OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
“I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught …
“[T]here are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world [believe] the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. … More BELOW:
“[T]here are over 10 million of us … [M]any people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence [but they don’t understand he makes] us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. [The scientist doesn’t realize that when] he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster [changes] results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe [this] … He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. …”
— READ ALL; IMAGE: T-shirt design
It is a scream!
http://harpers.org/art/covers/cover-2005-08_350x478.jpg
You’re an artist … that Michelangelo rip-off is pretty well done, no?
That image showed a cover of Harper’s magazine with the three monkeys. Is that the one you meant?
Be sure to click to enlarge.
It is Michaelangelo’s painting of God and Son of God
on the Sistine Chapel
http://harpers.org/
(you must have thought I’d lost it!)
Go to
http://harpers.org/
for the larger image.
Ah, this is what you meant before!
Too true. (the message of the piece)
Thanks for posting this one, tho I still like that cover of harpers… I’ll have to see if the library has it, looks interesting.
(the fact that this one “defaces” the original makes it similar to the spaghetti monster one — but here its defacing man, giving him a gun, and making a sad commentary on the state of mankind. That’s a bit different than replacing God with two meatballs and some spaghetti noodles. The difference can be important — its the difference between criticizing man, and criticizing God, really.)
I like that cover, but I’m not seeing the connection to this painting. Did they change it on you?
I appreciate the humor of this line of attack, but I question the wisdom.
The spagetti monster attacks the absurdity of Intelligent Design and its secret “hey, this isn’t fundamentalist Christian belief like Creationism, its “science”.
But I.D. is code for Creationism, at heart. And the Spagetti monster site makes fun of Christianity (see the fork and cross symbol on the right side).
That’s funny, but pretty stupid on our part. It shifts us from defending science (or the separation of science from religion), or even attacking bad theology (fundamentalist literalism) to attacking Christianity.
Yes, attacking. Comparing someone’s religious beliefs to made up bullshit — well, its perhaps funny to some, but hardly persuasive to the folks who feel their religion is being disrepected, even if they’re generally on our side.
Sad part is, we can’t seem to find a way to attack ridiculous nonsense like I.D. without attacking Christianity.
Doesn’t anyone remember the American Religious Extremists whining about how organ transplants were unbiblical? That was just in the last 40 years. Or when we switched from drilling holes in people’s heads to let out the evil spirits to a more scientific form of medicine?
Always the opposition is the same:
Yet, we do have medicine.
We have transfusions.
We have organ transplants.
We will have stem cell research.
God is forever, perfect, he doesn’t need to change (nevermind the times the prophets changed God’s mind in the old testament).
Man’s understanding is always growing.
The problem is the fundamentalists who assume God gave them a perfect permanent translation of His Word, not scripture to study and understand through the changing lens of experience.
And its not just science. Marriage between one man and one woman? Not from the bible — many prophets had multiple wives. Slavery? Biblically approved. Etc.
I don’t see this as an attack on Christianity.
It’s one artist – Michaelangelo’s image of God the father and son, modified to make fun of ID. It takes direct aim at a current political controversy not at religion.
I don’t believe Chrisitan fundies are religious, they are extremely political seeking political power more than spirituality.
I completely agree, they aren’t religious, they’re political manipulators preying on “good folks” who support them because they’re told they are natural allies.
In other words, the “religious right” lies to win the support of the religious.
Which is why I think its pretty stupid to mock religion as a means of attacking irreligious strongly political hypocrites.
Under the philosophy “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, attacks on religion make the religious folk allies of the “religious right”.
But, unable to resist a good snark, we liberals jump right in…
(yes, the picture is one artist altering one picture to make one point. Didn’t you follow the link to the one website with the multiple images, texts, etc? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this stuff, so I knew there was more to it than one clever alteration of the Michealangelo painting.)
So, just so you don’t think I’m humor impaired — I like it. I think its supremely clever. I also think its self-indulgent and counterproductive to achieving any of our goals.
That’s one thing I admire about the Republicans — when they attack a group, they’ve thought the whole thing through — who to attack, who’ll it’ll directly offend, who it’ll indirectly offend, and how much extra support it’ll get them from their own base, and from independents who are more put off by our reaction than by the Republicans’ initial attack. They aren’t always right in their conclusions (Cindy Sheehan), but at least they pause to think about it.
No I did not follow the link. I’m in such a hurry, leaving town tomorrow and packing. I just thought of the Michaelangelo type cartoon I had just seen in Harpers.
Some of the stuff on the link is crosses the line, I agree.
Attacking fundamentalism isn’t attacking Christianity. It is attacking the cult of Christian-labeled fundamentalism and the idiocy of using a literal reading of the Bible as a source of science and history.
Such fundamentalism is found in Islam, the Jewish traditions, and Budhism.
Fundamentalism is a cult of anti-modernism which is uses the religios symbols and writings of the culture it is imbedded in. The cultists use the symbols and trappings of real religions to hide their idiocy.
Don’t let them hide their idiocy behind the trappings of a false Christianity. They are nothing more than anti-modernist cultists attempting to sell snake oil. They hide from proper parody by claiming that to expose them is to attack Christianity.
I’m with ya til that last sentence.
“proper parody”
That’s the point.
Expose their ridiculous thinking by attacking the thinking, and you’ve got “proper parody”.
Do it by attacking the “trappings of Christianity” they hide behind, and you’re just playing into their hands.
Case in point: this very example. Are we trying to attack that God created Creation, or are we trying to attack the literalist belief that it happened in 7 24 hour days about 4000 years ago?
Are we defending the idea that science can tell us how creation happened?
Or are we attacking the belief that God did the creating?
See the difference?
Deny that God did the creating (by suggesting the Creator was a ridiculous fictional character), and you’re equating God with a fictional character. Even if that’s your own personal belief, its a hard sell to the 70% of America who consider themselves Christian and religious.
That’s fighting the battle the way they want us to fight it — from a losing position, politically speaking.
And its a dumb position. An all powerful God could easily create the laws of physics and matter and have “created” the universe billions of years ago. Science and Religion aren’t opposites.
But if we keep playing as if they are, we can just get used to losing. A lot.
As you say, attacking Fundamentalism isn’t attacking Christianity. But the key is to attack that of Fundamentalism which isn’t Christianity. Otherwise, it really is attacking Christianity.
I’ve got a GREAT IDEA!
How about we let really, really, really Intelligent people decide whether and how Intelligent Design ought to be taught in schools… really, really, really intelligent people like… scientists!