Well, presumably, an agenda of preventing that wouldn't exist in a vacuum. There'd probably be some larger agenda that that's a subagenda of. Do you have some reason to feel exploring that larger agenda ought to be off-limits? I'm trying to cross-examine a witness. Is there something you're afraid a cross-examination might uncover?
Wow, that's some straight up scientology level "what are your crimes" bull...
Hey man, you're the one who barged uninvited into an exchange between two other people and tried to interfere with an attempt to elicit an explanation. If you don't like me asking what your crimes are, feel free to leave your nose out of other people's business.
There needs to be no larger agenda besides preventing:
what will clearly become "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" which will itself once the recess bell rings turn into bullying so as to "bring the hellfires like teacher said should happen".
And? Nobody said there
needs to be; but that's hardly a reason to sweep under the rug the reality that it's vanishingly unlikely that there
isn't a larger agenda. Who the heck objects to "and oh Lord I pray these sinners do not incur your holy wrath unto being sent for to the hellfires and into the cold and gnashing of teeth on behalf of their lack of faith" purely as a bottom-level brute-fact fundamental moral premise that's independent of the rest of her moral sense?
The idea that you see a larger agenda admits that you understand that there can be larger agendas,
"admits", you say, as though that were a
concession. That was my contention from the beginning; you're the one who got on my case over it. Since you "admit" that there can be larger agendas,
why the devil do you object to my asking Ziprhead what his is?
like the one I outlined above becoming available as an attack against people like us and our children.
There's no both sides here.
Who the heck said anything about "both" sides? There are a lot more than two sides; and absolutely nobody here is arguing for the side described in the OP.
I completely laid out my agenda in fighting bull... like this.
The heck you did. But that's beside the point, since it isn't
your larger agenda I asked about and you aren't qualified to tell anyone what Ziprhead's larger agenda is.
Ziprhead appears to have some objection to a Christian effort to stop protecting schoolchildren from state-sponsored religion by flipping the First Amendment on its head, to fixate instead on the supposed "right" of school officials to practice Christianity during the course of their formal duties, to indoctrinate students with Christianity, to call attempts to halt their efforts at religious coercion "persecution", and to recast supervisors, lawmakers, and judges who attempt to shield children from being indoctrinated as bigots. I'd like him to explain the nature of his objection to that. Why does he think all that stuff is a bad thing? I'm not asking because I'm under the impression that it's actually a good thing -- of course it's a bad thing. Duh! I'm not trying to find out from you that it's a bad thing -- I'm not trying to find out anything at all from you, so your contributions explaining why you think it's a bad thing are a useless digression, so feel free to butt out. I'm trying to find out from Ziprhead
why Ziprhead thinks it's a bad thing.
I want to find this out, because I already know it's a bad thing, and I already know
why it's a bad thing, and Ziprhead has already given ample evidence that his reason for objecting to it
is not the same as my reason for objecting to it.