Here is where they admit authorship. In this document (which includes the Wedge Document) they try to backpedal and reinterpret the obvious meaning of the document.
***Religion Moderator, we’re going to need your feedback on the use of this document. Is it inflammatory? Is it accepted by both sides of the debate? Is it allowable in an ecumenical thread? There is a high likelihood that this subject in itself needs its own thread.
However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization’s secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
OOPS, the stuff left over was what I intended to discuss in the next post.
However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization’s secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
***You’ve introduced some big topics that need to be discussed in their own right. The purpose of this particular thread is not to determine the legitimacy of that document nor the proper use of it. I doubt that on ecumenical threads you’re allowed to say such things that it’ll be spun, that you can trust internal sources above external ones (the mormon threads have probably covered that stuff), and the like.
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
***The organizations that are sponsoring the mortgage bailout bill are the mortgage companies. It doesn’t mean it’s good law nor bad law. One makes a determination based upon what the proposed text says, which you said yourself appears innocuous when it comes to the teaching law. One of the considerations is the organizations sponsoring it, but your original post was based entirely upon this consideration, and that is a classic fallacy. Furthermore, your continued argumentation from that basis has been an ongoing ad hominem argument.
Normally I would remove 23,40,44 but I will leave them up for now so that others can see what constitutes antagonism in these types of debates.
Keep the discussion academic, centered on the issues not questioning motivations on either side. Don't pick at scabs, i.e. renew old resentments.