Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
-=Reborn JEDI=- Forums _ Politics and Religion _ Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
Posted by: Kyzene Sep 8 2005, 07:11 PM
http://www.venganza.org/
That's probably the coolest thing I've ever seen.
PS- Notice the natural disasters based on Pirates?! No Ninjas there 
.
Posted by: JayBaen Sep 10 2005, 06:48 AM
That, is awesome.
(and fully explains why Liz is a Pirate ... )
JB
Posted by: Ruggiero Sep 10 2005, 11:38 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/
Posted by: InfiniteWarrior Sep 11 2005, 06:26 AM
"Intelligent Falling?" LOLOL....
Posted by: Ruggiero Sep 11 2005, 10:04 AM
I thought that might cause a giggle or two....
Rugg
Posted by: Ruggiero Dec 9 2005, 05:11 PM
Kyzene... if you were only on a mac...
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21203
Found an admirable tome but it's in praise of the wrong god? Faith Converter is a godsend for priests, vicars, rabbii and holy men of all descriptions. Preach next Sunday's sermon from the Vedas, Noble Eightfold Path, Torah or Das Kapital!
The premier theological plagiarism solution for OS X, Faith Converter converts text between twenty-nine different religions, encompassing Atheism, Biopsychosocialism, Buddhism, Cargo Cult, Christianity, Communism, Confucianism, Druidism, Falun Gong, Hinduism, Islam, Juche, Judaism, Keynesianism, Linux, MacEvangelism, Mahanism, Maoism, NIMBYism, Roman, Scientology, Shinto, Sikh, Stalinism, Taoism, Thatcherism, Trotskyism, Veganism and Voodoo.
Posted by: Kyzene Dec 10 2005, 01:41 AM
I log on to my trusty FSM homepage today and what do I find? I find that I have been part of the decline of freedom! Read about it http://www.venganza.org/am-univ.htm. Sorry to all of you who I might have hurt with my "intolerance" and I'm sorry that I have been "slowly chipping away at the foundation of liberty itself." Not to mention that FSM has "violated the very liberal ideals that are foundational to modern intellectual thought."
Sorry in advance?
Ky
Posted by: InfiniteWarrior Dec 10 2005, 01:08 PM
Hmm. Well, the author here has an excellent point in that FSM does seem full-out ridicule of what may be of supreme significance to someone else. It is important to consider the thoughts, feelings and/or what may be of importance to others, but here's the thing....
True: It doesn't advance a case against teaching Intelligent Design but, neither does it deny anyone their faith or their right to express it. So, it really isn't a "denial of freedom". Whether or not it's in the best of taste might be subject to debate. 
Personally, as a citizen, I'm a bit more "offended" by things like the fact that neighborhood charters this year include the stipulation that "Holiday decorations are allowed, but may not have a religious theme."
Now, THAT is intolerance. THAT is a denial of freedom... one to which I would have to respond: Really? Hmmm... where can I find just a really huge Nativity scene?
It disturbs me when, to avoid the risk that the very existence of my belief system might offend someone else, I'm denied the right to express my faith. FSM, while an affront to something of importance to me, might be more of a "Don't like it? Turn the channel" kind of... thing, because, on the flip side, to say FSM shouldn't exist at all would be to deny its 24-year old author his right to expression.
I sometimes forget to turn the channel rather than allow myself to be offended. Guess we all do.
So, I (for one) can honestly say "No apologies are necessary." You have never offended me.
P.S. Edits appear in gray. Just seemed... important... to be accurate.
Posted by: JayBaen Dec 10 2005, 08:57 PM
Ky,
I can only hope that your last post had a spoonful of sarcasm with it.
FSM represents the *very thing* this country was founded for -- the ability to practice/believe in religion(s) that are not necessarilly the religion of the government. (or anyone else for that matter).
We're becoming very brainwashed in this country to feel that having a difference of opinion (not to mention religion) somehow equates to being offensive [or even unPATRIOTIC - UGH!]
What a leap (and dare I say, offensive .. )
The good news is, the author of the article you pointed us to is more than welcome to have his opinion, too -- unforutnately (and, here's my opinion) -- many people who wear his shoes feel the need to convince everyone else that their opinion is right.
That's when I turn the channel ..
JB
Posted by: Ruggiero Dec 11 2005, 03:24 PM
One word:
SATIRE.
Geez.... these people take themselves too seriously.
--Rugg
P.s. (I can't help myself)
AND:
There is a substantive difference between the minority satirizing the majority, and the majority satirizing the minority. The substantive difference arises from the power differential between the two. Those who think that the same rules should apply to all need to take a good hard look at the history of our nation (and for that matter, the world), to see the dangers inherent in ignoring the difference. Ignoring these things leads to the oppression minority groups (most recently gays in this country) have suffered.... not to mention the crusades, the holocaust, the stalinist/maoist purges, Slavery, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.. The history of human cruelty is longer than the history of its goodness--despite that the glimmers of goodness has redeemed us.
Democracy is a wonderful thing-- where everyone has the same amount of power--one person, one vote. However, there is an all-too-real thing that sometimes goes by the name "Tyrrany of the Majority." If, for instance, we all have one vote, and vote to saber Kyzene, that reduces democracy to simple utilitarianism--amoral, selfish. Democracy is only a viable institution when supplemented by a baseline of rights; what the founders called "unalienable," and which manifested itself in the Bill of Rights. So no matter what we all vote, we may not simply saber Kyzene, no matter how much we all want to.
Adding the two together, one gets a wonderful situation; where the powerful majority must behave in a way that respects the minority in ways that the minority need not reciprocate. This, though seemingly "unfair" on the surface, becomes a more "fair" situation when looked at it through the lens of history.
So, in short, I say, anyone can satirize anyone. However, when deciding what is "fair" or how to delimit the ability of a certain group to express itself, one must take into account the substantial effects due to the power-differences between the two.
P.P.S. I am not even going to touch "intelligent design," as it makes me feel like we are back at the Scopes trial, but I will leave you with this story: during the recent trial, the author was confronted with two drafts of his "scientific" manuscript. In the early draft, the words "creation" and "creator" were highlighted and counted; in the later draft, the words "designer" and "design" were highlighted and counted. Do you think they correlated?
Posted by: JayBaen Dec 11 2005, 04:34 PM
Adding the two together, one gets a wonderful situation; where the powerful majority must behave in a way that respects the minority in ways that the minority need not reciprocate. This, though seemingly "unfair" on the surface, becomes a more "fair" situation when looked at it through the lens of history.
Very well said.
JB
Posted by: Ruggiero Dec 11 2005, 06:36 PM
Thankee, now put your saber where your mouth is, chump.
Rugg
Posted by: InfiniteWarrior Dec 12 2005, 12:28 AM
Chicken.
Allow me, then. Intelligent Design (in its current incarnation) has absolutely no basis in fact. End of story. (Or should be.)Makes for a better argument than "satire", methinks. Admittedly, isn't all that humorous, but perhaps a mite more persuasive. I'd be happy to post the "essay worthy" version if anyone's up for a yawn. (I can see 'em now: NO! Er, I mean, that's ok.
)The Onion article is a satire - one that pokes fun at the fundamental flaw inherent in the (so-called) theory of Intelligent Design. FSM is an attempt at satire, but doesn't come anywhere near that fundamental flaw. Naturally, that's just my opinion.
'Course, ID has little to do with KY's post. All history anyway... despite the "no basis in fact" thing.
Yikes. Think of the ramifications....
P.S. Just can't help myself.
Now, I gotta go to bed. Sorry to miss you all.
Posted by: Ruggiero Dec 20 2005, 11:33 AM
Well, The Court in PA just rejected the Intelligent Design suit. Herewith, from the http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf is an excerpt, substantiating what I mentioned above. "ID" stands for intelligent design.
(bold is my addition)
--Ruggiero
(the book on "intelligent design"--Rugg) went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science.
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of
Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID;
(3) the change occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the
very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept.
Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of
appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence
that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation
of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic
change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after
the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence
strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.
Posted by: Ruggiero Dec 20 2005, 11:39 AM
And lastly, the Judge's eloquent conclusion....
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor
do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an
imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order
permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school
within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to
a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory
judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Posted by: InfiniteWarrior Dec 20 2005, 07:44 PM
In other words, it has no basis in fact. Yay! (Wouldn't it be great if the legal process didn't consume 3 1/2 trees to say that?)
(Thanks, Rugg. I might have seen that today; might not. Good to know the system hasn't broken down completely. 
)
On to satire and a cautioning point of view that has nothing to do with here or there (trust me), but everything to do with the current climate in this country: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
With due respect to the argument that "one group of people is trying to establish a single set of values for all", I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that to concentrate on that is to look not nearly deep enough. That is nothing but a smokescreen - lying on the surface of things - designed to sway the _______ masses and deflect attention away from the real issue: Absolute power; absolute control.
We have politicians telling us that we should be happy to be in this mess because that's what God told us to do. Apologies to anyone who believes that is true, but I don't get the sense that anyone here does, so I'll continue on to the main point: To tilt at all members of any group, holding them and/or everything they hold dear in contempt and ridicule for what a faction of that group may (or more likely may not) be responsible for - borne out when one looks at the true, driving force(s) - is to tilt at windmills and (in case no one has noticed) is the very point at which "civilization" breaks down.
When the process works correctly, as it did in PA, a statement of absolute and undeniable fact (or a satire of the fundamental flaw in the argument) is far more likely to persuade far more people to perceive things as they really are. On the other hand, to hold people, their opinions or beliefs up to public mockery and ridicule is highly likely to have exactly the opposite effect.
~ Mom
P.S. By the by, if anyone thinks I'm personally offended by FSM, I'm not. My beliefs - which as we all know are just as heavily grounded in Native American and Eastern philosophy - are important to me, but are perfectly safe from noodley appendages.
Posted by: JayBaen Dec 21 2005, 06:13 PM
... speaking of which.
Have we all been keeping up today with Mr. Bush's plans to *permanently (re)instate the Patriot Act* ... !! ... ??!! .. weoernwfiovhoi ... !lnfn31lnsliohlln !! .,///?? kfnf
!
JB
Posted by: InfiniteWarrior Dec 21 2005, 10:00 PM
!
JB
Couldn't have said it better myself.
So... how long 'til the next election?
Posted by: JayBaen Jul 14 2011, 02:26 PM
If only to keep timely postings ...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/13/137824732/austrian-man-wins-right-to-wear-pasta-strainer-in-license-photo?sc=fb&cc=fp
JB
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (WDYL-WTN Release)