"The US states individually would probably fit better."

Why not simply break the US into "Yankees", "Confederates", and "The West" ?

One way of handling the fact that probabilities max out at 100% is to use not p, but p/(1-p). This gives you a nice curve that goes from 0 to inf. The log of this is symmetrical - and is actually the inverse of the logistical function, which I find amazing.

We did not evolve from apes: we *are* apes - a particular large-brained species of african ape. Asking :did humans evolve from apes" is like asking "did termites evolve from insects".

Or, both are caused by a common third factor. Perhaps the general acceptance of the enlightenment program - progressivism in general - causes wealth and acceptance of evolution.

"not-for-profit organisations will have to pay tax on profits that are kept for commercial purposes and not redirected towards the organisation's altruistic purpose."

Bugger that. If they run a profit-taking business, then they are not a charity.

Make 'em do profit-making activities as a commercial entity. If that entity chooses to give its profits to the charity and claim a tax deduction - fine. But keep them on separate books.

What? In the email in the image above, which quotes the legislation, "may not" is *exactly* what it says! Unless I'm getting a different image file to everyone else:

'If SRI is offered, it is to be scheduled on then school timetable; the usual period of time is 30 minutes per week. Secular instruction may not be timetabled while students from the class are attending SRI.'

For goodness sake: what does "may not" mean? May not. No, Jimmy, you may not eat a packet of tim-tams before dinner. The only way to understand the sentence your way is to parse it very, very oddly:

"[Secular instruction] [may] [not be timetabled] [while students are receiving SRI]."

as opposed to the more usual

"[Secular instruction] [may not] [be timetabled] [while students are receiving SRI]."

I continue to think that the department has interpreted this bad legislation correctly.

I dont agree - the problem is not "a bizarre reading of the act", it is the clear meaning of act itself. "May" means "permitted". The act is not stating "it's ok to not give other instruction", it's specifically stating that it is not permitted for other instruction to be given during RE. Same as "You may not walk through that door" usually means that door-walking-through is forbidden.

I imagine that the intent is that religious students ought not be forced to miss out on teaching given to other students - they must not be made to chose between RE and math class. it's not all that sinister, it's just badly thought out.

Is there a link to the original? The usual sitiuation when christians make this kind of argument (in the absense of the video, I am assuming he is making the usual arguments) are

1) The christian *defines* "sure foundation for morality" as meaning "god gives it to us". Their position is, if it ain't from a god, then it don't count. To that, all you can do is throw your hands up and point out that they are gaggin the debate. You can target the jargon: "sure foundation" is jargon. What exactly does WCL mean by this?

2) There are other "objective" grounds for morality than coming from a god. Morality arises from *human nature*, which is in our genes. It got into our genes because we are social animals, and societies only work (and help to ensure that their individials perpetuate thier genes) when everyone behaves in certain ways. 8There's* your objective source for moral values.

3) Lets say that it's true that because there's no God, there's no objective basis for morality. Replies include:

3a) So whaddaya going to do? Cry about it? "Boo-hoo! Life has no meaning! There's no right and wrong!". Harden up, for f***'s sake!

3b) Why yes, and this is exactly what we observe. Some people think it's right to perfrom clitorectomies and keep slaves, other people thik it's wrong. Once again, we find that the world looks exactly like there is no God.

And finally, go on the attack:

4) If there's a God out there, defining objective morality, and a Holy Spirit living inside each christian as a teacher and counsellor, how come christians disagree on right and wrong? Why are Christians even debating about gays being christians or women being priests - can't God just tell 'em and be done with it? Does he really suck that badly as a communicator?

5) And at this point, you can also drag out the various Old testament laws and atrocities.

Job done.

The thing is: the bible does say these things. Remember, when you are speaking with a bible-beliver of any stripe: they cannot treat you fairly. They will not listen and impartially weight what you have said.

Read Ephesians 6 - the whole armour of God. That passage makes sense when you understand that "spiritual warfare" is code for "engaging in verbal argument with unbelievers". The goal is to score hits without being hit oneself, not to come to an understanding. In that context, all the items of the "armour" make sense.