While I can understand not allowing an inflatable cutlass, I'm kind of undecided about the eye patch thing. I haven't been in high school in five years so I don't know how much of a disturbance it would be. I feel like it'd be something people would just get used to seeing and probably isn't as disturbing as some of the things people wear. Thoughts?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Freedom of religion taken to its satirical extremes.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm not sure how I feel about the decision.
On the one hand, I think the student's right.
On the other hand, were I a teacher, I wouldn't appreciate a seeing student wearing an eyepatch in class any more than I'd appreciate a walking student using a wheelchair in school. It is disruptive and distracting.
On the other, other hand, I have little tolerance for people who go out of their way to meaninglessly provoke the system like this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why are you so ready to say that his particular faith is meaningless? You would certainly never do so for a Mormon, Moslem, or Mennonite.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The kid got just what he wanted. It was hilarious and I'm sure he and his friends are laughing about it right now.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
It's disruptive and distracting for about five minutes until everyone who has better things to do gets over it, clearly the Assistant Principal was having a slow day.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Err, or perhaps they were following it by the books. The disconnect with his whole chain of logic comes up here:
quote:“If this is what I believe in, no matter how stupid it might sound, I should be able to express myself however I want to,”
You are not allowed to express yourself however you want to in a school.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
An eyepatch does not seem any more disruptive or distracting than a burka or a turban.
Edit to add: I'm not even sure about the inflatable cutlass. He's making an excellent point, or at least from my perspective he would if he were in Canada. There was a recent ruling that allowed Canadian Sikhs to carry daggers to school based on their religion. link Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But if he really believes in it, then not being allowed to express himself in this particular way is illegal (well, maybe not the cutlass, and probably they could even ban the eye patch, but he should be allowed to wear SOME form of pirate regalia.)
Of course, I doubt he REALLY believes it but he would never admit that. And the point is moot. If Christian students are allowed to wear crosses and Jewish students are allowed to wear yarmulkes, then Pastafarian students should be allowed to wear Pirate regalia of some sort.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
The inflatable cutless aside, his mistake was not sticking to his guns. He should have been fully prepared to wear that patch to school, or anywhere else in public, every single day thereafter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why are you so ready to say that his particular faith is meaningless? You would certainly never do so for a Mormon, Moslem, or Mennonite.
I'll spring for this obviously loaded question. Questions of legality aside, people would say his faith is meaningless* because it was manufactured, and done so very recently in fact, specifically as a whimsical or ironic reflection of other religions.
*insofar as it's meant to be believed in as other religions are believed in.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
What about a Muslim girl who doesn't really believe in her religion, but wears a burqa because she is expected to? Or what if a girl who isn't a Muslim decides to wear a burqa because she wants the shade? What criterion is being used to draw the line? The student's level of faith? The ridiculousness of the ideas being believed in? Perhaps the religion must be officially recognised as such by the government and be applicable for the relevant tax-breaks.
Some would say that Mormonism too is a recent invention.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What about a Muslim girl who doesn't really believe in her religion, but wears a burqa because she is expected to? Or what if a girl who isn't a Muslim decides to wear a burqa because she wants the shade? What criterion is being used to draw the line? The student's level of faith? The ridiculousness of the ideas being believed in? Perhaps the religion must be officially recognised as such by the government and be applicable for the relevant tax-breaks.
Some would say that Mormonism too is a recent invention.
OK, first of all, I'm not going to bother addressing talk about government and tax breaks, since I specifically said "questions of legality aside".
As for what criterion is being used to draw the line, well the question I was replying to was:
quote:Why are you so ready to say that his particular faith is meaningless? You would certainly never do so for a Mormon, Moslem, or Mennonite.
With the implication of "you" not being just erosmniac, but people of faith everywhere.
And the answer to that question is very simple. The chances of finding a Pastafarian who is really a Pastafarian in the sense that they pray to the FSM or something, have some sort of faith in Pastafarianism, etc., is so small as to be negligible. Perhaps you could find someone who truly was a sincere Pastafarian in a religious sense, but it would certainly be a tiny, tiny minority.
The same is not true of other religions which are, you know, actual religions. Despite how foolish you think it is to believe in one, a great many people do believe in religions, and if you find someone wearing a cross or a burkha, chances are they have at least some level of religious faith in the belief system behind their particular outward symbol.
The same cannot* be said of a Pastafarian. Thus, the label of 'meaningless'. Not a very difficult thing to understand at all, unless one is more interested in pointing out that all religions are equally unprovable, instead of stating a straightforward objection to the original observation.
*Cannot, or some likelihood very close to zero.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
This article is much better, simply for the picture of Jack Sparrow with the caption, "A man in full pirate regalia."
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
But that article is also much less accurate/misleading as to what the student did.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Rakeesh,
The purpose of Pastafarianism is to make a point; that science's inability to disprove one god doesn't make that god any more likely to exist than a ridiculous entity like the FSM. Pastafarians' lack of 'faith' doesn't make the mock religion meaningless.
And frankly, we don't have a way to determine whether someone who claims to believe something actually believes it. There are cults with ostensibly ardent believers, with 'uniforms' that would be disruptive if worn to school.
Does the number of subscribers to a religion really matter? Should we respect unfounded beliefs based on how many people believe them?
[ March 31, 2007, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Since then, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has gained countless followers worldwide, although there are those who remain spagnostic.
Nice.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Upon further thought, the only way this kid could convince me that he's doing this as a measure of his religious beliefs is by wearing the pirate regalia all day, every day, and by providing references to Pastafarian doctrine indicating where it suggests this is necessary.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm not sure how I feel about the decision.
On the one hand, ...
On the other hand, ...
On the other, other hand, ...
On the other, other, hand!? A Freudian slip by a saucy pagan, indicating a belief in the many-tendriled FSM?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:*insofar as it's meant to be believed in as other religions are believed in.
I don't understand why you're ignoring my qualifiers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:people would say his faith is meaningless* because it was manufactured, and done so very recently in fact,
So what? He could very well believe in it for all that. After all, precisely the same criticism could have been made of Christianity around 40 AD, supposing you did not believe in it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: This article is much better, simply for the picture of Jack Sparrow with the caption, "A man in full pirate regalia."
Captain Jack Sparrow.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
That kid would be my hero...if it weren't for the fact that I'm a NINJA!!!
I'm like to try ninja regalia at school someday...although I'm in college so the same rules wouldn't apply to me...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Upon further thought, the only way this kid could convince me that he's doing this as a measure of his religious beliefs is by wearing the pirate regalia all day, every day, and by providing references to Pastafarian doctrine indicating where it suggests this is necessary.
Why does it matter whether he sincerely believes it or not?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:*insofar as it's meant to be believed in as other religions are believed in.
I don't understand why you're ignoring my qualifiers.
Apologies for the first half of that post. Though I don't understand why you ignored the second half.
quote:And frankly, we don't have a way to determine whether someone who claims to believe something actually believes it. There are cults with ostensibly ardent believers, with 'uniforms' that would be disruptive if worn to school.
Does the number of subscribers to a religion really matter? Should we respect unfounded beliefs based on how many people believe them?
Would the pirate costume be okay if the kid honestly believed in a spaghetti monster?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't see an issue with an inflatable cutlass. It's inflatable. What's he going to do, beat someone over the head with it? A backpack is more dangerous for that..
-pH
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Certainly there's more temptation to use an inflatable cutlass for mischief though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*shakes fist* I'll use you for michief!
-pH
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I used to frequent the FSM forums and I am here to bear my testimony that there are many true believers in Pastafarianism. Anyway, why shouldn't it be true? We're told that there are many mansions. Why can't one have a beer volcano and stripper factory? One of the faithful over there was once making fun of baptisms for the dead, and I described it to him thusly, that after a few millennia lying around beside the beer volcano someone might fly through and drop a "get into Mormon heaven free" pass on his lap. That he could then be free to check it out or else toss it in file 13. He was gratified at that and seemed to like the idea.
They did a poll and something over half of the pastafarians who responded answered that they were true believers. I think it's a great religion! It appeals to a subset of folks that no other religion can reach, and its an introduction of a sorts. Also, there really are quite a few aspects of God that are infinitely noodly.
So yes, I think this fellow should be encouraged in his religion, and allowed to wear the holy garments that go along with it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Reads the first article...realizes that's where he's from. Yeah...Did I mention I was in home-school?
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
schools are strange...
My friend jon wore a ninja mask to school and was upset because no one even did a double-take. I once wore a gateway box to school (through the whole day) with a sign on it that said "thank you for thinking outside the box," and also got in zero trouble, despite the fact that the box was pretty big and covered my entire head when I was sitting at a desk (how did they think I was taking notes?).
Some schools are pretty okay with this sort of thing, I suppose.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
HOLY CRAP. The kid says he got his inflatable sword from the Happy Meal...SO DID I.
He has the same inflatable sword that I have from the time that Pirates of the Caribbean was featured of the Mac Donald's thing!
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I just found the kid on MySpace and sent him a message telling him he's my hero. Let's hope he replies soon.
Posted by phasma (Member # 10382) on :
What's his myspace address? This is an increasingly interesting topic. I don't have a problem with what the kid did. If it's a religious issue for you, then step back and realize that the kid is not trying to insult your religion, or any religion. He is simply trying to express himself in what he considers to be a funny manner.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't see an issue with an inflatable cutlass. It's inflatable. What's he going to do, beat someone over the head with it? A backpack is more dangerous for that..
-pH
It's not that it's actually a weapon, but that it resembles or imitates a weapon, not because people could get hurt but because they could appear to promote violence. It's the idea of it. My school district banned all weapons, objects imitating weapons, and objects closely resembling weapons from school. We couldn't even have sword toothpicks on our fruit tray. While I thought the implementation was a bit bizzare, I thought the theory was good.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
So a Happy Meal toy for 5 year olds promotes violence?
Shouldn't we blame MacDonald's instead?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Why not? McDonalds gets blamed for everything else.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: We're told that there are many mansions. Why can't one have a beer volcano and stripper factory?
That just gave me a vision of heaven, and tears have come to my eyes. I do believe I have seen the light of a thousand poles being swung from at once.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm not saying that there's not a place for inflatable cutlasses. Just that school is not that place.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I went through a phase where I wore aviator sunglasses to school every day for about 2 months. I wore them all day--in class and everything, and it wasn't until a teacher who didn't know me told me to take them off that it became an issue. She thought that I might have been getting high and trying to hide it with the sunglasses. (Note: While I was difficult and rebellious, I still finished top 20 in my class and had a pristine disciplinary record--never doing anything to cross the line).
None of my other teachers had a problem with it--it's not like we had to wear uniforms. Unfortunately, school codes of conduct are set up so that students have absolutely no rights at all, so if a teacher asks you to do something, you do it and appeal later.
Meaning--the pastafarian kid got suspended for what my teachers called "non-compliance", which was blanket term they added on to every write-up to make the punishment worse. If he had simply done what he was told and appealed later, I think he'd be allowed to wear the eyepatch today.
My personal opinions: I'm all for school uniforms and strict, strict rules all through adolescence. Too much of our educational system today is built on inflating self-esteem and individual freedoms instead of education.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:It's not that it's actually a weapon, but that it resembles or imitates a weapon, not because people could get hurt but because they could appear to promote violence. It's the idea of it. My school district banned all weapons, objects imitating weapons, and objects closely resembling weapons from school. We couldn't even have sword toothpicks on our fruit tray. While I thought the implementation was a bit bizzare, I thought the theory was good.
Yeah, I got in trouble for wearing a James Bond shirt in high school, cause bond was holding a gun. I thought it was pretty silly, but I still turned the shirt inside out, cause in school, you can get in trouble for absolutely anything.
It's kinda like getting a PI. You don't have to be intoxicated, just in public and annoying an officer. If you really weren't drunk, you won't get any further punishment, but you still spent the night in jail.
But I'm still sticking with my theory that the kid got exactly what he wanted.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"He is simply trying to express himself in what he considers to be a funny manner."
I disagree with this, to an extent. When I see things of this nature, I can't help but simply think that people are mocking religion. I believe he was trying to make a point, trying to push the boundries as much as he can, but at the expense of mocking a religious group to do so.
I guess I'm just really upset that a joke has now become the medium to present a cool way to openly mock religious viewpoints, and more so, when people cheer it on, all I can hear is "yeah, it's really great to mock peoples beliefs". I really shouldn't be upset, though. I've been trying to let it go, but it keeps sitting hard on me.
I mean, for all I know, the kid had no intention of mocking a particular religion, and was just being silly. On the other hand, I can't understand how someone can come to know about FSM and not understand the intent when first thought of.
I've never been an atheist, or agnostic, so I can't say if this is how it feels or not when dealing with religious people. I really need to let this go.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I mean, for all I know, the kid had no intention of mocking a particular religion, and was just being silly. On the other hand, I can't understand how someone can come to know about FSM and not understand the intent when first thought of.
I've never thought of FSM as mocking religion. I thought it was mocking laws that make exceptions to rules for religions. Such as, if you're going to make a law that says Religion A's version of humanities history must be taught in school, then you really aught to teach every religion's version, and that would be ridiculous.
I don't know if what the kid did falls under this umbrella as well, but I just wanted to point out that not all appreciators of FSM, and cheerers of the student are mocking religion.
[ April 02, 2007, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: On the other hand, I can't understand how someone can come to know about FSM and not understand the intent when first thought of.
I have to disagree with you on this point, I think it's quite possible for someone (especially an adolescent) to happen upon pastafarianism and just think it's funny that there's a "religion" that revolves around an invisible flying spaghetti monster and pirates, without really delving into it's source as a slight against religion in general.
That being said, I wouldn't be suprised either way.
The problem I see with the "obey now, appeal later" mantra is that it could get into the realm of sin to obey (depending on the religion and practice). (can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but just say that FSM declared not wearing your eyepatch 24/7 to be punishable by exclusion from the stripper factory...) should we yield to secular authority in the face of divine retribution? Obviously I would expect a more serious issue like this to be pushed by the student rather than immediately capitulating, but I've known teachers that most likely would not give in.
actually, I just thought of a half-way decent example: Required physicals/innoculations for schools and Christian Science... I'm guessing there is something in place since this would come down to an administrative issue rather than a teacher telling a student to do something immediately, but it illustrates the general principle.
P.S. Eros, either you are a mutant with multiple hands (kinda cool) or one of them is somewhat hypocritical... I think you need to do some soul, er hand-searching =p
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Edit: To Vonk Perhaps so, and I can see your point. It's not as if every religious person has been kind enough to respect the beliefs of another.
I really feel, though, as if he did this as an attempt to have religious symbols that students carry with them be taken away, rather than to express his beliefs in a FSM. That's what bothers me. I see it as atheist vs theists, and someone is trying to score a point against religion by making an example out of the symbols of their faith.
If he truly believed in a FSM, than I really wouldn't have a problem with the eyepatch and such. But since I see the idea behind the parody religion as a mockery instead of a true idea of the nature of life, I don't believe he believes.
Like I said, though, I'm too worked up over this, and to be frank, it's stupid enough that I shouldn't have even thought about it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I guess I'm just really upset that a joke has now become the medium to present a cool way to openly mock religious viewpoints,
If you do not wish to be mocked, you should present some evidence showing that your religion is less ridiculous than the FSM.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"then you really aught to teach every religion's version, and that would be ridiculous."
I don't think it would be. I think it would show a liberal education in the most basic meaning.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
T_Smith, I'm trying to sympathize with you on this.
I know that people hold things to be sacred, and attacking that which is sacred provokes a powerful emotional response.
Even if the FSM is intended to be offensive, it's not something you should worry about. Maybe it would help if you remind yourself that God and religion are both big enough to handle themselves, and you don't need to worry about defending them or taking offense for them?
I know it's hard, but you'll have to accept that there are things you feel are sacred that other people won't even be able to conceive of treating as sacred.
I don't know the proper response for when someone insults something you hold sacred. I lack social skills, and I would be tempted to suggest "turning the other cheek" in this case.
However, I recently ran into a similar problem at work. I am an atheist, and the only thing I hold to be sacred is sex, and the close relationship between people. As a result of this, I don't laugh at crude sexual jokes, because in my mind, they are taking something beautiful, something sacred to me, and making it ugly. Taking offensive at this kind of thing is very much a reflex for me.
I take offense when my co-workers mistreat women or treat sex flippantly. I tell myself, "Well, their beliefs aren't the same as mine. What can I do besides not participate?" As a result, I am slightly outcast.
Sure, I can change the subject, but my response to offensive material is so painfully obvious that I get made fun of for it.
I have a sense of humor when it comes to everything, except for that one issue that I hold sacred. It sounds like you're experiencing something similar, in that someone is mocking something you hold sacred, you're reflexively taking offense, and you don't know what to do about it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Killian planned to go back to school today. He doesn’t think he’ll wear an eye patch.
The inflatable cutlass, though, is OK I guess...?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you do not wish to be mocked, you should present some evidence showing that your religion is less ridiculous than the FSM.
You don't mock everyone you think is ridiculous, KoM.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Nathan, I don't think the FSM or pastafarianism is meant as a mockery of religion at all. Nothing of the kind! Instead, it was invented as an attempt to point out some extremely flawed reasoning by taking it to its logical conclusion. That the reasoning of creationists is flawed is entirely independent from the fact that many of them are connected with and prompted by their religion.
As evidence that no mockery of religion was intended by the guy who founded it, I want to testify that on the FSM forum, if you mocked people's religion you were booted off. It wasn't tolerated at all. Aunt Dee Dee was religious and ruled the forum with a firm hand.
Secondly, many proponents of the religion really do believe in it. It's lighthearted but definitely not mean-spirited. And what happens is that when they begin to exercise the forms of religion, like praying, asking for blessings, seeking answers, etc. then they begin to feel the results. It actually serves as an introduction to religion for people who would otherwise have zero exposure to that whole realm of human experience.
Lastly, God definitely has a sense of humor. And he doesn't object to being characterized in different ways by his different children. And he really does have a lot of aspects that are noodly, for instance, string theory in physics. I don't really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a bad depiction of God. So be of good cheer, and cease to be troubled, my son. You too can be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
That was a very good response, Tatiana, and DevilDreamt, and really does put my mind at ease about it to a degree. However, I still hold the opinion that this particular instance was targeted towards making a point about religion, not a freedom of his belief.
And I do see the humor behind it, and from time to time smile at the absurdity of it (it really is a great parody). I only get upset when it is taken to the point of acting serious about it to, as I said prior, "score a point against religion" when it isn't really believed by the person weilding the claim that they believe in it.
Looking back, I didn't really clarify that point. I was being a tad bit too involved in it.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
After reading his statement, I withdraw my concern completely and fully. That said I validate his belief from my own standards and support him on his quest for equalization in wearing his eye patch, which poses no danger or threat.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I really feel, though, as if he did this as an attempt to have religious symbols that students carry with them be taken away, rather than to express his beliefs in a FSM. That's what bothers me. I see it as atheist vs theists, and someone is trying to score a point against religion by making an example out of the symbols of their faith.
If that's the case, I agree it's reprehensible, but I really don't think it's the case. I don't think he's trying to hurt anyone, or take anything away from anyone. He's just being a crazy funny guy and using humor to call attention to an issue he cares (maybe) about: religion in school, not religion in general.
But, I hadn't thought about it that way, and it is possible. Thanks for showing me another view.
Edit: I didn't realize there was a second page when I posted this, so I hadn't seen the post above.
[ April 02, 2007, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Nathan, I don't think the FSM or pastafarianism is meant as a mockery of religion at all. Nothing of the kind! Instead, it was invented as an attempt to point out some extremely flawed reasoning by taking it to its logical conclusion. That the reasoning of creationists is flawed is entirely independent from the fact that many of them are connected with and prompted by their religion.
As evidence that no mockery of religion was intended by the guy who founded it, I want to testify that on the FSM forum, if you mocked people's religion you were booted off. It wasn't tolerated at all. Aunt Dee Dee was religious and ruled the forum with a firm hand.
Secondly, many proponents of the religion really do believe in it. It's lighthearted but definitely not mean-spirited. And what happens is that when they begin to exercise the forms of religion, like praying, asking for blessings, seeking answers, etc. then they begin to feel the results. It actually serves as an introduction to religion for people who would otherwise have zero exposure to that whole realm of human experience.
Lastly, God definitely has a sense of humor. And he doesn't object to being characterized in different ways by his different children. And he really does have a lot of aspects that are noodly, for instance, string theory in physics. I don't really think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is such a bad depiction of God. So be of good cheer, and cease to be troubled, my son. You too can be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Well said. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "then you really aught to teach every religion's version, and that would be ridiculous."
I don't think it would be. I think it would show a liberal education in the most basic meaning.
Definitely, but wouldn't it take up a large part of the school day teaching the religion of every student? If there's only a few I guess it wouldn't, but in a large, inner-city school? It would cut into time that could be used for other, more important, things.
(not that religion's not important)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: As of now, with the 3 days of OSS (Out of school Suspension), that puts me over in absences, you are allowed to make up OSS absences in Saturday School, so as of now, I'm over in absences, which might lead to me to failing this year of school, over getting suspended for expressing myself. How sad... Please help me out in fighting this, i live in a poor family, we live in a trailer park in Weaverville, I can't do anything about this, my parents are 'christians' and claim that i'm going to hell for not being one, so I have no support for them, except negetive.
*shakes head*
Clearly, many need to be touched...hard...by His noodly appendage.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
You know, I feel bad for the kid. Really I do. But if this is any indication of the grammar skills of an "honor student" these days....wow...just wow...
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Yeah, I had the same thought.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I think the holy spag, the FSM may need to start wreaking noodly vengeance. Maybe strangle with his noodly appendage!
R*Amen.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Sounds like what everyone needs in this school is to join together in a big spaghetti potluck. I really hope all the kids wear eyepatches in solidarity, and the teachers have to admit they were wrong, because they can't suspend everybody.
All religions teach the best they know how. Apparently the poor boy's parents' religion teaches them that their son is going to be tortured for eternity for not believing, and that they're supposed to be happy about that. Sounds like they believe that's true, too.
Pastafarianism doesn't have any such cruel beliefs (though it's rather insensitive to the circumstances of mijits) but certainly a few of its proponents do. Its founder keeps a check on that, mostly. I don't think he fully realizes what he's wrought.
I think it's all grand and glorious, and that life is beautiful. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A school district violated a fourth-grader's constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection by refusing to allow her to distribute "personal statement" fliers carrying a religious message, a federal judge has ruled.
The Liverpool Central School District in upstate New York based its restrictions on "fear or apprehension of disturbance, which is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression," Chief U.S. District Judge Norman Mordue wrote in a 46-page decision Friday.
...
According to the family's 2004 lawsuit, Nicole Bloodgood tried three times to get permission for Michaela to pass out the homemade fliers to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, started out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one."
Bloodgood's requests to school officials said that her daughter, now a sixth-grader, would hand them out only during "non-instructional time," such as on the bus, before school, lunch, recess and after school.
The lawsuit noted that Michaela had received literature from other students at school, including materials for a YMCA basketball camp, a Syracuse Children's Theater promotion and Camp Fire USA's summer camps.
Liverpool officials said at the time there was "a substantial probability" that other parents and students might misunderstand and presume the district endorsed the religious statements in the flier, according to the lawsuit.
"The court cannot say the danger that children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward religion as a result of the district's denial," Mordue wrote.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you do not wish to be mocked, you should present some evidence showing that your religion is less ridiculous than the FSM.
You don't mock everyone you think is ridiculous, KoM.
How would you know? Have you ever seen me pass up an opportunity to mock anyone?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:According to the family's 2004 lawsuit, Nicole Bloodgood tried three times to get permission for Michaela to pass out the homemade fliers to other students at Nate Perry Elementary School. The flier, about the size of a greeting card, started out: "Hi! My name is Michaela and I would like to tell you about my life and how Jesus Christ gave me a new one."
While I agree that the judge made the right decision and that the school district was in the wrong from the beginning, I find the idea of a parent having her 4th grader do something like this to be kinda creepy.
edit to add quote
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't talking about here on Hatrack, KoM. There are some things which are ridiculous which, generally speaking, all people refrain from mocking.
So, I guess I'll phrase it as a question, then. Is there anything that is both ridiculous and unmocked, by you?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
If I may, I'm sure KoM doesn't mock everything that's ridiculous; both for shortage of time and will. The above is sarcasm, which of course works because there is a kernel of truth to it.
It's just that he won't pretend that ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs are worthy of respect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While I agree that the judge made the right decision and that the school district was in the wrong from the beginning, I find the idea of a parent having her 4th grader do something like this to be kinda creepy.
I agree it would be creepy, but it's not at all clear that this is what happened. It is clear that the parent was the one who tried to obtain permission for the daughter, but we can't tell from the article whose idea sharing her testimony was or, specifically, whose idea handing out the fliers was.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The Liverpool Central School District in upstate New York based its restrictions on "fear or apprehension of disturbance, which is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression," Chief U.S. District Judge Norman Mordue wrote in a 46-page decision Friday.
Sounds to me like schools make decisions based on "fear or apprehension of disturbance" all the time. Weren't we just discussing those high school girls' quoting of the Vagina Monologues and getting into trouble for it? Their freedom of expression was certainly curtailed by the school out of fear of disturbance.
Of course, there's a difference between a girl wanting to hand out something that's obviously personal (as opposed to school-endorsed) during non-instructional time, and girls participating in a school-sponsored event where content could obviously be construed as school-endorsed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Of course, there's a difference between a girl wanting to hand out something that's obviously personal (as opposed to school-endorsed) during non-instructional time, and girls participating in a school-sponsored event where content could obviously be construed as school-endorsed.
This difference is so critical that it is the core issue in many school religion cases.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wasn't talking about here on Hatrack, KoM. There are some things which are ridiculous which, generally speaking, all people refrain from mocking.
So, I guess I'll phrase it as a question, then. Is there anything that is both ridiculous and unmocked, by you?
So much to mock, so little time? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's just that he won't pretend that ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs are worthy of respect.
Is this something you believe as well, Euripedes?
And anyway, I'm not referring to just a lack of time to mock everyone that is ridiculous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps you'd like to give an example of something ridiculous which you believe I would not mock?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Certainly. Let's see...someone slipping and falling on ice, for example. Maybe spilling some groceries.
A very fat person. A ridiculously ugly person. Someone driving an incredibly crappy, ugly car. Someone struggling to speak a difficult language, mangling it due to their novice skill. Any number of things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I see we are using different meanings of the word 'ridiculous'. I don't see any of those as being particularly ridiculous, although I've cracked my fair share of jokes about fat people, ugly people, and incompetent people. Unintentionally amusing, possibly, but not ridiculous. Religion, however, is ridiculous in that it wilfully espouses beliefs that are, to an outside observer, not merely false, but so against experience as to seriously invite questions about the sanity of its devotees. Never mind 2+2=5, Christians have seriously propounded the idea that 3=1 for two millennia. Dagonee will tell you that a particular ritual which in no way changes any property of anything nevertheless makes him a spiritual cannibal. The various k's all think "I choose to believe X" is a reasonable argument in favour of the truth of X, and argue from X as an axiom on the strength of it. Lisa thinks you can play telephone across three thousand years and get out the original message. And yet a beer volcano is supposed to be particularly worthy of laughter?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Hey! Don't mock the beer volcano!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee will tell you that a particular ritual which in no way changes any property of anything nevertheless makes him a spiritual cannibal.
No he won't. Either leave me out of your little rants or get my beliefs right.
Since you are utterly incapable to date of doing the latter, I suggest the former.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's just that he won't pretend that ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs are worthy of respect.
Is this something you believe as well, Euripedes?
Yes it is. That doesn't mean that I believe the people who hold those beliefs are unworthy of respect; I don't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes it is. That doesn't mean that I believe the people who hold those beliefs are unworthy of respect; I don't.
So...what, then? For someone who holds a "ridiculous empirically unsupported belief" as a lifelong, deeply personal, crucial aspect of their daily lives...exactly how much do you respect them?
Or do you just respect them in spite of their ridiculous fancies?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
It depends upon the circumstances. These are a few questions I intuitively ask myself: How pervasive is the belief in that person's culture? Was he or she exposed to alternative beliefs or explanations? Are his or her ideas based on a false premise but otherwise built up in way that is rationally defensible? Are they well-intentioned? How much do they really respect the truth, and do they make an honest effort to discover it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmph. King of Men's answer is more straightfoward and I have to admit, sounds more sincere than yours does, Euripedes.
Let's suppose, then, that the belief is quite pervasive in that person's culture. Not required, but most of that person's friends, family, and acquaintances belief as they do. They were exposed to a variety of other beliefs and explanations, and chose their ridiculous empirically unsupported belief anyway. Being a ridiculous empirically unsupported belief, it's obviously based on a false premise but is otherwise built up in a rationally defensible way (at least, as far as a house on a foundation of sand can be said to be rationally sturdy). They're well-intentioned, and in their mind make an honest effort to discover the truth.
How much do you respect them then? Or is the word you're searching for pity?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I'd say that's a rough description of yourself, to make a wild guess. While I've probably said a few things that upset you, I actually do respect you as a person, so far as I can without knowing you so well. Which is why I felt the need to send you that apology.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't need an apology, but thank you just the same. Also, I'm not actually upset-your line of thinking isn't one I've never heard before, after all. That's not a cut, that's just a statement, there have been atheists around here and in general life that believe religious beliefs are stupid fantasy, adhered to ultimately because one fears and cannot face the alternative.
Or, to dress it up nicely, 'ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs'. Really, it amounts to the same thing. And, while I have zero respect or liking for the way King of Men conducts himself in these sorts of conversations, at least he's honest.
Perhaps you're being honest too, and you do 'respect religious people as people'. I don't see how that can be, though. The weird homeless guy having a conversation with himself on the street, who thinks aliens speak to him through the fillings of his teeth, I don't respect him, I pity him. He may have other good qualities that make him, overall, a good person, but I could only honestly say I respected him if I spoke in a very precise and somewhat limited way.
The way this applies to the conversation we're having now is: what, ultimately, do you feel the difference is between an obviously mentally ill homeless person conversing with himself, thinking aliens are talking directly into his brain...and someone who believes in God, and believes that they can pray and get answers that have an impact in their daily lives?
What's the difference? Is there a difference? It seems to me that 'ridiculous empirically unsupported beliefs' can apply to both people just as easily.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I am being honest. There are plenty of religious people I respect.
I think fear and guilt play a major role in extending the shelf life of theism, and are very effective at keeping many theists from straying. I'm not so sure that it's 'cannot face the alternative', so much as 'cannot face the disapproval of the community, the idea of turning one's world view upside down, and the possibility of committing a grave sin, should god actually exist'. Or something thereabouts. It depends heavily on the circumstances, and there are a wide array of reasons why religion continues to propagate.
I think the best way to clear up my position would be to use examples. Assigning respect is an intuitive sort of process after all, and emotion is involved. It's sometimes hard to identify exactly what criteria we're using.
Someone who believes his/her religion is the be all and end all, that nothing else matters, such as the people we see in Jesus Camp, I only have pity for; and little respect. I see the children as victims of child abuse in Dawkins' sense. With some of the adults I don't even have much pity. For Becky Fischer, the children's pastor in that movie, I have no respect and I strongly dislike her. She even brought up the fact that Muslim kids are sometimes trained to commit their lives to jihad in the physical sense, and said that she wants a similar level of commitment on the part of her flock; the kids of Evangelical Christians. She has done so much damage to rational inquiry and the education of those children (not to take away blame from their parents), subjected them to a moral code which prescribes such severe punishment (even for thoughtcrime) that they feel compelled to obey in order to keep deep feelings of guilt and fear at bay, and more. I see the kid crying on the floor because he feels he has lost faith in god (he sees no worldly evidence for his existence), and I see vicious brainwashing in action. Her only redeeming virtue is her honesty of conviction; she does seem to believe she's behaving morally. But by failing to examine her premises in the first place, she's being intellectually dishonest as well.
The reason I have no respect for her is because firstly, she is as an adult living in America, in a position to re-examine her fundamentalist premises. More importantly, she has decided to indoctrinate children and place faith over empirical reasoning; which is the foundation of virtually all fields of academic inquiry except theology.
I have a similar level of respect for the pope(s), and pretty much everyone in a prominent position in the Catholic Church. I have no respect for that institution, just as I have no respect for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Here's another example: my history teacher in high school. Although I can't be certain if he really believed in god (the institution which employed him was supported by a church, after all; and I think he's a man who would have made a shrewd politician), he was a self-professed Christian. He taught me to write in a highly logical fashion, emphasising empirical support very strongly. I got to know him a little better; and his morality is one which is defensible by reason, almost indistinguishable from a humanist's. He's one of the people I respect the most, because he is one of the most intelligent people I know, and valued the sort of things I thought I valued. I had a lot of teachers I highly respected. I can't think of one who was definitely atheist. What mattered was whether they were reasonable good-willed people who's decisions were amenable to sound argument.
Then take the reverend of the school. Like my history teacher, he had a PhD. He was a nice guy. Yet I can't muster much respect for him. It's because most of my contact with him was in the context of chapel. I sat in the pews as he extolled faith in Jesus using sports and navy analogies (he used to be a navy chaplain), choosing the nicer passages out of the bible as readings, and at one time berating the ancient Athenians for not flocking to the Christian faith once they heard Paul speak. I wasn't even there as a matter of choice, so that added to my irritation.
It's 3am and I'm rambling again. Sorry for the lack of coherence in this post.
I'll finally address your analogy, but first I want to remove the mental illness, the tooth fillings, and the homelessness from the picture. Those are intended to make the subject seem less worthy of respect. In response to your question, yes, I do think there's a difference, but I think it's more quantitative than qualitative. That is, Christianity is better established in society, and usually influences people during childhood when the beliefs are likely to stick. It's recognised standing in society and the fact that lots of very smart people have argued for Christianity lends it a degree of verisimilitude.
[Edit: grammar]
[ April 06, 2007, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Euripedes,
quote:I am being honest. There are plenty of religious people I respect.
I believe you are sincere when you say that. I am questioning just how much you can truly respect someone, though, whose most important beliefs--which impact every aspect of their lives and they take very, very seriously--you regard as foolish fantasy, as sensible as to believe in a levitating pasta monstrosity.
quote:I think fear and guilt play a major role in extending the shelf life of theism, and are very effective at keeping many theists from straying. I'm not so sure that it's 'cannot face the alternative', so much as 'cannot face the disapproval of the community, the idea of turning one's world view upside down, and the possibility of committing a grave sin, should god actually exist'. Or something thereabouts.
Well, it amounts to the same thing. Fear keeping theists in line. They don't have the guts to face up to the truth.
I've never seen Jesus Camp, so I can't comment on any examples drawing from that source that aren't explained in detail.
quote:I have a similar level of respect for the pope(s), and pretty much everyone in a prominent position in the Catholic Church. I have no respect for that institution, just as I have no respect for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Thank you for being honest about that. Sometimes, around here, it's like pulling teeth to get any atheist except King of Men to own up to that even when, from other comments, it's pretty clear that's what they believe.
I note that you are careful to say "that institution", though, and not "Catholics". I wonder what you think is the difference, if that specific distinction is one you meant to make.
quote:He taught me to write in a highly logical fashion, emphasising empirical support very strongly. I got to know him a little better; and his morality is one which is defensible by reason, almost indistinguishable from a humanist's. He's one of the people I respect the most, because he is one of the most intelligent people I know, and valued the sort of things I thought I valued.
And there you have it, Euripedes. He believed very much what you believed. You would have to have little respect for yourself if you were to have little respect for him.
quote:I sat in the pews as he extolled faith in Jesus using sports and navy analogies (he used to be a navy chaplain), choosing the nicer passages out of the bible as readings, and at one time berating the ancient Athenians for not flocking to the Christian faith once they heard Paul speak. I wasn't even there as a matter of choice, so that added to my irritation.
Thanks for owning up to that as well.
quote:I'll finally address your analogy, but first I want to remove the mental illness, the tooth fillings, and the homelessness from the picture. Those are intended to make the subject seem less worthy of respect. In response to your question, yes, I do think there's a difference, but I think it's more quantitative than qualitative. That is, Christianity is better established in society, and usually influences people during childhood when the beliefs are likely to stick. It's recognised standing in society and the fact that lots of very smart people have argued for Christianity lends it a degree of verisimilitude.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you really get to discard those examples and make it stick reasonably within your argument. See, I think that because you lend just as much weight to aliens talking through tooth fillings as you do to someone believing their prayers are heard by God and answered by God. To you, they're a hamburger and a cheesesteak. Different foods, but still the same deep down.
All you've done is point out how there are extenuating circumstances for people to believe these ridiculous empirically unsupported things. You still think they're foolish, and insofar as people believe them, they're foolish as well. You do pity them, because they believe something that only has the appearance of truth. They can't really help it, it's how they were raised.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have found my interactions with Euripides both respectful and pleasant.
If I can (and I can) respect him without agreeing with him, why shouldn't I believe that he can respect me?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do respect him, and generally find him to be a pleasant person. This is mostly because I don't really care* what he thinks about my religious beliefs.
That said, though, it's pretty clear he only respects you insofar as you (and me) aren't religious people. Those portions of our religious personalities, on the other hand, well, are to be pitied. We were raised up that way, and so they got us when we were kids. Or it's embedded in society, so it's more likely we'd believe it. Or, we're too afraid of upsetting G-d or the community, so we stick to it (even though we don't know it).
It's not a matter of disagreeing with him. I respect people I disagree with all the time. It's a matter of thinking that people believe something really, really stupid in a big, life-impacting sort of way...and then in the same breath, saying that you respect them.
It doesn't fit. It's a contradiction. I can respect someone who thinks that, for example, thinks that Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore are really great people, journalists or documentary filmmakers worthy of respect. I would disagree, and strongly, with them on that, but it's not something that permeates their lives.
Could I respect someone who thought about that all the time? Whoe actually went to an organization multiple times per week to talk about how awesome either figure is, and how we should get to know them better? Who tried to found their life on something that I felt was so stupid?
I don't think so. I don't believe that one can truly respect something one thinks is stupid. I don't believe one can truly respect someone else who bases their lives on something that one thinks is fundamentally stupid.
This is quite different from one religious person disagreeing from another. If, as I believe, someone interprets their relationship with God differently from me, well I'll generally think they're making a mistake, but it's such a tricky and subjective business anyways that I won't disrespect them for it, any more than I would disrespect someone for voting Republican or Democrat.
*I am interested in discussing it, but I don't take the criticism to heart.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The way this applies to the conversation we're having now is: what, ultimately, do you feel the difference is between an obviously mentally ill homeless person conversing with himself, thinking aliens are talking directly into his brain...and someone who believes in God, and believes that they can pray and get answers that have an impact in their daily lives?
Ok, I'll bite - what is the difference?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The difference should be clear. The paranoid schizophenic who is homeless and living on the streets is unable to hold a job, unable to maintain personal relationships, unable to take care of most of their basic needs, their behavior is general irradic and often dangerous to both themselves and others.
None of the above are typical of religious people. In fact, exactly the opposite maybe true. Numerous studies have found that religious people are more likely to have successful long term relationships, have a longer life expectance, are more reliable employees, and are over all happierthan people who aren't religious.
While those studies may not be conclusive and don't establish a causal link between religiousity and any of the those factors, they do clearly indicate that religion does not have a similar impact on an individuals ability to function that mental illness has.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Thanks Kate and Rakeesh.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, it amounts to the same thing. Fear keeping theists in line. They don't have the guts to face up to the truth.
Okay, if you want to summarise it that way, I think that's about half of it in most cases. I also think that untangling religious dogma and the often convoluted justifications for god can be a major intellectual endeavour for people who have absorbed religion through culture. So just as often, it can be a kind of academic mistake with unfortunately consequences.
quote:I note that you are careful to say "that institution", though, and not "Catholics". I wonder what you think is the difference, if that specific distinction is one you meant to make.
I was careful to do that, because I have more than a couple Catholic friends and respect them.
quote:
quote:He taught me to write in a highly logical fashion, emphasising empirical support very strongly. I got to know him a little better; and his morality is one which is defensible by reason, almost indistinguishable from a humanist's. He's one of the people I respect the most, because he is one of the most intelligent people I know, and valued the sort of things I thought I valued.
And there you have it, Euripedes. He believed very much what you believed. You would have to have little respect for yourself if you were to have little respect for him.
Okay, I think this gets to the crux of things. I realised after posting it that it was a weak example of respect for religious people, but it's opened up an avenue of discussion which will probably clear this up.
I value truth, honesty, reason, benevolence, and justice very highly. Deep down those will be the criteria I use when intuitively assigning respect to someone. So yes, if someone has constructed their entire lives around something that the evidence shows is a corruption of reason, I can't give them much respect on the 'reason' scale. If they honestly believe what they're saying, I can give them some credit for honesty. If they don't, they're actually fairly reprehensible.
If a highly religious person, in day to day life, is amenable to argument, is amicable and just, and interacts with the world in a rational fashion, I can respect them highly (because I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive. If high religiosity precludes someone from fitting the above description, then I guess I can't respect them as highly). If the part of them which thinks rationally and upholds morals which are rationally defensible is irreligious, then what you say about me is accurate.
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't think you really get to discard those examples and make it stick reasonably within your argument. See, I think that because you lend just as much weight to aliens talking through tooth fillings as you do to someone believing their prayers are heard by God and answered by God. To you, they're a hamburger and a cheesesteak. Different foods, but still the same deep down.
You could say that. Just that people who eat the hamburgers (religion), say are mostly healthy, whereas people who eat the cheesesteaks (crazy alien conspiracy theory) are unhealthy alcoholics. Even if there isn't a causal link, I could probably respect the hamburger-eater more than the cheesesteak-eater. Because choosing which brand of faith you follow also says something about the company one chooses to keep.
Moderate Christians are mostly decent people, while the people in Aum Shinrikyo, an armageddon cult that released sarin gas in a busy Tokyo train station (to use an extreme example), are definitely not decent.
Even if I see both groups as believing in an elaborate fiction, I'd respect someone who chooses to associate with the Christians much more than someone who joined the death cult.
quote:All you've done is point out how there are extenuating circumstances for people to believe these ridiculous empirically unsupported things. You still think they're foolish, and insofar as people believe them, they're foolish as well. You do pity them, because they believe something that only has the appearance of truth. They can't really help it, it's how they were raised.
That's about right. I do pity people who are duped, and insofar as I believe religion is false, it follows that in my view their followers have been duped in some way (usually through exploitation of childhood naivety).
quote:That said, though, it's pretty clear he only respects you insofar as you (and me) aren't religious people. Those portions of our religious personalities, on the other hand, well, are to be pitied.
If being religious means having faith in irrational fictions because one is encouraged to, them yes. But really, most moderate Christians aren't as religious as they claim. While they're not praying in private or attending church, they're often rational, honest, truth-valuing people.
The situation gets more complicated when we consider that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that the existence of god can be empirically proven. Then my level of respect for that person is dictated by whether I deem the claim to proof to be honest, or rhetoric used to afford a foregone conclusion more verisimilitude.
When it comes to the pope and his ilk making claims about logic and scientific evidence, I have strong doubts about their honesty and intentions. John Paul II once sent Dawkins a letter endorsing Darwinian evolution, for example. Dawkins wrote back saying that he preferred an honest fundamentalist, and that the pope was being a hypocrite.
I really like that story, so that probably tells you something about me. I dislike it when people try to brush over paradoxes and self-contradictions as if they don't exist.
quote:I don't think so. I don't believe that one can truly respect something one thinks is stupid. I don't believe one can truly respect someone else who bases their lives on something that one thinks is fundamentally stupid.
I agree. And one final thing; I think that many Christians who say that they get their morals from Christianity, actually don't. They get their morals from what Dawkins would call the moral Zeitgeist. I suspect many of them haven't read the bible either.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
None of the above are typical of religious people. In fact, exactly the opposite maybe true. Numerous studies have found that religious people are more likely to have successful long term relationships, have a longer life expectance, are more reliable employees, and are over all happierthan people who aren't religious.
Not doubting you, but could you point me to where I might find such a study? I'm curious to know how they gauged 'happiness'.
I understand that you weren't suggesting there was a causal link between these factors.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
From what I have read, studies have used a variety of measures for happiness ranging from self reporting or a variety test questions to measurement of activity in the front temporal lobes of the brain.
Thanks. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The difference should be clear. The paranoid schizophrenic who is homeless and living on the streets is unable to hold a job, unable to maintain personal relationships, unable to take care of most of their basic needs, their behavior is general irradic and often dangerous to both themselves and others.
None of the above are typical of religious people.
You think there are no homeless Christians? Conversely, do you think all alien-believers are homeless? Schizophrenia takes many forms, including Christian beliefs; the helplessness doesn't require the voices to be aliens. And on the other hand, lots of New Agers lead happy, fulfilled lives. So again - what is the difference?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
My friend wore a Penguin suit and a Hotdog suit to school on back-to-back days and didn't get suspended. There's also a video on Youtube of him wearing the Hotdog one and his friend wearing the Penguin one. They go to Safeway and have a Kung Fu fight in the middle of the store. The police get called and they get tackled and banned for life from the store. It's really funny.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think it's a great religion! It appeals to a subset of folks that no other religion can reach, and its an introduction of a sorts. Also, there really are quite a few aspects of God that are infinitely noodly.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Sounds like they believe that's true, too. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)