"All this other stuff is fascinating but not relevant."

Rose, you make good points, but I'll tell you why this other stuff
if relevant and why we argue about it:

The Christian Taliban, ie. the extreme fundie end of religious fanatics, might only make up for say 10% of the population, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for in noise and lobbying ability.

Countless topics, abortion, contraception, sex education, euthanasia, gay relationships, etc. etc. land up in a similar
quagmire, the fundies fight it all the way, based on their dogma.

Alot of the time, politicians will walk away, its too controversial etc. Exactly this applies to sex education. Fundies will preach that abstinance should be taught, even though we know that in reality its a dismal failure. The net result however is no change happens, as everyone is far to polite to step on toes and make
changes happen.

Look at the way that the Catholic lobby swung into action on euthanasia or on RU 486. Congratulations to those who finally stood up to them on RU 486!

The same will happen to sex education, as happenend to euthanasia, unless there is a real political will for change. That small minority will make such a racket, that politicians will back down and do nothing. I hope I'm wrong, I'd love those that matter to prove me wrong.

I obviously agree that this religious discussion is relevent as I am contributing to it.
The problem with the sexual development of young people today is not a question of inadequate curricula at schools but of attitudes to sex by the whole society.

While there is an aparent controversy between Christian moralism and other more flexible and circumstance specific sexual moralities without a thorough exploration, the young will only be confused by the conflicting paradigms and turn off completely - which is the most dangerous thing to do, and it would seem, a common thing for young people to do.

It is guilt, not inteligent and heartfelt analysis that keeps Christian moralism on the agenda, and of course the proselytising enthusiasm of the Christian minoroties to enter every debate and push their barrow. But the barrow is never explained properly, it is given as a holy and eternal given - which it is not, hence my focus on the internal contradictions of the modern bible mode.

We can not stop the christians preaching, nor should we try. But we should also not ignore them and accept their legitimacy by default, even if, and especially because, christianity is held up in the mainstream as a legitimate framework to aspire to. Nor should we let their claims go unchallenged so that an unsuspecting and naive reader may believe that they have a position of moral and intellectual integrity simply because some old book says so.

Let the Christians explain themselves, encourage everyone to explain themselves and allow young people to be exposed to as many different opinions as possible, then let them, indeed encourage them, to make up their own mind the same way we generally encourage our young people to choose their own career, community, political opinions and friends.

educate and empower, not indoctrinate and enforce. This is how Jesus worked, according to the bible anyway.

King Canute, thanks for your excellent contributions to this debate.
Your answer to BD's call to return to old values left in in stiches - awesome work. I've spent a bit of time on the polygamy debate with some of the fundies but have not touched the issue nearly as well as you did with that piece. If I was wearing a hat I'd take it off to you.

I have mixed views on stopping misleading or unsubstantiated preaching. You may have seen the discussion on TITA on another thread. We don't allow snake oil salesmen to push their product as curing anything and everything. Not sure why BD and his kin should be able to continue to make unsubstantiated claims about the merits of their product without penalty. Likewise the standover tactics of threatening eternal torture to those who don't sign up is an utterly unethical tactic which is used without any substantiating proof. Self regulation does not appear to work for those pushing theologies and ideologies. On the other hand I don't like nanny states or unnecessary government inteference.

Cheers
R0bert