish gutter although the latter might have had more style than you display.
Your subjective bias can only derive from an objection to those aspects of Christian teaching which are not enshrined in the law. Otherwise you have an issue with the law. And we all know what those aspects of Christian teaching which are perfectly legal consist of. Something to do with undisciplined rumpy-pumpy and every last one of them demeaning to women which is a good enough reason for them to exist. You've invented the rest to prop up your pressing concerns with rumpy-pumpy with the help of writers with the same concerns.
Without those teachings on sexual matters the Church is nothing but a performance of rituals because the law is sufficient for everything else. But then you need to attack all rituals or risk being accused of discriminating against one form of ritual.
All in all--you're up a gum tree.