Another Boner from the Church Burners

_{March 27, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it’s making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They’re their own worst enemy.

Comments

Agreed DaveScott. And my point is that even though their expression is protected, it is still a fact that their insults and mockery are wrong and they should be ashamed of themselves. Thus, Christians agree that they have a right to poke their thumb in our eye. We will, however, point out that their expression is foolish, intolerant and just plain mean, and hope their conscience will be scratched (or is that pricked?). The only kind of censorship we call for is self-censorship.BarryA_{March 31, 2006
March
03
Mar
31
31
2006
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

The point I wanted to make wasn't that the FSM stuff should be subject to censorship in any way. It's protected by free speech. The point I wanted to make was this does not further the objective of the people who are behind it. It only serves to inspire their opposition to greater effort. It's bumbling and naive. The church burners are just adding fuel to the fire, so to speak, when they should be trying to cool it. :roll:DaveScot_{March 31, 2006
March
03
Mar
31
31
2006
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

tb "How would you seperate the two?" Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Isn't the distinction between a person and the ideas that person holds self evident?BarryA_{March 31, 2006
March
03
Mar
31
31
2006
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

BarryA The Mohammed caricatures were wrong. And so is the FSM mockery. What I actually wanted to say is that I grant them the right to express their oppinon. In that light I stated my comment that you quoted, yet I failed to spell it out. I entirely agree with you on: "We must always be careful to make the following distinction: People who make errors have rights; the error itself has no rights." I certainly want to make that distinction. You saying that there is need to tolerate and accept these people, but there should be a zero tolerance towards their erroneous ideas, right? How would you seperate the two? The muslims failed to draw that line.tb_{March 31, 2006
March
03
Mar
31
31
2006
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

tb "This is kinda like the Mohamed caricature for me." I'm not sure what you mean by this. It seems like you are implying the following logic: The raving fundamentalist Muslims were against the caricatures of Mohammed. Therefore, the caricatures of Mohammed were a good thing, and it follows that mocking Christian icons is OK too. If this is the case, your logic is faulty. The caricatures of Mohammed were an abomination, an over the top insult to a billion of our fellow humans. We do not support the Danish cartoonists because they did a good thing. They did not. We support them because they have a right to express their ideas, even if their ideas are in error. We must always be careful to make the following distinction: People who make errors have rights; the error itself has no rights. Therefore, appealing to the error in support of your position is wrong.BarryA_{March 30, 2006
March
03
Mar
30
30
2006
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

"So you are saying that Darwinist mockery does not get a lot of air time? I think it is more like a subliminal mockery in a country (US) where freedom of speech allows everything." The Darwinists can do all the mocking they want, we'll just have a casual laugh now and then, we don't really need our own FSM to prove our point. "I would assume you agree that Christians should not behave like this!" Certainly not, but I'm sure a lot of Christians who see things like the FSM are pretty outraged. Personally I'm a little annoyed but I probably won't be taking part in any protests anytime soon. "If that is your point why not make it without some hypothetical Ã¢â‚¬Å“quick questionÃ¢â‚¬Â that associates Christians with threating and judging others, murder and violence whereas Christianity is morally and ethically 100% against it. The quick question then was a bit a shot in the knee cap donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you think?" The quick question was to help people imagine the sheer outrage that would follow were fundamentalists to burn down labs and threaten people's lives. I'm not saying that'll happen though, most fundamentalists are nice people. "Fundamentalists usually have a very limited view on things, they think in black and in white. Thus I would not expect them to act in a more moral way than Darwinists (It is rightwing conservative vs, leftwing liberal)." It depends on who you talk to. Just because someone has a very defined view of Christianity doesn't mean they're like that for everything. Plus they have moral obligation that Darwinists do not. If they choose to act immorally then they're actually going against what they believe. "I also hate fundamentalists views, because you cannot discuss anything with them. You get to a point where you hit the wall called ignorance and judgement to fast my friend." I understand your frustration, it's just that most people on either extreme are heavily underinformed and they like to think they know everything they need to know. But the last group that should be criticizing the Christian fundamentalists is the Darwinian fundamentalists.jasonng_{March 29, 2006
March
03
Mar
29
29
2006
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

@jasonng: So you are saying that Darwinist mockery does not get a lot of air time? I think it is more like a subliminal mockery in a country (US) where freedom of speech allows everything. Well why not shoot back in an equal and opposite non violent manner like I did in Comment nr. 3. FSM sure has a blasphemic approach, but their ignoranz needs not to be judged by me. I think the question is: How much tolerance should we have towards these mockeries? Should we react like the fundamentalist Muslims, instrumentalizing the Mohammed cartoons for rioting and violence? I would assume you agree that Christians should not behave like this! I also understand now the point you want to make, mainly: pointing out Darwinist intolerance and the refrain of the media to cover such intolerance! If that is your point why not make it without some hypothetical "quick question" that associates Christians with threating and judging others, murder and violence whereas Christianity is morally and ethically 100% against it. The quick question then was a bit a shot in the knee cap don't you think? "So youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re saying now that fundamentalists are held to a much higher level of moral expectation than say, Darwinists? Oh what a surprise. Maybe atheists are the cause of societyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s problems because they have no moral standard. (Note the sarcasm.)" Fundamentalists usually have a very limited view on things, they think in black and in white. Thus I would not expect them to act in a more moral way than Darwinists (It is rightwing conservative vs, leftwing liberal). I was actually playing along with your violent non-thinking fundamentalist quick question example there for a minute and what I would do if such a thing was going to happen. Here you can read it again for clearities sake: Ã¢â‚¬Å“I think there are enough critical thinking Christians out there that would stop these fundamentalist fools(described in your example Comment 10). I on my part would point those fundamentalist Christians to Luke 6:27-35 and tell them to THINK about it. That would shut them up. That is moral wisdom which I expect from every rational thinking Christian. Case closed.Ã¢â‚¬Â "Face it tb, a lot of Darwinists out there really, really hate fundamentalists." I also hate fundamentalists views, because you cannot discuss anything with them. You get to a point where you hit the wall called ignorance and judgement to fast my friend.tb_{March 29, 2006
March
03
Mar
29
29
2006
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

"@Jasonng: What is your point here? Trying to bring back the cartoon debate on the tabel just with twisted irony. Its not Christians but Muslims that went on burning flags and screaming. And what is the need of hypothetical generalized questions?" My point is not to be disrespectful of Muslims. In fact I'm being quite sympathetic of their situation. Christians don't like their God to be mocked by some crappy cartoon drawing any more than Muslims like Muhammed being mocked. Darwinists are treating this like a freaking joke, and their intolerance is astounding for this day and age. If any other group were to be attacked like this, the media would not spare the attackers. But... since it's Christians being attacked, well I guess that's fine. No mass outrage from the media. No tolerance should there be protests either it seems, after all the Darwinists appear to have a stranglehold on much of mainstream media. "How would people react if some college students went out on a rampage killing random other students wearing Natural Selection T-shirts?" That happened at Columbine, just ask BarryA. It's not hypothetical anymore. Where were the Darwinists expressing how the murderers' views of natural selection were completely wrong? Where were they? Huh? Can you answer me? "How would people react if some college kids went out having fun burning churches? Mhhh what would people think?" People would be outraged. But do you see the media blowing this story out of proportion? Instead they're trying to downplay the fact that churches were targetted. "Maybe you can tell us how people would react, and maybe you could also mention who these people are? General public? FSM worshipers? moderate Christians? Republicans? Democrats? International college students? Who are those people? And what would be their reaction?" My point is the Darwinists will be talking so loudly about this that they'll be on the headlines for the next few months. They won't think for a second, "Hmm... maybe it was my intolerance of Christians that caused such outrage". Face it tb, a lot of Darwinists out there really, really hate fundamentalists. "I think there are enough critical thinking Christians out there that would stop these fundamentalist fools. I on my part would point those fundamentalist Christians to Luke 6:27-35 and tell them to THINK about it. That would shut them up. That is moral wisdom which I expect from every rational thinking Christian. Case closed." So you're saying now that fundamentalists are held to a much higher level of moral expectation than say, Darwinists? Oh what a surprise. Maybe atheists are the cause of society's problems because they have no moral standard. (Note the sarcasm.) "Now donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t give me another Ã¢â‚¬Å“What ifÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â question cause two can play this game." I don't know about you, but I'm not playing any game. I'm pointing out Darwinist intolerance and media apathy.jasonng_{March 29, 2006
March
03
Mar
29
29
2006
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

@Jasonng: What is your point here? Trying to bring back the cartoon debate on the tabel just with twisted irony. Its not Christians but Muslims that went on burning flags and screaming. And what is the need of hypothetical generalized questions? I got two for you: How would people react if some college students went out on a rampage killing random other students wearing Natural Selection T-shirts? How would people react if some college kids went out having fun burning churches? Mhhh what would people think? Maybe you can tell us how people would react, and maybe you could also mention who these people are? General public? FSM worshipers? moderate Christians? Republicans? Democrats? International college students? Who are those people? And what would be their reaction? I think there are enough critical thinking Christians out there that would stop these fundamentalist fools. I on my part would point those fundamentalist Christians to Luke 6:27-35 and tell them to THINK about it. That would shut them up. That is moral wisdom which I expect from every rational thinking Christian. Case closed. Now don't give me another "What if..." question cause two can play this game.tb_{March 29, 2006
March
03
Mar
29
29
2006
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Quick question: How would people react if a horde of fundamentalist Christians took to the streets protesting the FSM, threatening to behead those who made the cartoon and telling the Darwinists (most of whom had no part in this cartoon) that they should get ready to be killed?jasonng_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Well, I defiled the Church of Darwin by going to his temple at UVa and setting some student straight. Here is a picture of me, invading the church of the FSM and pleading my case. I'm pleased to say, the advance of ID is making the Pastafarian Infidels tremble. http://capacioushandbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/volant-vermiform-farinaceous.htmlscordova_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

FSM proves DI, scientist, the growing list of Darwin doubters, most here, and others are doing the right thing. It proves ID is making inroads.... Much like comedians mocking the famous, it comes with the territory. Court Jestors jest afterall, left with no real amunition, they must mock. It should be no surprise those who believe in RM/NS also bow down to Spaghetti Code. Spaghetti Code is apt worship for NeoDardites. They do go round-n-round, in loopty-loos, emitting false-positives, stringed with false-goals, sticking together false logic with pre-ordained outcomes. It is an infinite loop of random noodle loonie-ness. So, from one string of pasta to another, its quite filling, but nevertheless, a fruitless pursuit, producing instead vast amounts of starch. Having allowed Spaghetti Code into their brain, they must feast on it in daily loop rations or suffer eternal stickiness. Design advocates and even those opposed to its possible ramifications however, by applying math models, inserting ID into research will force Design Views forward despite the blind mockers theory of Spaghetti Code. They've had 150 years and the pile of pasta is high, so high they've buried themselves in it and no fork is big enuf to untwine the mess they're in. As more math and design principles are applied, pattorns recognized, what is a beautiful, purposeful code will be unlocked. At the end of the day, engineers, 'designers', have been and are taking over daily in research. Schools in order to 'survive', must expand bio-sciences with input from all areas in "order" to understand the "design" that they see. Otherwise, they will not compete and they will be left with a stringy garb of wet noodles for their effort. This might be good with butter, garlic toast and some basil, but it does not pay the bills of academic-corporate sponsorship. In the end, Corporate Sponsors can care less if its Design or not, they just want results. It is this overwhelming external force that will push old concepts out the door. The battle is won, the end declared from the beginning. What Spaghetti Code Worshipers hold dear due to arrogance is their downfall. It is unfortunate that many will never admit to themselves that Spaghetti Code is a NOOP, a dead-end from the beginning with just a response to let the sender know there is life, but you need instructions in order to proceed. TB, that's a great pic! Haha, love it! Like capturing lightning in the bottle, you've captured the truth :)Michaels7_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

To me it doesn't even rise to the level of funny, because the whole FSM bit is so incredibly stupid.avocationist_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Your next comment here will explain how I mocked Unitarian Universalism. I couldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve sworn I did no more than question how it can be called a church when it has no religious creed. -ds

You didn't question anything. You emphatically stated it was a pseudo-religion. And a religion does not need official creeds to be considered a religion. Sure enough they are a wacky bunch, but unlike Scientology, I think they are widely accepted as a religion by those who know more about the subject than you or I do.
A religion with atheist members. That's a contradiction in terms and this is your last comment here. -ds aldo30127_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Who all thinks this is quite humorous and will enjoy seeing much more of it?

I do. And I go to mass every week (well, almost every week). And in a real church to, not one of those churches of anything goes.

It's satire. If 50% of the country believes that God created man in the form he is, then 50% should be comfortable enough in that belief to shrug off the satire surrounding it.

What I find interesting is that, within a few posts of each other, you criticize FSM as an affront to the sensibilities of the religious and yet have no problem mocking the Unitarians.
Your next comment here will explain how I mocked Unitarian Universalism. I could've sworn I did no more than question how it can be called a church when it has no religious creed. -ds aldo30127_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Maybe you can post my intelligently designed "The Creation of Darwin" as a contrast to the above picture :) Kindly TBtb_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Dear DaveScot, I have nothing against secular art! Actually I enjoy secular art. This is kinda like the Mohamed caricature for me. The real thing in Vatican City is beautiful. But have you seen the modern version of it? Please view here! http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4853/1803/1600/The-Creation-of-Darwin.jpgtb_{March 28, 2006
March
03
Mar
28
28
2006
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Who all thinks this is quite humorous and will enjoy seeing much more of it?

(www.vengaza.org)
DaveScot_{March 27, 2006
March
03
Mar
27
27
2006
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

It parodies Fundamentalist Christianity. Most moderate Christians I know have thought the whole 'FSM thing' to be quite humorous.
Wrong. It parodies religion in general and the creation account in Genesis in particular. The most famous depiction of the FSM, shown in the wiki article above, is replacing God in Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" with the FSM. Most moderate Christians are not familiar enough with it (yet) to have an informed opinion. Greater than 50% of all adults in the U.S., which means an even larger majority of Christians, believe that God created humans in their present form and the FSM mocks that belief. -ds Marckus_{March 27, 2006
March
03
Mar
27
27
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply