Its been awhile since I have done one of these but there just happened to be a number of interesting religious related stories this week:
First stop: Afghanistan, where the government showed some sanity and dismissed the case against Ahmed Rahman, the man on trial and facing a possible death sentence for the heinous crime of converting to Christianity. Mr. Rahman had recently been moved to a more secure prison for his own safety after threats by other inmates were made against him. If released he could face the same as Muslim Clerics in the country werecalling for him to be killed if he is released. Reports are that he is seeking asylum in another country, preferably one where he won’t face death for, you know, holding a different belief and not harming anyone while doing so.
Moving on to our next stop: India, where local Muslim clerics have told a couple they must stop living together as they are now officially divorced because the man apparently uttered the word for divorce three times in his sleep, a valid form of divorce under Sharia law. The couple have refused to comply as they do not believe this is binding and scholars appear to agree, arguing that being asleep is similar enough to being drunk and incapable of behaving rationally which under the same law means the divorce is invalid.
Staying in Asia our next stop is: Israel, where an Orthodox Rabbi has started telling parents that they should maim/disfigure their childrends dolls and stuffed animals so not to run afoul of the prohibition of possession of idols.
Moving along, our next stop: the Telecom world where enterprising companies are filling a market niche for religious cell phone users offering barebones phones without all the extra features like cameras and such that are considered material distractions to some, or offering religious ringtones, or even models with built in reminders for prayer times for Muslim users.
And finishing our trip right here in the good old US of A where hypocritical liberals, those champions of respect and diversity continue displaying their double standard when it comes to Christianity. This week marks the release of the “Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” a book devoted to the “teachings” of a mystical pasta being created as an asinine joke in last years fight over Evolution and Intelligent design.
|
Categories: Religion
|
March 28th, 2006 at 3:12:17 pm
David-
While noting the foibles of the Muslims, Jews and Athiests of the world, you overlooked the Baptist Preacher’s wife who did a Dick Cheney on her Pastor husband’s back this week. Fair and Balanced, please. Fair and Balanced.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:18:34 pm
Let’s get it right though — they were Church of Christ, not Baptist. Fair and Balanced and Accurate, please.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:19:27 pm
Pfft, all those Protestants are the same.
Sincerely,
The Leprechaun
:)
March 28th, 2006 at 3:25:20 pm
Says the lapsed Catholic who God semi-smote after Easter Service freshman year :)
March 28th, 2006 at 3:25:43 pm
Semi-smote?
Heh.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:30:44 pm
P.S. Cmon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is funny. It’s a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:41:58 pm
Shari-
Sorry about the mistake. I was too quick on the draw.
March 28th, 2006 at 3:49:43 pm
Unsurprisingly, I agree with Brendan–the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which you’re free to see as assinine, I see as really quite funny. I even own one of the t-shirts with the graph of correlation between number of pirates and global mean temperature. That’s one of the funnier things about humor–different people can find very different things funny. The fact that you think it’s assinine doesn’t make it so, any more than the fact that I think it’s funny makes it so.
And, for the record, they’re not atheists. They’re Pastafarians. ;)
March 28th, 2006 at 4:21:39 pm
How does the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster represent some sort of double standard against openness? I mean this is like the Scientologist chef on South Park… Mock any religion you like go right ahead, as long as it is not mine. Liberals are not saying don’t be christian, they are saying don’t teach religion in science class because religion is not science.
March 28th, 2006 at 4:42:09 pm
Oh, and where can I get a Kosher phone? I many not be religious, but that doesn’t mean I want a phone with all kinds of crap on it trying to sell me stuff whenever I try and make a cal…
March 28th, 2006 at 4:52:03 pm
First of all, I never said anything about atheists.
Second of all, I don’t think its funny at all. If it had been made purely to create some crazy unserious religious joke that would have been one thing. Instead however it was created specifically as an attempt to equate some random food based diety with Christianity. They made it SPECIFICALLY for that purpose. I understand your point dane that they had a reason behind it, and I agreed with their cause, but I think the way they went about it was insulting to those of us who DO believe in God and Jesus.
Believe me if the situation were reversed and it was conservatives and/or religious people mocking and disrespecting one of the causes that liberals champion you can bet that there would be big to do about how bigoted and intolerant they are being.
Like I said, there is a huge double standard from the left when it comes to respecting diversity and culture if it happens to involve Christianity.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:01:37 pm
According to Sharia, how else can you divorce your wife? Say “I break with thee” and put dog poop on her shoes?
March 28th, 2006 at 5:09:59 pm
The problem with the Spaghetti Monster depends on how it’s applied. The issue arises as you substitute the Monster for Jesus.
Some advocates take the replacement of the Monster for Christ quite far:
(E.g. ‘God so loved the world he sent the Spaghetti Monster…’ , ‘the Spaghetti Monster died for our sins’, etc)
If you accept the underlying premise, “God so loved the world that he sent ____ to die for our sins”, and then conventionally fill in the blank with Jesus…
…and if as a particular Spaghetti Monster advocate you accept many, or even all, of the underlying Christian premises but simply relabel Jesus the Spaghetti Monster…
…then you’re taking the Lord’s name in vain for no reason other than to be obstinate.
I won’t burn down your embassy. But I’m with David - its petulant and unfunny.
If you want to argue, as an atheist/agnostic, that you believe the underlying premises are false, that’s one thing.
But to acknowledge the underlying premises (e.g. John 3:16) and then apply a mocking appelate to those premises - not funny at all.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:13:39 pm
The atheists will say “By relabelling Jesus the Spaghetti Monster I am denying His divinity”.
But to be clear these are two different things.
Denying the divinity of Christ = atheism/agnosticism.
Relabelling Jesus the Spaghetti Monster = making fun of Him.
The Spaghetti Monster would be easier to take if the “doxology” weren’t such an obvious mockery of Christ (in so many variants).
March 28th, 2006 at 5:15:05 pm
David and Jazz, you’re both taking this too seriously. It’s a joke! :)
March 28th, 2006 at 5:28:31 pm
No Ricardo, as Jazz explained its not a joke. Its an intentional and mean spirited swipe at those of us who happen to believe differently than others do. You and others are of course free to make the “jokes”, laugh at them etc. and its not as if I don’t think that there can be religious jokes, i’ve heard some great Catholic jokes. I just think this is mean spirited and goes too far.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:31:23 pm
The point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, initially, was that there’s actually remarkably little consensus about Intelligent Design, even within the ID community. It’s a loose amalgam of young earth creationists, old earth creationists, people who believe in evolution with common descent but that the initial cell was designed, people who believe in a naturalistic biological history except for the differentiation of humans from everything else, people who believe that natural selection works yet certain key changes were guided by intervention from a higher power, those who attribute the higher power to a deity/deities, those who attribute it to advanced alien life forms, and a whole lot of other ideas. Trust me–I read a lot of the ID and creationist literature on a fairly regular basis, as it’s going to be highly relevant to my life.
Well, if you’re therefore going to teach ID in the schools, which brand of it do you teach? After all, much of the PR about the whole ID/creationism issue was that students should be presented with all sides of a debate, and be allowed to come to their own conclusions. So a deliberately outrageous pardoy was created, including things like that it’s disrespectful to teach about the beliefs of Pasafarianism without dressing in the preferred outfit of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which happens to be full pirate regalia, and that the decline in pirates is tightly linked to global warming. The fact that it’s so deliberately outrageous makes it basically an argument reductio ad absurdum. The satire is not aimed so much at the faith of those who honestly believe in intelligent design as it is at the idea that just because there are people who disagree with the experts in a subject that there is therefore a lack of consensus, and that if you’re going to argue that alternatives need to be heard then there’s little justification for only allowing your pet alternative instead of someone else’s. Fundamentally, the guy who started this whole thing wasn’t attacking beliefs, he was attacking process and implementation.
March 28th, 2006 at 5:43:07 pm
Hmm. The rest of my comment got chewed up.
That’s not to say that some people who have joined on the FSM bandwagon don’t find those beliefs funny. They certainly do. There are very few beliefs out there that no one finds amusing. But there also plenty of people who make references to His Noodly Appendage at least in part to try to make sure that the flawed logic of arguing that because something has popular support it should be given equal time in the classroom. Science, it should be recalled, is not a democracy. Despite post-modern critiques, there are things which actually are right and wrong. It makes very little difference if your view is popular or unpopular if it’s useful in either advancing knowledge in the field through experimentation or in producing applications–Newtonian physics is fundamentally flawed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful, and an intelligent designer might be real, but that doesn’t mean that as currently formulated any appeal to ID is scientifically useful.
And while David didn’t refer to atheists, A&A did. I don’t know if David’s comment about that was directed at me or not, but if it was–not all of my responses are directly only at you, David.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:50:00 pm
I have a feeling David is having his faith tested by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Kind of the way Catholics were tempted to adopt pre-destination and divorce during the Protestant Reformation. With the Flying Spaghetti Monster, David could have his God and eat it, too.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:51:53 pm
As a Christian, I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster neither funny nor offensive. It’s just a joke, albeit a somewhat lame one IMO. I think you’re taking things a tad too seriously, David.
March 28th, 2006 at 7:52:49 pm
“Denying the divinity of Christ = atheism/agnosticism.”
Or Judaism
or Muslim
or Unitarian
or Hinduism
or Buddism
or…
March 28th, 2006 at 8:00:23 pm
“Some advocates take the replacement of the Monster for Christ quite far:
(E.g. ‘God so loved the world he sent the Spaghetti Monster…’ , ‘the Spaghetti Monster died for our sins’, etc)”
So, you’re denying the Trinity?
March 28th, 2006 at 8:07:36 pm
So if God really is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, does that mean the Italians are the Chosen People? Or, could it be the Chinese, since Marco Polo allegedly brought pasta back from there. Can’t be the Jews. They make terrible pasta dishes.
Who knows.
March 28th, 2006 at 8:21:26 pm
Can’t be the Jews. They make terrible pasta dishes.
Don’t you like Hungarian goulash?
March 28th, 2006 at 8:34:20 pm
don’t confuse the Republicans with facts…
March 28th, 2006 at 8:43:18 pm
This may sound like splitting hairs (or pasta noodles), but here goes:
As a metaphor to describe the stupidity of teaching ID in science classes, a Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) is okay in my book. As long as the thing symbolizes a generic otherworldly force serving as a prime mover - to illustrate the folly of such an untestable proposition in a science class - I think that’s okay. ID in science classes is folly, as I have argued extensively elsewhere on this blog.
However, when FSM devotees ascribe to it characteristics obviously and unmistakably descriptive of Jesus Christ, I have a problem. I don’t think David is being too touchy on this point.
Suppose someone were describing you, and they used several descriptors that unmistakably described you, such that everyone knew that you were the one being referred to…
…but they didn’t use your name, but rather called you “that f***er”. Would you be offended?
If it were obvious that you were being referred to, you should be, irrespective of any defense to the effect of referring to someone else.
Unmistakably describing Jesus and calling Him a Spaghetti Monster is flatly offensive. David is also right on the point that modern liberal secularism has made it unfashionable to defend the sanctity of Christ.
Goodness, we wouldn’t want to have the first whiff of association with Muslim wackos burning down embassies! So go ahead and call our Lord and Savior a Spaghetti Monster, ha ha that’s just fine!
If you’re willing to laugh that one off, and are still religious, where do you draw the line? Do you even have a line?
March 28th, 2006 at 8:49:39 pm
Methinks said Leprechaun is entirely too protestant in his responses, himself !
March 28th, 2006 at 9:09:11 pm
Alright, how about a deal? The book was just published today. I’m going to take a wild guess that none of us have actually read this particular book so far–it’ll probably be this weekend before I get down to the nearest Border’s. How about we hold off on debating whether a given book is inherently offensive until at least one person has read it and says (s)he’s offended by it or at least one person has read it and is willing to argue that it’s not inherently offensive? Arguing that it’s offensive without reading it strikes me as analogous to those parents who deemed the Harry Potter series wicked without having read any of the books themselves. At the same time, arguing that this particular book isn’t offensive (as opposed to the larger FSM issue) without having read it is like arguing that the Koran is a peaceful holy text without having read it either. Arguments from ignorance are rarely compelling.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:03:12 pm
I didn’t say the book was offensive (although I would bet it probably will be) I said the whole FSM thing was.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:11:56 pm
David, you’re angering me…don’t make me smite you.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:14:57 pm
He did it to Chicago…
March 28th, 2006 at 10:32:38 pm
Just to add to the poll… I actually found the FSM rather offensive, too. Like others, I decline to burn anything or anyone over it, but I think the “joke” is tasteless and needlessly demeaning. A racial slur is “just a joke” too, but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
Oh, and that whole pastor’s wife murder thing, so far as we know, had NOTHING to do with religion, Christianity or otherwise. The man’s occupation makes the story more interesting perhaps, but is essentially irrelevent. Let’s be fair about it.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:45:34 pm
Mike - I accept your deal. And, if it turns out that the book describes an ambiguous prophetic figure, and not obviously Jesus Christ, then I will laugh along with you (assuming its funny…)
March 29th, 2006 at 3:58:52 am
Okay, just one note: PEOPLE WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD AREN’T NECESSARILY LIBERALS
I mean, please, get a clue.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:49:11 am
So am I going to Hell because I laughed at Monty Python’s Life of Brian?
March 29th, 2006 at 9:55:50 am
Right, because no one ever makes jokes about other religions…
March 29th, 2006 at 11:22:51 am
That’s a good point, A&A. David, did you find Life of Brian offensive, or wickedly clever?
March 29th, 2006 at 12:08:51 pm
It’s not a joke. It’s a reductio ad absurdam. It’s a argument pointing out the flaws in religionist thinking. You can’t scream that you’re offended and win the argument. But Mike already covered that…
PS I’m offended that Jazz is offended.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:29:39 pm
Andrew, re: Life of Brian - no doubt there is much about Life of Brian that made me laugh, including (I am sorry to admit) the part that parodied the central tenets of Christian faith.
Martin Luther described John 3:16 as “the pocket bible”, arguing that within that passage was contained the entire substance of the Christian message.
That substance is essentially: we humans are intrinsically flawed and separate from God, so God in His love sacrificed His son to return us to unity with Him.
If you have integrity, you look at that dynamic and think well, that sucks that in my inherent fallenness I made God pay this price for me. No way to change that -
- but to laugh at God for doing that is not something to be proud of, even if you genuinely thought it was funny.
Re: Sean’s offense: are you suggesting that within your life, you have some sort of Flying Spaghetti Monster or other such construct which has even a remotely similar meaning that Christ does to Christians?
Of course you don’t.
Which makes your snide observation of being offended, irredeemably offensive.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:02:21 pm
Thank you for proving my point Sean, the left is perfectly willing to argue for tolerance of different beliefs, except when it comes to religion in particular and Christianity specifically. In your mind relgion = absurdism. Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t make it wrong.
As Jazz has pointed out this is an insult to one of the core beliefs of Christianity, and not one meant in a light hearted manner, but as a rejection of the whole concept.
The difference between this and life of Brian is that Life of Brian wasn’t trying to equate Brian WITH Jesus. There was Brian and their was Jesus. Brian wasn’t actually being claimed by the makers of the film as a substitute for Jesus whereas thats exactly what the FSM people are doing.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:17:06 pm
David, is it really “intolerant” for an atheist to believe religion is absurd? Or does it require an additional step — like perhaps believing that all religious people are dumb, or something like that?
If holding negative, judgmental beliefs about an alternative belief system (as opposed to its adherents) is “intolerant,” I daresay an awful lot of religious people are mighty intolerant — of atheists among others.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:37:20 pm
Andrew, re: Life of Brian - no doubt there is much about Life of Brian that made me laugh, including (I am sorry to admit) the part that parodied the central tenets of Christian faith.
I’m not sure I agree. Monty Python did an excellent job of parodying us Christians (and religious people in general), but I’m not sure they were necessarily trashing the Christian faith.
March 29th, 2006 at 2:40:15 pm
Look, the original online article about the FSM was a painfully obvious farce that said nothing about Christianity. What it did provide was a reductio ad absurdam example of an ID argument: “Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. 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. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”
All this highlights is the recent trend of schoolboard ID battles: presenting wholly unverifiable, religious-based theories as sound science in an effort to inject religion into public schools at the expense of well-established naturalistic theories. The crux of the satire, IMO, was the explanation that, “observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” and therefore all taught scientific “truths” are merely illusions provided by the FSM.
Admittedly, the FSM movement has grown considerably and too many cooks in the kitchen have changed some of the tenor from playful satire to invective. Many additions to the growing tenets of FSMism are outright amusing (i.e., heaven has a beer volcano and a stripper factory and that “Touched by his noodly appendage” picture from the Sistine Chapel). If one reads the uncyclpedia article it’s clear that a lot of people who just have issues with religion in general have twisted it to their POV.
I find the FSM concept to be a biting, hilarious commentary on ID politics. It’s easy to see how one who might not have followed the “movement” from the beginning would see it now and take offense to some of what has since been added. We’ll see what’s in the book, whether it incorporates any of the new themes that are overtly anti-Christian or anti-religion…
March 29th, 2006 at 2:43:12 pm
It would help, Jazz, if you weren’t so dismissive of people who think differently than you do.
You say that of course there’s nothing in Sean’s life that has an even remotely similar meaning to him that Christ does to a Christian. Now, it is possible that you’re right in the case of Sean himself. But you’re categorically not right that that is true for all atheists or agnostics. Though it’s fiction, I quote to you from Inherit the Wind:
Now, I don’t claim that positionis what Sean holds. He hasn’t expressed his views on this. But neither can you know that he doesn’t. Just because his religious faith is in a lack of a deity (sorry, Sean, but as a skeptical agnostic, I really do see atheism as a faith, as it contains a certainty about what I feel is fundamentally unknown) does not mean that he has nothing in his life or belief structure that holds a place as important to him as Christ does to a Christian.
You think he’s mocking your faith by stating that he’s offended? Perhaps. Or perhaps he’s actually offended by what he perceives as people reacting to something on a surface level without thinking about the matter. Or perhaps he’s making the point that just because someone says that (s)he is offended doesn’t meant that others need to defer to that position. But for someone arguing from the background of a religion based upon a cleansing sacrifice redeeming any who choose to accept it, the idea that a comment like Sean’s can be “irredeemably offensive” is a bit much, at least to my view. Though it would be nice if Sean had a bit more tact in many of the comments he posted.
And David, I have to say that I think that either you’re deliberately misreading things or that you don’t know what reductio ad absurdum means. Sean basically just referenced my comment about how the whole FSM is an argument reductio ad absurdum, a classical type of argument style in philosophy/logic in which a statement is taken to its logical extreme (example below) That is not at all the same thing as saying that religious faith is absurdism. Not even close. I don’t really feel like rewriting the reasoning behind that when it’s already here on this thread, but if you can reread that comment of mine and honestly think that it says that religion = absurdism, let me know and I’ll try to explain in more depth.
Finally, you assert (as has been asserted here before) that the whole FSM thing is a deliberate attempt to replace Jesus with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Where is your proof of this? If anything, it seems that the FSM is being claimed as a replacement for God the Father, not Jesus the Son–the FSM is said to have created the universe, they have artwork replacing God reaching out to Adam on the Sistine Chapel with the FSM reaching out to Adam, etc. Those are not roles of Jesus, to the best of my understanding.
Example: Person A states that it’s wrong to harm another living creature as a justification for being vegan. Person B points out that plants are also living creatures, so you can’t harm them. Apparently, then, you need to only eat that which has already dropped dead/fallen off the tree. And even then you need to make sure that you don’t harm any insects or microbes while you’re trying to do so. And never take any antibiotics. And you should really be taking immune supressing drugs, because your body is constantly fighting off bacterial and fungal infections. And you should make sure to never cast a shadow on a plant, because you’re depriving it of light which is akin to starving it. And so on. It’s not that the position that killing animals is wrong is absurd, it’s that logically life does require harming other living creatures, and so what one really has to do is find a line to draw where it’s OK, not express things in such absolute terms which are logically unsound.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:40:05 pm
“The difference between this and life of Brian is that Life of Brian wasn’t trying to equate Brian WITH Jesus.”
What part would that be? The part where Brian was offered to the crowd for judgement by Gluteus Maximus, or the part at the end where Brian was crucified? How is that less offensive than a non-human Spaghetti Monster?
You seem kind of on thin ice to me, David.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:49:00 pm
Mike - you’re right, ‘irredeemably’ is a bit strong. That word suggests that Sean’s post, in and of itself, would be a basis to permanently dismiss any further consideration of him. Surely people are more complex than that.
BTW - the irredeemable in no way meant in God’s eyes…that’s way beyond any mortal scope.
March 29th, 2006 at 4:52:54 pm
One could also find it offensive that Christians take themselves so excessively seriously — the same could be said for many religions of course, especially monotheistic religions, and to a lesser or greater extent polytheistic religions — depending on who you are talking about.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:00:12 pm
Personally though, I don’t really think the existence of God and or gods and or sons and or Holly Ghosts &c. is a particularly relevant question. You can either live a morally upstanding and credible life or you can’t beyond that the rest tends to take care of itself. Religious traditions may or may not help you in this goal depending on how you relate to the ideas and what you do with them. But a failure to examine something and instead just accepting it is unwise.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:03:08 pm
David, is it really “intolerant� for an atheist to believe religion is absurd? Or does it require an additional step � like perhaps believing that all religious people are dumb, or something like that?
If holding negative, judgmental beliefs about an alternative belief system (as opposed to its adherents) is “intolerant,� I daresay an awful lot of religious people are mighty intolerant � of atheists among others.
Is it intolerant for them to believe it is absurd? Not necessarilly. Is it intolerant for them to try equate pasta with the central figure in our religion? Yes.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:05:01 pm
One could also find it offensive that Christians take themselves so excessively seriously
How is a group taking itself seriously offensive?
And I don’t think Christians are guilty of this any more than liberals, conservatives, animal rights activists, gay rights activists etc.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:34:29 pm
Is it intolerant for them to believe it is absurd? Not necessarilly.
Well then, weren’t you incorrect that Sean “proved your point” that “the left is perfectly willing to argue for tolerance of different beliefs, except when it comes to religion in particular and Christianity specifically” by saying, as you (incorrectly) summarized it, that “relgion = absurdism”? Sean didn’t invent the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so you can’t plausibly say you were calling him intolerant for “equat[ing] pasta with the central figure in our religion.” You were calling him intolerant for, according to you, calling religion absurd. I’m not making this up, David; that’s what you said. You added, “Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t make it wrong” — a clear reference to Sean’s opinion of religion, not the FSM. So your defense of your comment doesn’t make sense. If you feel that it is intolerant for atheists and others to believe that religion is absurd, come out and say it. If you don’t believe that, then your earlier comment to Sean doesn’t make sense. You were the one who changed the subject away from the FSM and shined the spotlight on Sean as an example of leftist intolerance of religion/Christianity; you can’t fool me by changing the subject back now to the FSM and pretending the previous discussion was entirely about the FSM, when part of it was about Sean’s beliefs.
March 29th, 2006 at 5:40:11 pm
Not necessarily? So it might be intolerant for them to think your viewpoint is absurd? I don’t think so.
I think it’s perfectly rational to view all known life as having descended from a single ancestral cell which arose billions of years ago. Many, and possibly most, Creationists think that my view on this is absurd. That’s not intolerant of them. It would be intolerant of them to tell me that I’m not allowed to think the way I do, or to discuss my views with others in appropriate settings, or whatnot. But the thought that my views are absurd isn’t intolerant. And neither is my thought that those who think the Earth is no more than ~6000 years old believe something absurd. What would be intolerant would be if I told them that they weren’t allowed to think this, or weren’t allowed to teach their children this, or whatnot.
As has been pointed out in debates outside of religion, tolerance is not the same thing as agreement. I can be tolerant of the various campus ministires that leave literature outside my door even as I throw that literature in the recycling bin and wish that they wouldn’t waste the paper on me. I respect their right to believe what they want, and to act accordingly within the bounds of the law. I’d even be annoyed if the University tried to prevent them from getting access to my building to leave that material there, given that the University allows various restaurants to leave menus and whatnot. That’s tolerance. I don’t have to agree with their views, or stop myself from thinking that they’re mistaken/misguided/whatever I want to think about them, so long as I respect their rights.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:08:14 pm
De gustibus non est dispuntandum
March 29th, 2006 at 7:59:43 pm
Can we go back to the part everyone skipped over where somehow people involved with FSM who don’t believe in God somehow are automatically politically “liberals”…..?
I mean that was the really silly part of the whole post….for various obvious reasons…
March 29th, 2006 at 8:49:37 pm
Brendan, you are correct, i let my passion about this subject get ahold of me and falsely accused Sean, it was wrong and I apologize to you Sean. I may think your attitude towards religion is unfair, but that doesn’t make you intolerant and that is not something I should ever have accused you of without solid reason. Again I apologize.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:52:54 pm
A Nun Mouse, it may be that there exist some who are involved with FSM and who don’t believe in God that aren’t liberals. If thats true I have yet to meet one. The entirety of the people I have seen or met who seem to either participate or see as perfectly ok with the FSM group have been liberals and often atheist/agnostics. The same liberals who are always talking about respecting other peoples beliefs and celebrating diversity. I will be the first around here to call the right on its hyporisy (of which there is a lot) but I’ll be damned if I am going to ignore the lefts blatant hypocrisy on this issue.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:58:19 pm
Although I’m not Sean, and therefore can’t accept your apology, I just wanted to say I give you credit for backing down on the one portion of your argument that was indefensible. That’s something I’ve sometimes accused you of failing to do in the past, so I figured I’d better give credit where credit is due.
We now return to our previously scheduled religio-political flame war, already in progress… :)
March 29th, 2006 at 9:21:50 pm
Apparently then, David, you think I’m a liberal? I doubt those here who self-identify as liberals would agree with that. I also doubt that our resident conservatives would list me as a liberal, though they’d hardly list me as a conservative either. I don’t have a problem with the FSM, and I am agnostic, but if we’re going to condense people to a single left/right axis, remember that I come out dead center too.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:57:42 pm
What part would that be? The part where Brian was offered to the crowd for judgement by Gluteus Maximus, or the part at the end where Brian was crucified? How is that less offensive than a non-human Spaghetti Monster?
You seem kind of on thin ice to me, David.
A&A, I think you misunderstand the intent of the movie. Many others besides Jesus were called messiahs, and/or crucified, and/or offered to the crowd in an act of potential pardon in that time period. Obviously Monty Python’s intent was to take a fictional individual in that time period, have him go through many significant scenarios similar to or the same as what Jesus went through, and use the tale to point out how ridiculous and blind religious people can be, as well as use the context as a springboard for many laughs, both high brow and low brow.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:08:30 am
Which of course, by extension, calls into question the way in which Christianity and Christ emerged from this messianic tradition.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:55:20 am
dcl-
You mean I’m not supposed to be worshipping the Sacred Gourd?
March 30th, 2006 at 1:13:49 pm
no, you should be worshiping the shoe… sorry to disappoint.