Re: Note to "Did you already MOO today..."
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:43:57 +0100, Jakob Johannes Blatte
>> To my opinion it can be bad for our world if joke religion gets lot
>> of influence in our world with the distribution of well known
> Well, that depends. One person's joke is another person's
> honest belief. And then there are people who strongly believe that
> any mention of a deity is mere superstition, who would consider
> _any_ religion a joke. I don't think it is correct to sit in
> judgement and say which belief has merit and which is a joke. And
> once you start with MOOism, where do you stop? Is pastafarianism
> and the FSM next?
> Actually I think that the inventors of joke religion already judge
> saying religion as such is a joke.
Which is as much their right as the proponents of religions to
promote their beliefs.
> This is so because they disregard the religious feelings of others
> when mocking on true religion.
What is "true" religion?
Why is it OK to disdain people who might believe in the flying
spaghetti monster as being mere pranksters?
What about the feelings of the people who think that the world
is hurt by superstitious beliefs?
> This is so because of the suggestion, when a well known software
> propagates joke religion, it is allowed to make a joke out of
Of course it is allowed to make a joke out of religion.
> And this is so, when many people accept this ideas without thinking
> and following the simple but wrong ideas that say: "Why religion?"
> or "Strange ideas in religion, I don't (want to) understand",
> f.ex. because a software is well known.
I think that is on worse than people accepting religious
superstition without thought, frankly.
> Of course, if you separate joke religion from true religion
Personally, I am not sure such a separation is possible. To a
christian, the believers of Kali (goddess of death, destruction,
assassination, and murder) might appear to be a non-"true" religion,
and vice versa.
I can certainly see that you think that pastafarians beliefs
do not deserve the protection of "faith". I am not sure on what basis
one may apply the criteria of such separation.
> then you must say: I appreciate your believe as a form of
> serious religion but I only wanted to make a joke on my behalf.
Can one really make a joke on behalf of other people? Or
profess some belief set on behalf of other people either?
Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we
ourselves possess. -- Gandalf the Grey [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C