Ken Ham petulantly stamps his feet at reality, internet replies, "this is stupid."

[YGninja]

He's an insipid man-child?

Yes.

What like...
Atheists demand stop to nativity scenes at Christmas?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/...t-threats/

Like atheists reminding the government that they need to obey the law? The precedent is there: either all religious views get a space, or none do. What this really is, is a bunch of christians arguing that they should be able to violate the constitution whenever they want; I agree it's not an amazingly important issue, but history shows that if we give theists an inch they'll take a yard. Look to your own side's sense of entitlement before you start pointing fingers.

Atheists demand apology after video sent out by chancellor highlighting importance of religion in a democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...54365.html

Oh, you mean the one that starkly implied that if you aren't religious, you're immoral and prone to criminality? Can't imagine what would be offensive in there. You do seem in love with only telling half the story, don't you?

Atheists demand removal of religious painting at school?
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6348

Again, establishment clause. You're trying to call us petty for wanting your side to obey the law; I think that says more about you and your underhanded misrepresentations than it does about the contents of the atheist movement.

Not to mention, your entire argument here is one giant tu coque fallacy. Good job, Mr Cogent.

You are misinterpreting the law and if you had any semblance of critical thinking you'd realise it.

1: Separation of Church and state is not a law, it appears no-where in the constitution.

2: "wall of separation between the church and the state" was a phrase originally used in letter by Thomas Jefferson. The point was to support the Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The phrase was only ever used to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

3: The establishment clause is again to protect the religion of the people from government interference. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This gives you no grounds to remove religious paintings from a majority Christian school. If the government were to do that, they would be breaking the law.

4: If you engaged your brain for two seconds, maybe you'd ask yourself why...


a: Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
b: The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
c: God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
d :As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
e: Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
f: The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
g: Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
h: Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
i:Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
j: Our national anthem mentions God.
k: The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
l: The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
m: Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
n: Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
o: The Bible was originally used as a textbook in all schools in the USA, since its founding.


Whats more likely: that the very people who made this law as you imagine it, immediately went about breaking the law they just made, continually and repeatedly on a national scale for two centuries, during which no-one raised any objection? Or you have interpreted the law wrong?