[1] CNN reports on the American Academy of Religion's study of the completely insufferable concept of the "flying sphaghetti monster" at their annual conference. The idea was thought up by a graduate student as a satire of the intelligent design movement. While I have no severe nor direct quarrel with satire, this attempt to level a derisive barrage on religion contains too much danger to be taking humorously, much less seriously.
I believe there are better ways to intellectually debate concepts like intelligent design. Whatever your views on that subject, this satirical method comes dangerously close (and in my book crosses) the line between discussion and outright mockery, or even a form of (at least) indirect idolatry; which implicitly connotes rejection.
Even if, as some proponents might suggest, the purpose "between the lines" of the satire is to point out that if one method gets time in the classroom then others should as well is inherently dangerous on two points. One, that organized religion is inherently on par with the monster. I need not expand upon this. Second, and more crucially, that the concept inherently mocks not only intelligent design, but ultimately religion and theism itself. The true between-the-lines commentary of the concept is that religion is mutually exclusive to science and knowledge, and thus religion and its contents should suffer the exile of societal irrelevancy. That logical chain demonstrates the severe rejection dangers.
[2] On an infintely brighter note, I would like to point out that on the sidebar, directly below the picture of Don Cervantes, there are two new additions. Courtesy of TNIV (Today's New International Version), we have a bible search function (by keyword or passage) and a scripture feature updated daily via RSS feed.
[3] Regarding an earlier post (and its comments) on Mr. Robertson's endorsement of Mr. Giuliani, I have an additional point. The use of "religious right" has received I believe the same villification that terms such as "neo-conservative", or even "liberal" (years ago) obtained. I am not entirely sure if the sense of its use connotes politicians expounding religious viewpoints, or the entire politican-and-bloc of religious adherents. Either way, I fear that the mere mention of "religious right" has the sole use of mockery and derision. It should not blanket conservative voters who identify with religion.
[4] I would hope that Pakistan can settle their governmental dilemma. It seems there is a spate of governments in peril, or rather the inverse (regarding the public) in places such as Burma. One prays that the resolution arrives quickly and peacefully.
[5] Back to the presidential elections. In the interest of winding up the Weekend Five with some brevity, all I will say is that with so many choices there are so few. Time will tell, but I am not keen on the current election cycle.
-------
Sources: [1] CNN. [2] TNIV.
Posts
2 comments:
Jeremy,
I think you're taking the Spaghetti Monster thing a bit too seriously. It was originally just a joke, and if atheists are going nuts over it now, who cares? The FSM is good for what it was originally intended to show--that if the latest pseudo-scientific scheme of creationists who can't seem to figure out how to read the Scriptures anything other than literally gets time in the classroom, why shouldn't a different religion's own schemes? This gets back to your earlier point about the equal use of religious and non-religious reasoning in the public square.
By the way, the FSM made an appearance in the last season of South Park. There was a two episode sequence called "Go God Go!" that made fun of atheism and featured Richard Dawkins prominently. They're hilarious. I'll email you a brief summary of the FSM part.
I don't know about the use of "religious right." I think it's a pretty useful term for indicating the political situation in this country in the aftermath of the Moral Majority--in other words, the vast number of people in this country for whom being Christian is synonymous with being Republican. If you don't believe these people exist, read the op-eds from the Fargo Forum for a day or two.
I think, if you don't mind me being mildly subversive here for a second, that your own way of describing this problem itself indicates exactly what I mean by "religious right." You state:
"[The term] should not blanket conservative voters who identify with religion."
For me, the religious right might very well be explained as that group of people who are fundamentally conservative, and who only tack on, or "identify with religion" on top of that.
Post a Comment