I meant formally, not formerly.

Oh, and also.

I can I suppose give my own impression or experience with the marital fidelity argument.

Of course I hear it also, but rarely formerly.  I've seen it often used a zinger to get a chuckle out of men, and a rise out of women.  I could even see a teacher say some things just to get a little rise and wake-up poke or, as a pitiful way to increase his (I'm assuming a men would say this) popularity.

I do have a hard time seeing this presented as a legitimate chapter of study in a curriculum though.  

We all have different life experiences, and the above is mine.

The presence in supposedly "legitimate" institututions of learning of such a "curriculum" as "Queer Theory" indicates that it is not unlikely that the vile and moronic maunderings of pea-brained skanks should be part of the day's lessons in other areas too.

As an aside, the whole (unspoken) idea that there is "science" as well as "modern science" is fallacious.  Either it is science or it is not science (keeping in mind here that we are speaking almost exclusively of what are known as the natural or the physical sciences).  Much of what passes for science in the modern world (or at least the part that is most commonly shoved down our throats, appearing in texts from all sorts of different disciplines) is mere charlatanism.

The modern world has gone mad with a certain ridiculous (unproven and unprovable) theory, twisting real evidence (and manufacturing false "evidence") in order to support the absurdly tall and incomprehensibly weak City of Man which is already crashing to the ground (and will soon do so with a vengeance).

Credentials?

Does this mean that even if someone DOES give specifics as to the mentioned charlatanism he cannot be taken seriously unless he can produce.... What exactly? A Masters Degree in Queer Theory from Yale? An article published in THE HARVARD REVIEW on subtextual Feminist Outrage in the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears?

What credentials? What exactly? Specifically?

(I'm assuming that what was meant was "specific credentials")

I need no "specific credentials" to say, for example, that at the time of the PASSION OF THE CHRIST brouhaha I caught dozens and dozens of so-called scholars with "specific credentials" galore in oodles and oodles of displays of crass ignorance and ideological flim-flam.

"Gibson says that his portrait of Pilate is based on historical fact, but for him historical fact means the Gospels, which are not historical and not meant to be historical, and which in any case contradict what ancient historians have to say about Pilate."

All you have to be is intelliegent and well-read to know that the above is absolute twaddle and that a good way to dismiss it is to say that there is a single letter that ought not to be there, and that the introduction of this letter shows either bad faith or such ignorance as to make the author's "specific credentials" fraudulent.

But if you're anywhere near the academic milieu you have to be very brave to point out what that letter is and to say why it ought not to be there.

Why brave? Modern Academe is basically the stomping grounds of ignorant and uncivilized infidel fanatics.

It is basically a brothel of the mind and soul.

"Oooh, Ethel! He's SO cynical! Not sweet and pure-minded like those Feminist professors with specific credentials who give kids failing grades and will labor to ruin their entire lives unless they parrot back to them in term papers that marriage is institutionalized rape!"

The letter that does not belong in the criticism of Mel Gibson's treatment of Pilate above is S.

There is precisely ONE ancient historian who does more than mention Pilate's name as the Roman governor under whom Jesus was executed.

The name of that ONE historian is Flavius Josephus.

What he has to say about Pilate dovetails perfectly with what the Gospels relate about Pilate.

And it shows the typical irreligious fanaticism of the typical Modern Academic to presuppose that the FOUR Evangelists are wrong and the ONE ancient historian (who is being misrepresented anyway) is right.

Philo the Jew was not a historian.

Only a fool would say that the Gospels are false because they show Pilate as being pliable, whereas Philo (and who should know better than Philo from his plum vantage point in Egypt?) snapped in a letter to Caligula that he was stubborn.

The Gospels show that in some ways Pilate was stubborn too.

Any Modern Scholar who is to the slightest degree honest when it comes to anything having to do with Christianity and Bible-based beliefs is going to be not only contested but crucified by the generality of so-called experts in his field.

To be in agreement with the secular humanist party line and to pass unscathed through the halls of their dark underworld I would call the worst of all credentials.

I think that it's important to point out that the title of the film that this thread is about is EXPELLED. So I think that general attacks on Modern Academe are on-topic. Judging from what I've read about EXPELLED there is in it a general complaint that the Godless in the academy persecute believers. On the other hand I could see how there would be no end to this discussion if we all say all that we think about the evils of "learning falsely so called" on topics other than Intelligent Design and Evolution. Sp my eyes widened when I saw the word "embryonic."

If we split the difference, so to speak, and stick to the shameless mendacity of Godless fanatics in the natural science fields I could get into the Shroud of Turin. Then the fur would REALLY fly. But that might require a thread of its own.

PS: Vandaler, your first sentence makes no sense to me. I don't see how the initial clause relates to the main statement and to the question.

While I'm locked in by your challenge that I would not discuss the matter with you, you seem to have make a clear break to the true nature of the Movie, which is probably a better preparation to it.

It's not however a subject on which I have much to say.

Is there other stones you'd like to turn on the matter that I set out to defend initially ?

Why was it so puzzling that Trads should take under their wing or to their hearts the movie EXPELLED based on the pre-release buzz about it?

I thought the movie was a sounding board for I.D.

In any case, I myself am not puzzled but mildly disturbed about some aspects of any uncritical Traditional Catholic embrace of ID theory or science or whatever we want to call it.

That's about it.

I came in to the discussion with the impression that I would need to defend my position that I.D. is neither something a men of science can be satisfied, nor a serious religious person who believe in God's intervention in creation.

I obviously, who espouses evolution and am a Catholic, obviously believe that there is God's intervention somewhere in the process.  This does not mean in any way that the cleverly named Intelligent Design argument holds any water.

I did not need to defend my point, but rather followed you,  Cletus in your interesting line of reasoning.  

In the process, I was whipped by your comment that I would not follow through... I read that you meant that somehow, I would choke along the way in discussing any matter.  I don't intend to, however, my point of view is hardly challenged.  So. my question is.. Can I relax now ?  Or do you have something in store for me.