Student punished for spaghetti beliefs.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by fl0at

I did a few searches, and couldn't find any posts on this, but I thought a few of you would get a chuckle out of this. If anything, it might make icehog's butt itch.

Oh yeah...it's itchin'.....

Originally Posted by n3uka

Now everyone knows that my church of The Holy Boli is the only true religion that should be allowed. Do I hear tax exempt status for all my religous purchases?

Where do I sign up??

Originally Posted by WNCsmoker

im not saying that pastafarians are being serious in their beliefs or not but who are you to judge them? there needs to be more tollerance and acceptance.

Pass whatever you're WNCsmoking over here, Brother....

[gvarsity]

I didn't read this specific article but I have read quite a bit about the history of the flying spaghetti monster. It's a much more sophisticated protest than you might think and very appropriate for the public schools in some ways. The church of the flying spaghetti monster was a straw argument introduced to fight the sham (from a scientific perspective) argument of intelligent design. Essentially the original "theorist" said I can use the same argument you use to argue for an intelligent designer to argue for a flying spaghetti monster. He then went on to argue that if you can teach intelligent design you need to give equal time to the flying spaghetti monster.

This situation is using essentially a parody religion in the context of commenting on the fight over creationism, intelligent design, evolution in the public schools. Now it has been shown that students in a public school do have limited free speech rights compared to the non-school setting. Even if it is a sham religion, the law will likely treat this seriously and he will likely make an argument that wearing a pirate costume for him is the same as a Christian wearing a cross. In practice of course this is ridiculous but in the theoretical world of the law one and the same.

In the end regardless of how a case would actually resolve in court the kid already won. It was a stunt and by suspending him he gets a legitimate constitutional lawsuit and publicity instead of nothing. Even if he loses the lawsuit it brings a crap load of free publicity to the anti-intelligent design people.

To bad they didn't read k-baz post and could have saved themselves all a lot of trouble.

"don't believe there are any churches or "dues" collected minus the selling of T-shirts and other merchandise. I believe the kid is just a little to smart for his own good and is trying to get some attention. I don't believe he should be punished any more then the punks, emos or goths. No dress code means you can dress like an a$$clown if you want to but it won't get you a date to the prom."

[fl0at]

Originally Posted by gvarsity

Essentially the original "theorist" said I can use the same argument you use to argue for an intelligent designer to argue for a flying spaghetti monster. He then went on to argue that if you can teach intelligent design you need to give equal time to the flying spaghetti monster.

This situation is using essentially a parody religion in the context of commenting on the fight over creationism, intelligent design, evolution in the public schools.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but doesn't FSM fall under the "intelligent design" / "creationism" subject? In their "religion" FSM = God, so therefore they are getting equal treatment.

If the group taught a new theory, one that wasn't ID/Evolution, then I could understand it's purpose, however, it's like asking that EVERY religion get "air time" in the classroom, and that is simply impossible, as there are way too many. Therefore they drop it into categories which for ID includes: Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism... and the FSM.

Am I wrong in that conclusion?

Kelso

[gvarsity]

Originally Posted by fl0at

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but doesn't FSM fall under the "intelligent design" / "creationism" subject? In their "religion" FSM = God, so therefore they are getting equal treatment.

If the group taught a new theory, one that wasn't ID/Evolution, then I could understand it's purpose, however, it's like asking that EVERY religion get "air time" in the classroom, and that is simply impossible, as there are way too many. Therefore they drop it into categories which for ID includes: Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism... and the FSM.

Am I wrong in that conclusion?

Kelso

It's a counter intuitive attack on intelligent design. They are presenting themselves as an ID peer like you say except the flying spaghetti monster is a obviously ridiculous concept even to them.

The FSM position exposes the logical fallacies of the ID argument. They hope to discredit ID by showing that since FSM, a blatantly a ridiculous concept, is equally defensible as ID, ID is also not credible and should not be taught either. Essentially they are saying no scientifically indefensible arguments ala ID should be taught or all of them should be taught including the imaginary ones.

[earnold25]

this is like 3 seconds from my house in Baltimore City. Is it related?

[gvarsity]

Originally Posted by earnold25

this is like 3 seconds from my house in Baltimore City. Is it related?

[earnold25]

i know. i drive by that thing and giggle. no idea what i meant until now

[n3uka]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Where do I sign up??

On its way.

[fl0at]

Originally Posted by gvarsity

The FSM position exposes the logical fallacies of the ID argument.

Simply not being able to prove something exists one way or another is a fallacy itself, though. I think it's called a "Burden of Proof" fallacy.

I understand the purpose, don't get me wrong, I just don't understand the logic. How would they respond to Kansas if they did start teaching FSM in schools side by side with Christianity as part of ID?

Would they start a counter-intuitive movement against themselves? Seems like a slippery slope to me, while we're on the subject of fallacy.

[gvarsity]

Originally Posted by fl0at

Simply not being able to prove something exists one way or another is a fallacy itself, though. I think it's called a "Burden of Proof" fallacy.

I understand the purpose, don't get me wrong, I just don't understand the logic. How would they respond to Kansas if they did start teaching FSM in schools side by side with Christianity as part of ID?

Would they start a counter-intuitive movement against themselves? Seems like a slippery slope to me, while we're on the subject of fallacy.

I agree but the battle about ID isn't a logical battle it is a battle of perception in the public sphere. The spurious argument of the FSM group is to illustrate that fallacy in that context.

When you believe the underlying assumption it is easy to overlook the logical fallacy. That is what makes ID compelling to Christians. No one actually believes in the FSM and I think thats why it is a useful foil in the public debate. It is using satire, extending the argument to the extreme conclusion to articulate the flaw in the premise.

In the unlikely scenario that FSM ideology got introduced to the public schools that would be leveraged via public relations to get both ID and FSM eliminated.

[ca21455]

FACT # 1

There are several million cigar smokers in the world, this would certainly out number the many splinter religions that many accept as valid.

FACT #2

There is no dispute among the BOTLs and SOTLs of the world of the spiritual experience gained in smoking a cigar.

FACT #3

Donations are made frequently to honor the spirituality of cigar smoking.

FACT #4

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

[SIZE=4]The only conclusion that can be made is the government is inhibiting our right to advance our religion and should cease and desist immediately.[/SIZE]

[fl0at]

Originally Posted by ca21455

[SIZE=4]The only conclusion that can be made is the government is inhibiting our right to advance our religion and should cease and desist immediately.[/SIZE]

The Church of the Leaf?

And yay, did the prophet Da Klugs not say, on the eve "Send us thy husband's stogies, and the riches of my world may be thine."

[kansashat]

Originally Posted by mikeyj23

Kansas=not Southern

Wow!

I live in Kansas, so that could be close.........

.........do they have a buffet?

[icehog3]

My butt is still itching.....

[Da Klugs]

Empowering every (technical) right ultimately leads to the erosion of all rights.