Queer Eye for the Straight Creation Account
It’s from six-ish weeks ago, but I just saw it, so maybe you hadn’t yet either, since you probably just let those issues pile up in your bathroom and never really get around to reading them. Paul Rudnick takes on intelligent design in The New Yorker.
I’m finding Flying Spaghetti Monster more and more appealing all the time.
ae: I looooove flying spaghetti monster !!
Becasue of an ongoing court battle over ID, MSNBC was asking people to write in regarding the question “Should ID be taught in schools” … this is what I wrote them:
Respectfully, I that if people want their kids taught about so-called “Intelligent Design” then they are free to send them to parochial schools. Supreme Court case law on the separation of Church and State is quite clear, and to the extent that some Americans don’t appreciate why America’s founding fathers deemed the establishment clause so important that it was put in the very first amendment in the bill of rights, then they should consider moving to a theocratic state like Iran, and then they will figure it out.
er that should have read “Respectfully, I think that”
This is very funny. “I’m going to call him Buttons.”
Thank you so much for posting it.
Can’t refrain from noticing: Buddah character definitely fits, making kinda hippie-ish remarks, and Apollo is also perfect with his artsy comments. But Allah might have been named anything else – he has no distinct characteristics at all. Why not? Oh and Jesus is not even in there. Does it mean he’s supposed to be included in Lord God? Just interesting how the author has to maneuver around “political correctness.”)
ill remind you that nowhere in any of our founding father’s documents does the phrase or concept of “Seperation of Curch and State” appear. Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion…not from keeping reliogion hidden in a bag in the attic. That’s all I’m saying…
If you liked Rudnick’s piece, you might enjoy “Queer Eye for a Straight God” in Killing the Buddha http://www.killingtheb uddha.com/dogma/queerey e.htm
anon wrote “nowhere in any of our founding father’s documents does the phrase or concept of “Seperation of Curch and State” appear”
Actually, that is not true. Thomas Jefferson – the primary author of the US constitution – wrote about “a wall of separation between church and state” as being the philosophical underpinning of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
“Actually, that is not true. Thomas Jefferson – the primary author of the US constitution – wrote about “a wall of separation between church and state” as being the philosophical underpinning of the establishment clause of the first amendment.”
Wow john, you know very little about american history or constitutional law, so allow me to assist you.
The supreme court currently interprets the first amendment to include the separation of church and state, but this was not always the case.
The purpose of the first amendment was to prevent CONGRESS from passing any law that would impede in official state religions. See, back then, many states had their own state religion, and the good folks of these states did not want the federal govt interfering with their religion (which is why it is the only amendment to specifically mention congress).
That Jefferson quote you brought up is actually referring to the wall set up between state religions and the federal govt. In fact, Jefferson himself inserted a heavy religious curriculum into a “public school” (its equivalent at the time) which he started up.
Just because in the past century left leaning judges started reading a separation of church and state into the constitution, doesnt mean that it now is part of the constitution, and doesnt mean that it cant be interpreted out of the constitution.
Also Jefferson wasn’t the author of the first amendment.