The Noodly Appendage: Not Afraid of Being Mocked
From the North New Jersey Media Group:
unlike a certain other religion in the news, the First United Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't object to cartoon depictions of the supreme being.
For one thing, He's easy to draw -- a tangle of pasta strands with a meatball body.
...
He's even getting his own Bible: "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," coming March 16 from Random House. It's written by his foremost prophet, Bobby Henderson, who launched this satiric dig at so-called intelligent design about a year ago, and lived to see it take on a life of its own.
"It's amazing that a satirical monster could get this big, but then He did create the universe," says Dee Dee McKinney, content administrator for the FSM online discussion forum and the reclusive Henderson's primary mouthpiece.
Henderson, a 25-year-old physicist and graduate of Oregon State University, conceived of the Flying Spaghetti Monster last year as a reductio ad absurdum of the intelligent design argument for inclusion in curriculums.
According to intelligent design boosters, since evolution is only a "theory" and not provable, an alternative – that the universe was created by an intelligent designer -- should be given equal time in science classes.
The "alternative" they presumably had in mind was Christianity.
But, said Henderson to some chums over beers, by the same logic the "intelligent designer" could just as easily be, say, a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It was only a short step to what happened next.
Last summer, as the Kansas School Board was having a heated debate over whether information about intelligent design should be required in public school curriculums (in November, the board voted 6-4 in favor), board members received an odd letter:
"Let us remember that there are multiple theories of intelligent design," it read in part. "I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. ... It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories."
Members of the Dover, Pa., school board, voted out of office in November for supporting a measure similar to Kansas', also heard from the Spaghetti Monster.
But Henderson didn't stop with letters. He also created a Web site, venganza.org, as a rallying place for what were quickly dubbed "Pastafarians." While there are officially 3,332 "church" members worldwide, based on online response, the real number is doubtless much higher, McKinney says.
...
In addition to keeping tabs on the anti-science right and hawking various Flying Spaghetti Monster paraphernalia, the site also lampoons the kind of pseudo-science, bolstered by dubious charts and graphs, favored by creationists in books like "Of Pandas and People."
One favorite chart purports to link the rise of global warming with the decline of pirates. Which explains the "pirate" iconography -- eye patches and cutlasses -- that goes hand-in-noodle with the church's spaghetti-and-meatball motif.
Naturally, the Web site gets plenty of hate mail from the devout. "You're an idiot. I'll pray for you," one message read.
"They send Bobby threatening letters, they curse him, they call him a blankety-blankety-blank-blank," McKinney says. "And at the end, they say God loves him."
Most people -- pro and con -- assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creation of atheists, or at the very least agnostics.
Actually, McKinney is a Christian, and Henderson won't say one way or the other.
"It's appalling what has been done and what has happened to my religion in the name of politics," McKinney says.
With the money from the Spaghetti Monster book, McKinney says, the "church" is planning its major investment -- a pirate ship that can go from port to port, spreading the word about His Noodleness.
"It would go from place to place, so [church] members could come to visit," McKinney says. "And they're hoping to make cannons. Some say it should fire T-shirts. The other half say it should be meatballs." Divine comedy
posted by JimK at 10:06 AM
60 Comments:
Saddam Claimed He Warned U.S. of Terrorist Attack
By GERALD NADLER, AP
NEW YORK (Feb. 16) - Saddam Hussein told aides in the mid-1990s that he warned the United States it could be hit by a terrorist attack, ABC News reported Wednesday, citing 12 hours of tapes the network obtained of the former Iraqi dictator's talks with his Cabinet.
One of Saddam's son-in-laws also explained how Iraq hid its biological weapons programs from U.N. inspectors, according to the tapes from August 1995.
The coming terrorist attack Saddam predicted could involve weapons of mass destruction.
"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans," Saddam is heard saying, adding he "told the British as well."
"In the future, what would prevent a booby trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" Saddam said.
The State Department had no comment on the report, which aired on "World News Tonight." ABC News said U.S. officials confirmed the tapes were authentic.
ABC News said the CIA found the tapes in Iraq and that the 12 hours were provided to it by Bill Tierney, a former member of a U.N. inspection team who was translating them for the FBI. ABC News quoted Tierney as saying the U.S. government was wrong to keep the tapes secret.
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told Saddam on the tape that "the biological (attack) is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000."
"This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it," he said.
Hussein Kamel, a son-in-law of Saddam's, who was then in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts, explained how Iraq held back information from the U.N. inspectors.
"We did not reveal all that we have," he said. "We did not reveal the volume of chemical weapons we had produced."
Kamel said Iraq had not revealed "the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported."
Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan shortly after the tapes were recorded, and Iraq was forced to admit it had concealed its biological weapons program. Kamel returned to Iraq in February 1996 and was killed by security forces.
Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction, told ABC News the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003.
"What they do is support the conclusion in the report which we made in the last couple of years, that the regime had the intention of building and rebuilding weapons of mass destruction, when circumstances permitted," he said.
Mmm, Anonymous, I'm wondering if this non-story has something to do with ... GSM, or anything else here.
Or should I just delete that spamlike comment?
JimK
Dearest anonymous,
I just read, a through threads back, your joke about the name "Peter" esciting the homosexual readers. Do you mean me? I read your response to Jim's statement about women, that homosexual readers have a fetish obsession? Do you mean me?
I'll be honest with you. I think in part you enjoy insulting people (hence the perpetual sarcasm), and your insults to gays you try to hide behind a thin patina (I'm actually not sure what a patina is, but they always seem to be thin) of a claim that that they are your sincere beliefs, rather than simply insults. I'm reminded of the godhatesfags.com people, who claim biblical justification for naming their website that way.
Anonymous (whoever you are), do try to be nicer; otherwise, you just come off as a bully, and an ineffective one at that.
(openly) Robert
"GSM"
what's this?
Yes, that's one fat finger moving too fast on a keyboard.
JimK
GSM is probably a typo of FSM ... as in Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Mmm, Anonymous, I'm wondering if this non-story has something to do with ... GSM, or anything else here.
Or should I just delete that spamlike comment?"
Bush's lying about WMD has been a regular ramble in your "stream of consciousness" forest.
"Blasphemy is a sin against the virtue of religion by which we render to God the honour due to Him"
Bush's lying about WMD has been a regular ramble in your "stream of consciousness" forest.
It's sad, but because the name "Anonynous" can be used by anyone, we can't tell if there is one Anonymous or several here. When I see something like this, I try to guess, do we have one self-inflated Anon who, maybe, drinks sometimes, or do we have Dumb and Dumber?
If you think your "contribution" adds something, I'll leave it here, at least it isn't very long.
JimK
OK, and go have a drink
I feel that TTF has gone too far here. I think Jim may be making fun of my religion. When I was touched by the Noodly Appendage(and it wasn't William Donald Shaefer), I saw the light, RAMEN! My belief is firm- or al dente, as we like to call it.
I will give Jim the benefit of the doubt and hope that he is only giving some publicity to what will surely become the fastest growing religion in the US and Europe and China(a very noodly place). So when you eat linguine or lo mein,no matter what religion you profess, you do it in the name of the FSM.
"According to intelligent design boosters, since evolution is only a "theory" and not provable, an alternative – that the universe was created by an intelligent designer -- should be given equal time in science classes."
This whole thing you keep bringing up, parodying religion, kind of demonstrates how disingenuous you all are when you say you're not ant-religious. You are. And, I know, you'll start telling me things like one of you is a greeter or elder at your church, but you're still anti-religious. One distinctive of Chrisianity is that it is very tolerant and open so you'll find lots of people in churches, for various reasons I suppose, who are actively working against the beliefs of the church. No big deal, and not unusual, except that you make the claim that you aren't. Jesus walked around Palestine with Judas for three years after all.
As for the above quote, meanwhile, it is flat-out wrong. IT adherents don't say ET is wrong BECAUSE it is only a theory and not provable. They only discuss ET because the scientific establishment offers it as their theory. IT adherents believe that there was an intelligent designer because of the signs of it throughout the physical universe.
As for the main point of the parody, that if there are signs of IT, the designer could be anyone or anything, IT adherents long ago stated this and you don't believe them, saying they really believe the Judeo-Christian God is the creator. Most of them probably do but that's beside the point- they are saying that while science can't answer the identity of the creator, it might well find indications that there is one.
There are three ways to know truth: by empiricism,by rationality, by revelation. No truth will ever be known without considering all three. ET guys are stuck in the first stage. They don't know much.
There are three ways to know truth: by empiricism, by rationality, by revelation.
Anon, where did this wise-but-hollow-sounding epistemelogical assertion come from?
I would be interested to hear of an example of empiricism without rationality, or inference.
I would be interested to see an example of human rationality.
I would like to know how revelation can produce knowledge.
JimK
"I would like to know how revelation can produce knowledge."
An odd idea statement coming from a guy who has suggested we accept scientists' findings blindly, without examining how they reached their conclusions. Revelation is where most of your "knowledge" comes from. Your problem is if it confirms your preconceived biases, you don't look further.
It goes like this: If a source has been reliably accurate, it can point you in a direction to confirm by testing and reasoning. Really, most of the knowledge that all of us have is originally from this source.
"Anon, where did this wise-but-hollow-sounding epistemelogical assertion come from?"
It's a commonly accepted assertion in philosophical circles. Don't know who, if anyone, first made this precise statement. I have some friends who are philosophy professors. I could ask them if you like.
"I would be interested to hear of an example of empiricism without rationality, or inference."
As I said, all three must be considered to draw a reliable conclusion.
"I would be interested to see an example of human rationality."
Well, there's the CRC position on the constitutionally flawed Fishbac revisions.
Anon,
have I mentioned I could care less what you think? You think you know everything and all about us- when actually you seem to know nothing. You send long boring messages. I know some people here bother to try to respond to your allegations and illogical remarks. Not me- I know your mind is closed- and you really don't want a response. I think you come here for attention- which is rather sad.
"have I mentioned I could care less what you think?"
yes, you have Andrea and I can understand how frustrating it is to you is to have all your preconceived notions demolished on a regular basis
a lot of people have fallen for the same propaganda as you- don't feel alone here
the "I could give a crap" attitude is quite an understandable reaction since I realize you can't keep up with the arguments as well as some others
not to worry- I don't expect you to contribute
do some outside reading- maybe you'll learn enough to come in out of the rain
Yeah, maybe Anon can do some outside reading too so he might learn how to act like an adult who takes responsibility for his words.
But not this Anon, apparently. He prefers insulting women from a safe hiding place.
Wy do you speak to women like that? Don't you like women?
Interesting take. I didn't even know I was insulting women. Guess I'm from, like, Mars.
Or is it their religion you don't like? We can all see that David, who is Jewish like Andrea and Dana, is also on the receiving end of your insults and derisions.
Regardless of what motivates you to say such hateful things, your words are the antithesis of Jesus's.
Observer
"Or is it their religion you don't like? We can all see that David, who is Jewish like Andrea and Dana, is also on the receiving end of your insults and derisions."
Preposterous. The scripture that I frequently refer to was completely written by Jews. My religion teaches that God came to Earth and took the form of a Jew- the most significant, influential and famous man to ever walk the face of the Earth.
David apparently is a Reformed Jew which, as I think he has correctly pointed out, is akin to a liberal Christian denomination. Beyer has repudiated religious belief. I thought Andrea said she attended a church but maybe I got my Andreas mixed up.
Beyer has repeatedly maligned my religion as responsible for some of the worst evil of all time. Andrea has only gotten responses from me commenserate with her comments. You may have a point about David. He seems like a pretty nice guy and maybe I've gone a little too far but he is the one that started this whole mess.
"Regardless of what motivates you to say such hateful things, your words are the antithesis of Jesus's."
This is a worthwhile topic for discussion. How does everybody think Jesus would react to this whole controversy if he were physically present today?
I have not repudiated religious belief. I have repudiated fundamentalist and literalist religius belief.
I'm so glad you recognize the Torah as being written by Jews, and that Jesus was Jewish. But those facts don't change for a moment the historical relaity that your religion, Christianity, , within a century of its inception, systematically acted to insult, dehumanize, ghettoize, ostracize and on occasion assault and murder us. And, yes, Anon, it was Europeans -- Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox -- who exterminated my family and 6 million other Jews just before my lifetime.
If the late John Paul 23rd and JP2 helped begin a process of apology and reconciliation, after 2000 years, then I think that's wonderful. But you and many of your co-religionists are only interested in whitewashing your past acts.
One thing you don't recognize, Beyer, is that Judaism and Christianity are different denominations of the same religion. You think the only real Jew are those that don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah but that's not true. He fulfilled the prophecies but it doesn't sound like you've considered that.
Could you explain this?:
"I have not repudiated religious belief. I have repudiated fundamentalist and literalist religius belief."
because it doesn't jive with what I've read here; what are your religious beliefs?
Religious beliefs will not be included in the MCPS health education curricula. All parties to the lawsuit have signed a settlement agreement that states:
"MCPS agrees that the revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum recently requested by the Board in its May 23, 2005 resolution (the “Revisions”), as well as associated resource materials, will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects. This would not preclude a general acknowledgement that there may be differing religious views on some of the topics discussed in the Revisions without discussion of what those differing beliefs are, which religious groups hold those beliefs, or which religious groups are supportive of homosexuality."
Christine
Hey, W, Beyer is not interested in sharing her personal religious beliefs with you. I have several reasons, but the most imnportant one is that my perosnal religious beliefs do not impact my work here, as yours do. So your beliefs are valid targets, mine are not.
But this statement: "Judaism and Christianity are different denominations of the same religion." Wow! Now, I know that there are 15 million Jews on this planet who would vehemently disagree with you, and many would be willing to die rather than accept that statement. There are also probably a billion Christians who would like to have your head on a spit, though I obviously cannot speak for them.
Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?
"Hey, W, Beyer is not interested in sharing her personal religious beliefs with you. I have several reasons, but the most imnportant one is that my perosnal religious beliefs do not impact my work here, as yours do. So your beliefs are valid targets, mine are not."
Cool, I've got a name now. W it is. To say yoor religious viewpoint doesn't impact your "work" here is ridiculous. Anyway, you have said you're an atheist, have you not? I agree that's a religious point of view but I was speaking of belief in a Creator.
"But this statement: "Judaism and Christianity are different denominations of the same religion." Wow! Now, I know that there are 15 million Jews on this planet who would vehemently disagree with you, and many would be willing to die rather than accept that statement. There are also probably a billion Christians who would like to have your head on a spit, though I obviously cannot speak for them."
So the Jews would martyr themselves and Christian would kill somebody? Does anyone see something amiss here? In fact, there are Jews who would agree with this and its part of standard Christian doctrine.
"Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?"
It's in the New Testament. I'll get you the reference later.
"Religious beliefs will not be included in the MCPS health education curricula."
No, but TTF flatly refuses to admit there is any other way to find homosexuality immoral.
I'm not sure how long this blog has been up, but in all those months I have not heard a more absurd (not hateful nor bigoted, just absurd) comment than that Jews and Christians are co-religionists and just members of different denominations. Now, 1900 years ago during the Second Temple period, Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah (not God) were called, and called themselves, Jewish Christians. But since Paul and the breakaway of the Christian church, no one but those members of insignificant sects such as Jews for Jesus has ever believed that. No Jew today accepts a Christian as Jewish, and no Christian accepts a Jew as Christian.
This is not the same as using that treacly term "Judeo-Christian heritage" as a synonym for western morality. No doubt the bulk of Christian morlaity was originally Judaic, but as the Church proselytized outside the Jewish community it absorbed pagan concepts as well.
Hey, anon, you've finally got it. Other than religious reasons, there is no reason to consider homosexuality immoral. What a novel thought.
And, as we've pointed out ad infinitum, there are precious few religious reasons, either.
"Hey, anon, you've finally got it. Other than religious reasons, there is no reason to consider homosexuality immoral. What a novel thought."
When did I say that? There are plenty and they've been pointed out to you.
"And, as we've pointed out ad infinitum, there are precious few religious reasons, either."
Well, religious scholars that you all are, you've neglected the simple truth that it's not God's will.
You haven't pointed out a single reason other than your religious beliefs to consider homosexuality immoral.
And if there is one thing I am absolutely certain of, it is that you do not know, nor will you ever have any way of knowing, God's will. That you believe so is just your religious arrogance showing. A humble man would not say such things.
So now God speaks to Anon- Oh, my gosh, Pat Robertson is on our blog.
Pat, please get some help -your own fundies are deserting you!
Andrea, we've discussed it before. I've had no private revelation. It's all there for anyone to see in scripture. You may read it and see it for yourself.
"But since Paul and the breakaway of the Christian church,"
You're spinning again, Dr D.
Paul was a Jew too. He wrote, in Romans 11:11-24, that Gentiles are grafted onto the branch of Israel. It was prophesied that the Messiah would do this.
"And if there is one thing I am absolutely certain of, it is that you do not know, nor will you ever have any way of knowing, God's will. That you believe so is just your religious arrogance showing. A humble man would not say such things."
It's not humble to pretend you don't know what God said when you do. Pretending that you don't know what God wants is the original craftiness introduced by the serpent when he told Eve, "God didn't really say that." Read it yourself in Genesis.
You're a fool, whether it comes to Biblical exegesis, your totally uninformed meanderings on science and medicine, or general morality and civility.
Keep on with you're "we're all one religion, just different denominations." Maybe it will get you on The Daily Show, along with the guy distributing toy guns in the ghetto.
OK, Dr D. We'll humor you.
What do you think that serpent was saying to Eve?
And what is the difference between a Christian and a Jew?
And what does the Torah say about Gentiles? What is their future?
Oy, you've got to be kidding. This could take hours.
1) Serpents don't talk. That story is a metaphor, and there are many interpretations. TNTC.
2)A Jew is one born of a Jewish mother, orthodox style, or a father, Reform style, or one who converts to Judaism. A Christian is one who is batized, raised as a Christian, or converts to Christianity.
A Jew claims identity with the Jewish people, and does not believe the messiah has arrived. No Jew accepts a Christian as a Jew.
A Christian believes Jesus was the messiah. Some Christians, and I believe most American Christians, equate Jesus with God. Very few Christians consider themselves Jews who have accepted Jesus as messiah. Jews call these people apostates and shun them. This is obviously very, very sketchy.
3) The Torah says many things, from they shall know Yahweh and worship him, to God will smite and destroy all foreigners, or non-believers, to we don't care about the goyim.
Thanks for answering, Dr D. We've got some things to talk about here but I need some sleep. In the words of Michael Jackson: maybe tomorrow.
"The clubs are all closing
there's nowhere to go
and the sun
won't show for hours.
I'll turn up my collar
walk into the night.
I'll be looking for an answer."
Don't bother. I know a number of people with whom I enjoy exegetical jousting, and you aren't one of them. Your beliefs don't put you out in left field, or even the bullpen, but past the dumpster on the far end of the Park-and-Ride lot.
Though I would really like to hear from another Christian who considers himself Jewish. Put the two of you together and you've got a magazine article.
"Serpents don't talk. That story is a metaphor, and there are many interpretations."
I don't agree that the event didn't actually happen but let's go with the thought for a moment. The question is what is being said by the story. Eve tells the serpent that God said not to eat from the tree. The serpent says "God didn't really say that."
You're basically saying the same. I say something that is clear from scripture and you say you can't know what God wants.
I think you're on the wrong side.
"The Torah says many things, from they shall know Yahweh and worship him, to God will smite and destroy all foreigners, or non-believers, to we don't care about the goyim."
Does it say, "those who are not my people, I will call my people"? How about Melchizedek in Genesis 14? Who was that? Was he a Jew?
Malchitzedek was not a Jew. There were no Jews at the time. There were no Jews until after the return from Persia.
Again, you have no idea what God says or wants. You may accept the Torah as God's words, I don't. That's fine. But even if I did, I would understand them differently thean you do. That's just the way it is. If you really were Jewish, you would understand that.
And since you don't udnerstand Hebrew, you often don't know what you're talking about. Much of Christianity that people have tried to link to Judaism is based on misinterpretations. Various Hebrew texts translated into Greek and then re-translated many times over into latin and finally English. What you think you know bears little resemblance to what was 2500 years ago, under the very best of circumstances. You should stop being so arrogant, because you have no basis for any of it.
Just as an aside, I find it remarkable that people like you would base their lives on a report given, supposedly to one man, way out on a mountaintop in a desert with no witnesses. Rather convenient. So Moses was nothing more than a reporter, basically. And we all know reporters will do anything for a story.
Now, if this story had been transmitted to a woman, that would be different.
"Just as an aside, I find it remarkable that people like you would base their lives on a report given, supposedly to one man, way out on a mountaintop in a desert with no witnesses. Rather convenient. So Moses was nothing more than a reporter, basically. And we all know reporters will do anything for a story."
Dr D, they were many things the whole nations witnessed: manna from heaven, pillars of fire, seas dividing, passover. It wouldn't matter how many witnesses there were, you won't believe because you don't want to.
"Now, if this story had been transmitted to a woman, that would be different"
You might want to reconsider about Jesus being the Messiah. After his resurrection, he first appear to women. They reported it to the disciples before they saw him.
"Again, you have no idea what God says or wants."
Again, this is what the devil said to Eve. It was the beginning of all the world's trouble.
"Malchitzedek was not a Jew. There were no Jews at the time. There were no Jews until after the return from Persia."
No he wasn't. And yet Abram considered him a priest long before there were Levites. Does he resemble any other famous religious character?
"And since you don't udnerstand Hebrew, you often don't know what you're talking about. Much of Christianity that people have tried to link to Judaism is based on misinterpretations. Various Hebrew texts translated into Greek and then re-translated many times over into latin and finally English. What you think you know bears little resemblance to what was 2500 years ago, under the very best of circumstances. You should stop being so arrogant, because you have no basis for any of it."
The language is a point. I don't know Hebrew. I do know many Hebrew words though because I attend Bible studies weekly taught by teachers who do know Hebrew( and Greek). The lessons almost always begin by going through the Hebrew words used in the passage (if it's OT) we're studying and what other ways the words have been used. It's very open-minded and we are always re-evaluating. Don't use that as an excuse to ignore God's clear message.
I will ignore what I choose to ignore. You are free to consider it God's clear message; I do not. As I've said before, I respect your right to believe what you choose, and while I consider you deluded on this issue, it doesn't affect what I think of you as a person. I know many people who are ultra-orthodox Jews and hold views similar to yours in a general sense.
But Jews simply don't take these stories literally. There was no Garden of Eden, no snake, no Adam and Eve, etc., and to view those stories as literal truth is alien to Jews and thinking people the world over. You really do yourself a disservice by having such a simplistic view of things. God gave you a brain -- use it.
"But Jews simply don't take these stories literally. There was no Garden of Eden, no snake, no Adam and Eve, etc., and to view those stories as literal truth is alien to Jews and thinking people the world over. You really do yourself a disservice by having such a simplistic view of things. God gave you a brain -- use it."
You might not be using yours. As I've said, whether literal or not, the message is the same.
""But Jews simply don't take these stories literally. There was no Garden of Eden, no snake, no Adam and Eve, etc., and to view those stories as literal truth is alien to Jews and thinking people the world over. You really do yourself a disservice by having such a simplistic view of things. God gave you a brain -- use it."
You might not be using yours. As I've said, whether literal or not, the message is the same."
Literal or not, same or not, it doesn't matter. The point is, the message you are talking about is religious and therefore it does not belong in our public schools.
Christine
If you'll scroll back, Cilly, you'll see that we weren't originally discussing whether to teach religion in school but whether there are any religious reasons to consider homosexuality immoral. The discussion was also veering toward whether it's arrogant to try to obey God's will.
This blog is intended to educate the public about revisions to the MCPS health education curricula for 8th and 10th grade students, Wyatt. When posters come here and proselytize, we often steer the conversation back to the topic at hand -- the MCPS health education curriculum.
Christine
The original post was a satire of religious belief; do you find that relevant to the MCPS health education curriculum?
I'm a commenter using the anonymous feature of this blog and I haven't told you my name.
Public school curricula should teach the facts, not religion IMHO. Since Jim's original post helps illustrate the point that religion does not belong in our public schools, I find it to be relevant.
Please note that Judge Williams agrees religion should not be in the curriculum. I am heartened the settlement agreement states the "curriculum ... as well as associated resource materials, will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects."
It is true that you have never signed your name on this blog, but no one is ever really anonymous on the Internet. Blogger hides your identity from the public, but unless you do something to mask your Internet tracks, any web administrator can see who you are.
Christine
"Public school curricula should teach the facts, not religion IMHO. Since Jim's original post helps illustrate the point that religion does not belong in our public schools, I find it to be relevant."
Actually, Jim's post doesn't illustrate that point since the only mention of public school is in reference to Kansas where the debate has been whether to teach that certain evidence would lead a reasonable person to observe that the universe has an intelligent designer. The school board in Kansas never suggested identifying the designer as is done in this satire.
Furthermore, the comments I made earlier were a response to statements made by another TTF executive committee member.
"Please note that Judge Williams agrees religion should not be in the curriculum. I am heartened the settlement agreement states the "curriculum ... as well as associated resource materials, will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects.""
No one has suggested for a minute that religion be taught in the curriculum. TTF has repeatedly used this tactic to imply that any standard of sexual morality that they don't agree with is religious. Judge Williams' comments were an accomodation to CRC's position, not the Board's.
"It is true that you have never signed your name on this blog, but no one is ever really anonymous on the Internet. Blogger hides your identity from the public, but unless you do something to mask your Internet tracks, any web administrator can see who you are."
I have made comments under the anonymous feature of your blog, relying on the administrators of the blog to maintain my anonymity to the best of their ability, regardless of their opinion about the nature of my comments.
Please e-mail me at EHollis4123. I'd like to discuss a few topics off-blog.
"EHollis4123" is not a full email address.
There's a "Contact Us" function near the upper right hand corner of this page.
Christine
EHollis said, "Actually, Jim's post doesn't illustrate that point since the only mention of public school is in reference to Kansas where the debate has been whether to teach that certain evidence would lead a reasonable person to observe that the universe has an intelligent designer. The school board in Kansas never suggested identifying the designer as is done in this satire."
That's one opinion. Here's another:
"Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught))."
From Judge Jones' Dover decision, Page 25-26.
ID supporters and CRC/PFOX supporters not only rely on religious views to advocate for inclusion of ideas in curricula, but they also want religious views mentioned and/or taught in public schools.
"Furthermore, the comments I made earlier were a response to statements made by another TTF executive committee member."
Specifically what comments you made earlier, what statement made by another TTF executive committee member, and which TTF executive committee member are you talking about? Since you insist on not signing a name, ANY name, as a way to separate you from all the other Anons who make comments here, you need to be very specific.
Are you saying that I can't respond to a comment you make in response to another person's posts on this blog? I'd suggest if you want to dictate blog rules you set up your own blog. Blogger.com makes it easy and it's free!
"No one has suggested for a minute that religion be taught in the curriculum."
On the contrary, people making Public Comments at MCPS BOE meetings over the past year have suggested a number of religious views they'd like to see included in the curriculum.
I have found your letter sent in via the Contact Us function and responded off line.
Christine
"...evidence would lead a reasonable person to observe..."
What BS!
Evidence (including observations) *might* lead a reasonable person to CONCLUDE something...
Post a Comment
<< Home