KS School Board Member to FSM-ites: "It is a serious OFFENSE to Mock GOD"

[Warren DeMontague]

http://venganza.org/response.htm

From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6

"It is a serious offense to mock God."

Hmmm. An "offense"? So, what happens to Bobby Henderson and the rest of the Pastafarians? Burning at the stake? Stoning for Blasphemy?

Oh, and, uh, Kathy? I thought the whole "Intelligent Design controversy" was about SCIENCE.... not religion, Christianity and "God". Which is it? Legitimate debate between reputable scientific opinion or-- holy writ?

Lady, Make up your God-Damn Mind.

Oh, shit, I took the lord's name in vain. Another "offense"!

:wow: :yoiks: :wow:

More about KS School Board Member Kathy Martin:

http://www.ksde.org/commiss/ksbe6.html

Kathy Martin became a member of the State Board of Education, representing the 17 counties of District 6, in 2005, after a lifetime career as a classroom teacher in Clay County USD 379 schools. Kathy's term will run through 2009. In addition to her teaching career, Kathy also owned and operated a preschool in Wakefield for 10 years. She was the Clay County Teacher of the Year in 2000 and a district semifinalist. She belongs to the Kansas Exemplary Educators Network and was selected as a Master Teacher for the National Teacher Training Institute. She has presented workshops and in-services across the state, and was a lead science teacher for her district. She is a member of the American Association of Educators, and currently serves as president of Alpha Nu chapter of Delta Kappa Gamma, an organization of women educators.

Kathy earned her Bachelors Degree in Elementary Education in 1967, and her Masters in Special Education in 1984, both from Kansas State University. Kathy has been involved in 4-H leadership, Clay County Fair Board, Farm Bureau committees, and saddle club leadership at the local, state and national levels.

Kathy belongs to Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Clay Center, where she has served as Parish Council Chairperson, C.Y.O. Sponsor, and is a Eucharistic Minister and Lector. She and her husband, Max, have been married for over 35 years, and have 3 daughters and 8 grandchildren. They reside on, and operate, a diversified farming operation in southeast Clay County.

[Extend a Hand]

1. bahahahahahaha

where's the cluebat. venganza.org is mocking her and her co-horts, not God.

[Maraya1969]

2. Flying Spaghetti Monster - Why do we use so many LETTERS around here?

[Warren DeMontague]

11. 'cuz it wouldn't fit in the thread title.

Sorry. I tried "pastafarians" but no go, either.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DanCa]

4. You know this is the type of person that made me afraid to go to

school as a kid. God i wish someone would help me picket her ilk.

[Zhade]

27. I'd help, but I'm in California.

But you've got MY support!

[MuseRider]

5. Uhh Ohhh

Does this mean I should take my FSM medallion off of the back of my truck?

Fuck them. They keyed my truck to get my Evolve Fish off of it. If they take this too I will replace it.

Is this why the guy in the white shirt and the icky brown sedan keeps following me? :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I think the beauty of the FSM "fish"

is that it probably confuses the fuck out of 95% of the fundies who see it, many of them thinking that you've got some NEW, ultra-extra-soooperdooper Christian symbol that they aren't hip to yet.

[UncleSepp]

30. I've never seen one... got a picture of it? Sounds funny!

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Here you go:

http://www.rof.com/Plaque_FSM.htm

[UncleSepp]

38. LOL! That's cute, I do like it! Thanks!

[Blue-Jay]

66. I must have one.

He'll look good next to Darwinfish.

[dalaigh lllama]

6. Oh, I must agree with Kathy

From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6

"It is a serious offense to mock God."

I sincerely hope no one is mocking FSM -- that would smack of political parmesanship. For their penance, they should recite three Pasta Nosters.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Oh good grief

Last time I looked I don't recall a law in the country that said not to mock God. :crazy: So what about Allah and other religious beliefs?

[DanCa]

9. A bag of peanuts

Now I lay me down to sleep
A bag of peanuts at my feet
If I die before I wake
Please give them to my brother Jake


Is it just me or was the last god pries father muhlkay from mash?

[Maraya1969]

18. "If I should die before I wake it means I died from a stomach ache"

[Tsiyu]

8. Well, Lady, you need to talk to the current White House

because they've been mocking the shit out of God for a few years now.

Like they claim to be "Christians" but didn't Christ teach his followers to love their enemies, to care for the poor, TO NOT JUDGE OTHERS (as you obviously do) and to SHOW MERCY? I'm not seeing this behavior out of our President and his "godly" minions. Can you explain?

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

(I'll guarantee you don't even know what that means.)

The FSM, however, says:

I desire Romano, not Parmesan

[sakabatou]

10. Nominated for Top Ten

[fighttheevilempire]

13. Arrest me for exercising my freedom... I dare you.

If I recall my Freeper-speak correctly, they claim no person should expect freedom FROM religion. Well, if you're going to say that for your religion, then that includes my religion too. I believe in FSMism and I am deeply offended. Unlike most materialistic and fascist religious activists, I will simply pray that she may be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Seriously though, I hope they try something against the FSMists out there. I'd love to see a court ruling stating that my religion be considered equally with theirs. It's kind of like asking Judge Moore to display the Koran next to the 10 Commandments. Some sharpie lawyer with some free time could put a really big dent in this nonsense.

[coda]

14. LOL She also said children need to hear "alternatives".

"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed. There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."

- Kathy Martin, 59, retired science and elementary school teacher and Kansas BOE member who is presiding over the hearings.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. our nation is based on Christianity- not science.

What does that even MEAN?

That's kind of like saying our nation is based on egg noodles- not trigonometry.

[Zhade]

28. HAHAHAHA!

Nice one!

"noodles, not trigonometry"

:rofl:

[ErisFiveFingers]

51. Christianity, my FSM-touched ass.

First, I suggest such folks read up on the Treaty of Tripoly.

Presidents:
Washington was a non-Xtian deist. Jefferson called christianity an abomination, and re-wrote the bible. John Adams was a Unitarian, and called Jesus an "absurdity". James Madison? Diest. James Monroe? Deist. John Quincy Adams? Unitarian. Lincoln? Diest, non-denominational.

Others:
Ethan Allen: Diest. Benjamin Franklin: Diest. Thomas Paine: Diest.

Sheesh. They believed in a higher force than man, no crucifixtion needed.

http://www.chestnutcafe.com/cafe/index.html?US_History

[Richard Steele]

15. Hey, Kathy: No one is mocking GOD. We are mocking YOU, you dumbfuck!

Obviously, you are just too frigging PIG-STUPID to
realize that the FSM meme is making fun of YOU,
and all the rest of your FEARFUL, narrow-minded ilk.

FEARFUL I call you, and FEARFUL you are.

Because the REAL motive behind your religofascist
ambitions is this:
You HAVE NO FAITH, Kathy.

You don't TRULY believe that God is infinite and all-powerful.
You prove that every time you FEAR freedom of thought,
every time you FEAR scientific curiosity.

You FEAR these things because you
believe in an IMAGINARY god;
a god so small and petty
that YOU dare imagine that you UNDERSTAND "him".

The "god" you claim to believe in is a
childishly simplistic mental construct,
little more than a magical Batman.

And you FEAR that "science" will someday
make MAN the equal of your sad little god;
you FEAR that inquisitive humans will, one day, draw back
some invisible curtain and reveal your "God" to
be as big a FRAUD as you are.

Kathy, it is obvious to me that your
loud, public exhortations of your "faith"
are very transparent overcompensation for
your LACK of faith.

MY god does not fear TRUTH, Kathy.
MY god is infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent.
Every truth, every fact, every "THING" is an intrinsic part of god.
Always was, always will be.

Only a FALSE god would have reason to fear TRUTH, Kathy.
Just like a false BELIEVER.

[Maraya1969]

20. Send that to her. It makes a lot of sense.

I have said to many fanatical Christians that their God is too small and petty. The God that I believe in would never send a person to eternal damnation for not believing in a certain theological doctrine.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. "magical Batman"

:yourock:

[hfojvt]

29. then you are saying that FSM is the TRUTH?

WWFSMD is not mocking Kathy, it is mocking Jesus. True it is aimed at people who worship, follow, or respect Jesus, or claim to, but ultimately it is saying that the person who healed the sick, fed the hungry, and clothed the naked, and encouraged his followers to do the same is just a piece of phlogiston or luminiferous ether. To me, it seems to be mocking the ideas of compassion, justice, honesty, and love.
Who knows, maybe I am just another pig-stupid fumbduck. Does your fearless, infinite god encourage his people to be arrogant name-callers?

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Uh...

Maybe you don't understand what this debate is about. Try again.

http://venganza.org

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Oh, and by the way:

I don't believe in the literal truth of Jesus's Divinity OR the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although if I tell you I find them equally plausible I'd suspect I'll get slammed for 'bigotry against Chrisitans'

I'm not interested in "mocking" anyone's pet deity--- as long as they leave him/her/it the FUCK out of PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES.

[hfojvt]

39. isn't it too bad the religion of science

cannot be defend, and instead the need is felt to attack the religion of Christianity.
My personal theory is that the Universe was created in 1997 by a cosmic entity known only as Fred. However, I do not feel the need to make stickers that say WWFD? For one thing, I am pretty sure that Fred would not approve, since he has great respect for Christianity. Otherwise, he would not have created it.

[hatrack]

41. Hey! God and I went bowling last night - He said he never met "Fred"

Besides, just FYI, God's real name is Dennis.

[Zhade]

42. The "religion of science"? Is that like the "whiteness of black"?

You know, another nonexistent thing?

I think science can do lots of things besides "attack christianity" - like showing that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it's older than a few thousand years, for example. Or coming up with cures for diseases.

Interested in meeting this Fred guy, though - unless he's Fred Phelps, that is.

[hfojvt]

43. I cannot find the source

I am thinking it is Lewis Mumford or Paul Goodman or Bertrand Russell. "In my opinion, science has become a superstition for both the mass of people and scientists themselves, for the mass it has the power of magic, for the scientist it has the exclusive virtue of an orthodox theology."

Hmm, maybe it is Fred Phelps. That would explain alot. It is a twisted world, after all, probably created by a lunatic, or a sadist.

[Zhade]

44. Wait, so Fred Phelps designed the world?

Ah-HA! Now it makes sense!

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

46. But the world contains all the stuff that drives Fred Phelps batty...

Ergo, "God Hates God"

[Zhade]

48. Well yeah, he's a lunatic.

It makes sense, in a nonsensical way!

[hfojvt]

50. has there ever been an artist

who did not create something that they ended up hating, at least once? Sometimes I figure, or joke, that God was probably drunk when he made the world, and when he sobered up, it was like 'what the heck was I thinking?' Or it was like he did it in seven days, only day 1 was Wednesday, and after day 3 he got hammered on the weekend but worked hung-over on Saturday anyway and really screwed some things up (that was when He created mosquitos, coral snakes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis, or forgot to account for them in his biological, meteorological and techtonic systems.) but instead of starting over he tried to patch things up on Monday with the cosmic equivalent of duck tape. You know how proud he is, it is not like He would admit to a mistake or two. In fact he has the reputation for being very harsh with his critics. Which reminds me :hide:

[Warren DeMontague]

54. "You know how proud he is,its not like He would admit to a mistake or two"

He sounds like George Bush.

And on that note, what, precisely, does an all-powerful, omnipotent, infinite being need with "pride", much less care if anyone criticizes (or doesn't believe in) "him"?

As far as mosquites, earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis, here's my answer:

"Big Daddy Order, He Runs A Very Good Pace
But Old Mama Chaos Is Winning The Race"











But I don't think Eris belongs in public schools, either.

[Zhade]

55. "Could god invent a drink so strong even he couldn't drink it?"

Amusing tales you tell.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Ahhhhhmmm...

You can believe whatever the flyin' fuck you want to, Jack- and I will defend to your death to believe whatever ludicrous stuff you may have in your head at any given moment.

However, your opinion that the FSM argument constitues an "attack on Christianity" is like blaming a rape victim for fighting back. In case you haven't been paying attention -that's the only excuse I can fathom- Religious Extremists, overwhelmingly of the "Christian" persuasion, have been working overtime to subvert the Separation of Church and State in this country, and to shoehorn in theology into public school science classes in Kansas, among other things..

So, yea verily, it is the poor oppressed Christians who are the victims, besieged at every turn by mocking Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

And as for your steaming cauldron assertion about "the religion of science", what does that even mean? That the belief that logical explanations for material phenomena should be examined by experiement and backed up by physical evidence is a religion? Yes, and the belief that you can't fly is a "religion", too. Belief that effect follows cause, or that 1+1=2... all "religions". But here's the rub- the "religion" of science doesn't NEED to be defended, because when evidence disproving a scientific 'theory' comes along, the theory is modified or replaced. If incontrivertable evidence shows up tomorrow PROVING the Genesis account of Creation, then it will BECOME science.

No, it's religious explanations for reality which can't be defended, not logically and not scientifically. Which, we are told, is why one is supposed to have "faith"- so fine, then, have enough faith to leave fucking public school science classes alone and teach your kids whatever-the-fuck-you-want about reality... in CHURCH.

[hfojvt]

49. you almost explained it

It is about valuations. You make science and logic your highest valuations when you say that religious explanations for reality can't be defended 'not logically and not scientifically'. I can almost hear you scream at your computer that 'of course logic is the highest value, what is better 'illogic', or 'faith'?
The answer is, of course, to the faithful, that faith and compassion are more important than logic. The example from Star Trek IV comes to mind. Spock says "Captain, we must help Chekov" and Kirk asks "Is that the logical thing to do?" Spock says "No, but it is the human thing to do." Thus, to the faithful, it is more important to learn and aspire to the highest human ideals than it is to be logical and scientific, although both of those are high human ideals, just not the highest.
You may want to run the public schools your way and tell other people what to do with their faith, but I do not believe a democracy should, or does, work that way. The public schools are funded by the tax-payers, all tax-payers, and as such, parents feel that have some rights to decide how their money should be spent and how their kids should be educated.
As to the idea that Christian people will ruin education, I am fairly sure that the best school in my county is the Catholic school, at least they produce higher SATs and more National Merit commendations. That is no doubt due in large part to the quality of student that they start with, but it at least shows that a religious school does not make a person an idiot.
Whether the FSM is an attack on Christianity or a counter-attack is beside the point. The question is whether it is attacking fundies or attacking Christianity. The post I responded to claimed the former, and I claim it is the latter. If it is an attack on religion, whether you consider it justified or not, it kinda weakens the argument that science, and evolution are not necessarily anti-religion because they are two different spheres - one is 'how?' and the other is 'why?' Apparently some defenders of evolution feel a need or a desire to attack religion.
I happen to think it is intellectually weak when there is an argument about the truth (or even the preference) of X or Y to switch from arguing that X is true (or better, or what I like and why) to mocking the idea that Y is true. Mockery is not honest or respectful argument, and is says nothing about the truth of X. It is what I would expect, however, from somebody who is defending their passionately held religious beliefs.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. "you may want to run public schools your way"

No. I want legitimate SCIENCE taught in science classes, not theology, and not un-scientific twaddle which is not backed up by any evidence.

Probably there are school districts in this country where a majority of the parents believe blacks are infereor, or that they and white people shouldn't marry.. certainly there are plenty where people believe gays are criminal degenerates who deserve jail, if not the death penalty.. other places probably have a majority of parents who believe Jews have horns, or that the Holocaust didn't happen. Should those viewpoints be taught in public schools, since the parents- the tax payers- should, as you put it "have a say"?

I don't know why some people just can't grasp this concept: Scientific truth is not a democratic process. If the majority of 'tax-payers' as you put it, believe that the earth is flat and the sun is a circle of orange angels singing hosannas held up by gossamer strands of holy string, that does NOT mean that it should be given the imprimatur of scientific 'truth' in public schools.


You, apparently, disagree. And you think voters should get to decide what constitutes science as opposed to scientists. Okay, so, how far does that go? You seem to think that "Intelligent Design" (But not, for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which has just as much evidence to back it up) should be taught in schools-- well, great. By some polls, a large number of people believe in the literal truth of the genesis account of Creation. I assume that, if a majority of voters in Kansas believe that the Earth is literally 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark", that should be taught -as fact- as well.

You want to talk about intellectually weak arguments, how about you come up with some FACTUAL basis for teaching ANY of that blather- from a 6,000 year old Earth to the flaming hooey of "Intelligent Design"- aside from your weak assertion that 'it's what parents want'.

Nobody needs to attack religion, unless asking the constitutional separation of church and state to be left alone in this country is an 'attack' (apparently, it is)

The real subtext is, if certain so-called 'faithful' members of certain religions were really so sure of themselves, their beliefs, and their mystical man-in-the-sky, they wouldn't find SCIENTIFIC TRUTH so threatening, and they would let teachers in public school science class DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS.

[hfojvt]

57. of course scientific truth is not democratic

it is decided by the scientific cardinals and then authoritatively taught.

However, democratically we can decide whether science is taught and how science is taught. IMO many things are taught in science class which are neither scientific nor truths. There are things which are not explicitly taught, the pre-suppositions which are taken for granted and not open to scrutiny or question. For example, Wendell Barry writes about modern (scientific) agriculture: "In modern agriculture, then, the machine metaphor is allowed to usurp and wipe from consideration not merely SOME values, but the very ISSUE of values. Once the experts' interest is focused on the question of 'what will work' within the exclusive confines of his theoretical model, values are no longer any concern whatever."

Or there is Schuacher's chapter on education in "Small is Beautiful" where he talks about six leading ideas - #6 "Finally there is the triumphant idea of positivism, that valid knowledge can be attained only through the methods of the natural sciences and hence that no knowledge is genuine unless it is based on generally observable facts. Positivism, in other words, is solely interested in 'know how' and denies the possibility of objective knowledge about meaning and purpose of any kind."

I find the slippery slope argument, that if we allow Y, we have to allow Z, alpha, omega, WMD, and so on it is the beginning of the end of the frigging world :scared: That is disingenuous at best. Whether science teacher get to do their really bad (as your explitive implies) jobs is up to their employer, the people, who decide what that job is.

As far as leaving the constitutional separation of church and state alone. If memory serves, the constitution was written in 1787 and until the 1950s there was prayer in public schools, so I am not sure your conservative argument carries water.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Yeah, and we had segregation until the 50s and 60s, too.

Same "liberal" SCOTUS that scourged "God" from Public Schools attended to that matter as well.

If you think opposing forcing public schoolkids to say mandatory sectarian prayers makes me a "conservative", well, fuck a duck, I must be a conservative. Oh No. No wonder I support those far right kooks at the ACLU.

Yes, science is based upon observable, physical evidence. If you have a problem with that, or if you object to the teaching of science per se, that's certainly your perogative. I hope you're enjoying the 14th century.

But trying to shoehorn in Theology to where it doesn't belong and calling it "science" just because it makes a majority of parents in Podunk, Bumblefuck happy is not the same thing. If you honestly believe that there are some 'cardinals of science' who sit atop jewel encrusted thrones and issue edicts about what constitutes truth and what doesn't, I'm afraid you've confused science with the Roman Catholic Church. Science is constantly under revision, and legitimate scientists are always having their ideas challenged and revised (in fact, they welcome it).. one thing they generally DON'T do, however, is start with some unproveable assertion (i.e. "God" created man in his present form) and then work overtime to cobble together little bits of 'evidence' which might somehow verify that assertion, ignoring the massive body of evidence to the contrary. Again, that's how religion operates, and SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION.

The problem the "ID" crowd has with science, however, is that (like religious fundamentalists always do) they think their ideas are SO special that they DESERVE special treatment. Again, there's no more evidence for creationism or Intelligent Design than there is for the flying spaghetti monster- but, somehow, to promote ID in schools is 'fairness' and to promote the FSM is 'mocking bigotry'

Now, as far as positivism: your quote- "Finally there is the triumphant idea of positivism, that valid knowledge can be attained only through the methods of the natural sciences and hence that no knowledge is genuine unless it is based on generally observable facts."

Please, along with your detailed description of the basis upon which you think intelligent design, creationism, white supremacy, holocaust denial and/or the 6,000 year age of the earth should be taught in public schools (unless the will of the parents is the only determinant, in which case you have offered NO logical distinction between any of the above) ....please- for me- tell me by which OTHER means 'valid knowledge' should be obtained, BESIDES "generally observable facts"

[hfojvt]

63. perhaps we can glimpse the big picture

but a detailed description of all these subjects which you brought into the discussion as part of your slippery slope, is certainly not my job. I believe we have done this before anyway, as I have said that ID is no more unscientific than Oparin which has been taught in science classes.

You can spend all day looking at 'generally observable facts' and still not see the big picture (or the real truths), such is the enormity and complexity of the world. From CS Lewis:

"From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn. 'This will preserve society' cannot lead to 'do this' except by the mediation of 'society ought to be preserved'. 'This will cost you your life' cannot lead directly to 'do not do this': it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self preservation. The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he tries for all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible. We must therefore either extend the word Reason to include what our ancestors called Practical Reason and confess that judgements such as 'society ought to preserved' ... are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself: or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of rational value behind all the sentiments we have debunked."

"Education cannot help us as long as it accords no place to metaphysics. Whether the subjects taught are subjects of science or of the humanities, if the teaching does not lead to a clarification of metaphysics, that is to say, of our fundamental convictions, it cannot educate a man and, consequently, cannot be of real value to society." Schumacher

Of course, we cannot teach metaphysics because that is too much like religion and our fifty year old 'separation of church and state' does not allow that. So it becomes nihilistic positivism or materialistic hedonism by default, at least in the public schools. You imply that no other science is possible, but that is historically false. Valid knowledge or truths or right ways to live do not just come from the eyes and the head, it comes, metaphorically, from the heart. 'Is that the logical thing to do?'

[Warren DeMontague]

64. CS Lewis is an authoritative source on Christian Proseltyzing

But he doesn't know jack diddly shit about evolution.

As far as Oparin, I'm curious as to which public schools really are teaching him right now, but:

http://nsm1.nsm.iup.edu/rwinstea/oparin.shtm

There are no assertions in there which don't have at least some evidentiary basis in reality. We have a very good evidentiary basis for theories around the formation of the solar system and the Earth, we have a solid basis for theories regarding the makeup of organic molecules in the primordial "soup", and we know the basic chemistry behind formation of amino acids, lipids, and cell-like structures. Those are all facts, based upon evidence available in reality. "Intelligent Design", by contrast, has NO evidence to back it up. If there's an "Intelligent Designer", it would be a relatively simple matter for "Him" (oh, wait, sorry, we're playing that little game where we pretend we don't know who we're talking about. I forgot.) to provide PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of "his" presence and workings in the material world, particularly if it was SO IMPORTANT to "him" to have his holy truth manifested in Public School Science Classes. He could, actually, show up tomorrow and kick the ass of all us gul durn material hedonists and positive nihilists, if he was really so uptight about the whole thing. However, he hasn't, he doesn't and I don't suspect he will, so we are told by the religious that the purpose of 'faith' is to not require material evidence. To which, again, I say fine- but then have enough faith to leave public school science classes alone.

But back to so-called ID 'theory'. Merely saying "Shucks, this is too complicated to have happened on it's own, so 'God' must be responsible" is NOT science. Oh, Sorry, I dropped the "G" word, again. What I meant to say, was, "Some mystical, supernatural, self-directed, deliberate, sentient, intelligent being acting outside of the constraints of the natural world who shall remain nameless but REALLY DOESN'T WANT YOU KIDS TO HAVE SEX BEFORE YOU'RE MARRIED". Again, if they come up with evidence to back up their half-baked assertions, they will find the legitimate science community much more receptive.

You can go on about slippery slopes all you want, but I suspect you know that, if parents can 'by majority rule' decide that "Intelligent Design" is science, there is NO difference- None, Whatsoever- between that and parents deciding that Creationism, Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, and a 6,000 year old earth are science, too. There is NO difference between that and parents deciding schools should teach Holocaust Denial, racism, anti-semitism, homophobia. If those are the beliefs of a majority of parents, and parents as tax-payers deserve "a say" (your words, not mine) in what kids are taught in Public schools, then there is NO difference. The "slippery slope" comes in when you ALLOW parents to decide that something like ID is science when it isn't. Once that fucking barn door is open, no, there's no legitimate difference between that and the other stuff.

If there is, please- explain to me what it is.

Teach metaphysics. In metaphysics class. Hell, even include religious viewpoints, just be damn sure to give equal time to Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Discordianism, Judaism, Scientology, Tree Worship, Paganism, UFO Cults, Solipsism, and the ramblings of schizophrenics, to name a few.

I wasn't under the impression that the import of teaching the evidence-based FACTS around the evolutionary history of life on planet Earth had anything to do with 'teaching the right ways to live'. I was under the impression that it was about teaching biology and natural history. As for "nihilistic positivism" and "materialistic hedonism", (namely crazy ideas like: theories about the natural world should be verified by experiement and physical evidence) what would YOU teach, instead? The kind of dogma that has historically led to witch burnings and inquisitions? We've had thousands of years of people killing each other over whose invisible man in the sky is better, and science is the great threat to life and morality. Sure.

Where is YOUR proof, sir, that scientists, atheists and "materialist hedonists" are intrinsically less moral than, say, religious fundamentalists? Where is your proof that public schoolchildren would be better off if we brainwashed them into one particular strain of Christianity? Clearly, from your comments, you're bitter about our nation's, as you put it, "50 year old" quote-Separation of Church and State-unquote ...which, from your quotation marks, I take to mean that you, apparently, don't believe any such animal really exists.

I'd love to have you elaborate, explicitly, on that point.. The Separation of Church and State in the United States of America is not a legitimate concept... how?.

And what's the problem, precisely? Being able to believe what you want and attend the church of your choice isn't good enough? It just doesn't provide the satisfying frission that indoctrinating other people's kids into YOUR religious viewpoint without their permission gives? And where do you get off asserting that people should 'find valid knowledge and truths from their heart' while simultaneously arguing that, when it comes to the children of people of various (and no) faiths, THEIR hearts and THEIR minds aren't good enough--- we need our public schools wedded to mainline Christian Churches to figure it out FOR them?

Gak. How nauseating.

[hfojvt]

70. your closing line is uncalled for, and illogical

There is a certain lack of respect in your responses which is almost palpable. My bitterness, or lack thereof, is not the topic at hand. Please answer my arguments with arguments of your own, rather than psychoanalyzing the reasons why I am making those arguments. Also, do not manufacture arguments for me, and then require me to defend them.

Did I, for example, ever say anything about brainwashing or indoctrinating? Do you really think the issue is with "other people's kids"? The fundies issue is that their own tax dollars are being used to teach their own kids what they consider, rightly or wrongly, a religion of evolution and materialism. They do not feel they should have to suffer taxation without representation.

It is not so much about science, per se, as it is about the worship of science. The idea that "theories about the physical world should be verified by experiment and physical evidence" is not crazy, or a religion. However, making science the 'god' of your life is. Over-valuation or veneration of science is the metaphysics I am talking about. Science becomes the holy of holies. Metaphysics becomes a joke. All viewpoints have equal validity there, even schizophrenic ramblings, because, to the science-worshipper, they all have zero validity.

"The leading ideas of the nineteenth century, which claimed to do away with metaphysics, are themselves a bad, vicious, life-destroying metaphysics...The errors are not in science but in the philosophy put forward in the name of science." Schumacher

It is that philosophy which sees the addition of ID as an alternative to Oparin as some kind of heresy (a heresy which will bring on a new dark ages and lead to witch burnings and inquisitions if the barn door (or Pandora's box) is opened). Yes there is knowledge of chemistry in Oparin, but then the leap of faith is made which says "life probably arose this way" and the purpose behind the untestable theory is to "account for the origin of life" without "invoking a supernatural agency".

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Again-who is teaching Oparin in public schools in that way?

And even if they are.. examine your last paragraph: you believe that there is an animus against a "supernatural agency" (aka "God") meely because supernatural agencies are not mentioned in the context of Oparin's theory. Remember what I said about wanting 'special treatment'? "Supernatural agencies" don't get some kind of special scientific dispensation at the moment between the formation of the solar system cloud and the beginning of the fossil record... (and there is a perfectly legitimate, scientific explanation for why we wouldn't have physical evidence of the processes leading to early life prior to that) and what is the basis for which you think 'they' (or it, or more accurately he) should? Your attitude is one of "But you're leaving out God". Yes, and leaving out a whole slew of things for which there is NO EVIDENCE. Again, all science is asking for is evidence. But if there's NO evidence, then including "supernatural agencies" in a theory of how early life might have formed is no more logical, and no more scientific, than including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You seem to believe that presenting a theory- backed up by chemistry, astronomy, natural history and geology- of how life might have arisen WITHOUT help from nebulous, unproven 'supernatural agencies' is the same thing as telling kids "Your God Doesn't Exist". It's not. Beyond that, I highly doubt most public schools, in Kansas at least, even GO there with regards to Oparin and hypotheses regarding primordial earth. I'm sure, in the current climate, it's difficult enough presenting the FACTS to kids about what we know regarding our common ancestry with other primates. Lastly, I'm sure you're well aware that the people boosting Intelligent Design in schools don't give a fig for Oparin or arcane musings about how amino acids and DNA came about.. they're worried, again, about telling kids we evolved from other life forms- and we did, and we KNOW we did. That's what the battle is about.

As far the palpable bitterness- if it's there, it comes from what I perceive as your lack of respect for the Separation of Church and State (which you put in quotes) and the "50 years" in this country in which we have NOT had students in public schools forced to say Sectarian, Christian Prayers. When you grouse about the past fifty years, one can only assume you would like to go back to 1955. If you've got a problem with kids not being forced to pray in schools, or with the Separation of Church and State as a legitimate constitutional concept, INTRINSIC to freedom in this nation, which does NOT require quotes around it, you're damn right that rubs me the wrong way.

In a BIG way.

And if Fundies have a problem with tax dollars going to teach their kids evolution, they should probably home school them. We don't get to decide what our kids are taught in schools. Probably lots of history classes teach that Ronald Reagan was a swell president. They gloss over the atrocities committed against Native Americans. They bring in anti-drug speakers who tell kids in they smoke pot they will become heroin junkies, if they're girls they'll get date raped, if they're boys their testicles will fall off. Lots of schools now promote "abstinence only" sex ed which is also another vehicle via which fundamentalists try to brainwash OTHER people's kids by shoehorning in religious material when no one is looking.

So, there are lots of things that a parent might not be too happy with regarding their tax dollars and the education system. But science, and scientific truth, in particular should be inviolable. You mess with that, and yes the actual education of our kids will suffer.

As for metaphysics, I said- hey- teach metaphysics. But not when you're talking about the evolutionary history of life on Earth. Your claims about science becoming one's "god" doesn't take into account that there are plenty of us who manage to do just fine, TYVM, with NO "Gods" whatsoever. "Science" is not my "God"- if anything, free inquiry is. But free inquiry doesn't mean I give special creedence to certain "supernatural agents" if there isn't any reason other than the earnest beliefs of someone else to back it up. So Shumacher, Poomacher- Free Inquiry doesn't have anything resembling the body count that religious dogma does. I'm not too worried about the 'life-destroying' consequences of using the scientific method to examine reality.

[Jose Diablo]

69. I'd say religion can be taught in a public school

as an elective in something like "Comparative Philosophies" or something like that.

But to say religion is on the same plane as science, it just isn't so. We are talking apples and oranges here.

In every science class I have been in, it's all about observation, hypothesis, testing the theory, then back to observation again. It's proof through repeatability and predictability, method really. Science is a method for testing reality. And if it cannot be tested, then it ain't science.

Religion is not that at all. Like you say, it's all faith. It has no place in a science curriculum. These people that are pushing for an untestable and unprovable theory of creation should not place that theory within a framework of a science class.

The christian view of creation is a myth, there is no way to prove it. They have another agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with teaching students to think in a logical way. As such, teaching a myth is wrong, in a science class.

I wouldn't even say "Intelligent Design" belongs in a science curriculum because who could be the intelligent designer? And again we get back to an unprovable thesis. Not to say it's not true, just that it cannot be proved, one way or the other. Therefore it cannot be science if it cannot be proved through observation. It's conjecture based on opinion.

All that religion stuff belongs in a philosophy class, not science. These people, if they get their way, will do damage to their children's education.

Look how long it took to unshackle mens minds from the dogma of religious mythology and how that dogma held back progress. Look how many people have been killed because they disagreed with the priests over reality. The truth is, those priests that chained peoples minds, did that so they could keep power over people, by keeping people ignorant. And these nuts in Kansas want to bring all that back, to chain their children's minds to myths so the priests have power over them? Whats the matter with these people? It has to be with morality.

If they have a problem with immorality, deal with that problem, not try to turn people into ignoramuses. Besides, why do these people think the priests are all that moral? Just because they have a robe? People are moral if they have religion? People are immoral if they don't believe in a religion? Morality has nothing to do with religion.

I think thats the real issue. These people believe that somehow science or more precisely, atheism is the cause of immorality and if they can teach religion in science that somehow people will be more moral. That's their agenda.

Rather than presenting their claims of a higher morality over the Atheist because these people have religion and the Atheists claim no religion, these people are trying to corrupt science. They cannot claim a higher moral position based on religion, so they are trying a back door way. But doing this will harm their children education. Besides, from what I have seen, I see many immoral people in religion and I see many moral people that are Atheists. What does religion have to do with how moral a person is? Nothing.

The more I think about what they are really doing, the more I am getting POed. Who in the hell do they think they are?

[belle]

31. Well, I had lunch with God yesterday. He's cool with it. He also said

to tell you, and I quote,

"Stop acting like an asshole in My name. You're embarassing Me."

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tenshi816]

17. Did you look at her photograph?

That's what "noted transsexual plagiarist" Ann Coulter is going to look like in 20 years, right down to the adam's apple.

[meganmonkey]

19. I guess she won't approve of my Halloween costume then

I am going to be a Pirate Against Global Warming, and I plan to wear a Flying Spaghetti Monster medallion.

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I went as Jesus several years back, complete with giant cardboard cross

Although one lady did accost me with "Wasn't Jesus thinner?"

Hey, thanks alot.

[meganmonkey]

24. That sucks!

:rofl:

I would have smacked her. Although I guess that wouldn't have been very Jesus-y ;)

[nookiemonster]

65. LOL

Burn!

:rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

25. The TALEBAN agrees!

Gawd bless the insane American Talebornagains. :eyes:

[Zhade]

26. Really?

FUCK your bigoted, narrow-minded, never-proven-to-exist god.

FUCK your bullshit mythical beliefs, which have as much veracity as the tale of Lucky The Leprechaun and his quest to keep his cereal to himself.

Fuck your ignorant, 12th-century backward views based on frequent inaccurate translations of a book you probably haven't ever fully read.

Fuck YOU for your willingness to derail real education, push fantasy as fact, and make our children the laughingstock of the world.

How's THAT for offense, you lunatics?

(EDITED for clarity.)

[mitchum]

36. What Zhade said!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Come on, don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel. (nt)

[Zhade]

40. The funny thing is, I kind of DID hold back!

:rofl:

[mitchum]

34. Fuck her and her crazyass made-up voodoo

[gratuitous]

47. If it's such a serious offense against God

Then let God decide the seriousness of the punishment. Judgment is reserved for the Almighty alone, Sister Kathy. You have a different job in the grand scheme of things. (Hint: The hungry, the naked, the sick and imprisoned.)

[Greyhound]

53. Gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion

gimme that old time religion, it's good enough for me...

:crazy:

[immoderate]

56. Does she think FSM is some kind of joke?

--IMM

[Warren DeMontague]

59. People who mock the FSM will be boiled for more than ten minutes

in the bubbling, lightly salted pot, until they are well past limp and gooey.

[hootinholler]

60. Kathy needs to be

Touched by his noodly appendage!

-Hoot

[Ladyhawk]

61. It is an OFFENSE to mock the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

May they burn forever in a vat of generic-brand spaghetti sauce!

[Flammable Materials]

62. If this nation were truly founded on the Christian religion ...

... that is, religion as Jesus and the early Christians taught and practiced it, America would be staunchly Socialist.

[Jose Diablo]

67. God has pretty big shoulders

Why do people keep insisting they need to stick-up for Him. I don't understand some people. If they truly believe in Him, why do they feel they need to defend Him or even think He wants them to stand-up like He is some kind of little brother that needs protection.

If people should mock Him and He wants something done about it, you can be sure He will do something about it. From what I have seen, He pretty much lets insults slide prefering instead to allow time to work things out.

There is nothing worse than a man on a mission from God. You know, guys that think God is on their side.

Lots of nuts in Kansas though, lots of nuts everyplace actually. They seem more vocal or at least they get more press, the ones from Kansas I mean.

[opihimoimoi]

68. The Force that Rules Earth is Mother Nature: She is Pissed at us Humans

for any number of reasons....

Not mentioned is mocking HER.....

But listed is NOT HEARING/LISTENING/COMPREHENDING Her.

[DistressedAmerican]

72. Hey God! Consider Yourself Mocked! This Guy Does Everyday!