I'm sure all the dead epileptics are so happy for the few mild schizophrenics who managed to get talked out of their mental difficulties.

No, it comes from Leviticus where Yahweh's mouthpiece says 'suffer not a witch to live'. It was incorporated from these Judaic roots into Christianity's modus operandi with such early events as the brutal murder of Hypatia by an angry mob. The tradition extended all the way through to the Salem witch trials in the West, and continues to this day in parts of Africa where vigilantes still murder 'witches' in the names of their supposedly benevolent and merciful deities in the ludicrous triune monotheism. Not to pick solely on Christianity, the Islamic courts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia use the full force and authority of the state to behead 'witches' whenever they are exposed and arrested.

Name some. Religion is an extension of hierarchical power structures that use a fictional separation from mortality as a substitute for moral authority. The argument essentially proceeds from 'gods are more powerful than men therefore they are right' which made sense when it was formulated in the paleolithic.

How convenient that when bad things are done in the name of religion that it is just the work of bad people, but when good things are done with the same religious authority, then that demonstrates not that it is people who are good regardless of religion, but rather that religion has some sort of inherent value. Nope. That is ridiculous. People do bad things and good things irrespective of religion, so religions can and should be judged on their intrinsic qualities, which is usually to say their 'sacred texts'. These texts are invariably contradictory, saying 'love thy neighbor' one minute and that gays and disobedient kids are 'worthy of death' the next minute (Romans 1). The Quran has the same schizophrenia, alternately preaching tolerance and hate, uncoincidentally contextualized by Islam's own expansion and relative security.

These are very convenient devices, because it means that religion can display a nice face to the world and then preach murder and hate behind closed doors, fostering jihadists and abortion clinic bombers. Both are sourced in the same place, the fundamental supposedly divine authority of their so-called illuminated texts. Only people do good and evil things, and because religion itself is a construct of people, it too is layered with the good and bad ideas and actions of the people who created it.

As my wife says, always with due sarcasm, 'crime should be illegal.' There are already plenty of laws to deal with harassments, assaults, rapes, etc. for those maladjusted enough to make the choice to abuse others. Blaming environment for bad choices is something I will never accept. At its core is the same sort of mindset that would excuse atrocities committed in simple avoidance of socio-political dangers/backlash.

The underlying question to that is why is voluntary degradation anybody's business? I have an incredibly wide taste in kink, and depending on mood I can easily be into degradation of either gender, both, or neither. Having some fantasy for half an hour doesn't turn one into a sociopathic bigot.

I expect that the gender demographic breakdown would be more enlightening than the age demographics. Sexual positivism has been one of the main fracturing points for feminism for decades.

Christianity, I shouldn't have to remind you, is a not only a world religion, but the most popular in the world. There are 'witch' hunts conducted in Africa by church-going Christians with lethal results. These actions are more vigilantist than the state-overseen executions of 'witches' in places like Saudi Arabia, but the aspect of state authority is irrelevant since both are equally motivated by religious intolerance.

The point is that if you leave a church in Africa, the right spin on it could get you killed. This is real, and where it is should be completely insignificant to the fact that people are being murdered.

If nothing else this reminds me why you're on my foes list. Nice to see the consistency of character.

It's not different, and you too speak of exclusion as though it will be allowed, all precedent to the contrary. The point remains that if Johnny can say 'because God...' and be right, Muhammad can say 'because Allah...' and be right. As soon as that happens and gets challenged, the policy will all get tossed out, either by the courts or a school administration's fear of the courts.

My challenge remains unmet, show me a precedent from recent decades that demonstrates that this is anything more than paranoia. This is very well-traveled ground in the courts, but all of it points to a quick overturn, nothing more.

In Africa and the Middle East, there are places where "witches" are still murdered... I mean executed... on a regular basis.

Your dramatic rhetoric is a bit out of touch with reality. In North Carolina, which is equally Bible-belt territory, a school instituted a policy that allowed people to distribute religious texts at the school. And while a round of Bibles went out, it was soon followed by a round of plethora of Pagan/Wiccan literature that caused the school to toss out the policy.

The justice system in the US has quite clearly demonstrated time and time again that no public policy will be allowed to selectively exclude religions. If there is any religion, it must be all religion or no religion. I would be extremely surprised if you could dig up any precedent to the contrary newer than the last three decades.

Wow. 'Did too!' Is the best argument you can make? Oh and an argument from authority (with no citations!) fallacy thrown in for free? Tell me more! (Actually, don't.)

Also, I am very annoyed that you snookered me into looking at a really long article that had nothing to do with the Mayan collapse on the pretense that it was relevant. Hey, I know, how about some real scholarly work that is, y'know actually relevant?

Here's a relevant bit for people who won't RTFA:

Now scurry off back into whatever hole of ignorance from whence you emerged.

(I will grant, by the way, that diminished soil fertility cannot be blamed on farming practices exclusively, but my original opinion was based on information I stumbled upon more than a dozen years ago. Nonetheless it was at least based on valid research, and I was only offering it in the shortest form as a contradiction, not as an expansive and detailed explanation, which anybody with the most marginal of research skills should be able to do for themselves. Sadly, time and time again people fail to reach even that meager standard.)

The promotion of ignorance under the guise of passionate populism... that's fabulous. Your novel approach of 'HEY GAIZ STOP LEARNING AND JOIN CLASS WARFARE!' has earned you a place on my foes list.