13 thoughts on “Stupidity + Politics + Religion

  1. This isn’t up to the usual high standards of this blog. Even accepting your entrenched opposition to Republicans, this diagram contains the following bizarre claims:

    Stupidity, Intelligent Design, Republicans and Fundamentalism form a set – are there no clever Republicans, no stupid Democrats? What evidence is there that Fundamentalism and Stupidity correlate? This blog possesses fundamentalist stances on certain issues such as the US constitution – is this blog stupid?

    Politics, Republicans, Intelligent Design and The Dark Ages form a set. What kind of set is this supposed to be? What is it that links the Dark Ages to Politics exactly?

    Religion, Intelligent Design, The Dark Ages and Fundamentalism form a set. This one *almost* works, except that “Intelligent Design” and “The Dark Ages” aren’t related – the metaphysical underpinnings of ID have nothing to do with the Early Middle Ages. Furthermore, since the only religion relating to Intelligent Design is Christianity, what basis for saying “Religion” here? What, for instance, does Taoism, Zen Buddhism or Shinto have to do with either Intelligent Design or the Dark Ages?

    Okay, so this is a cheap joke at the expense of Republicans and the Intelligent Design movement, that just happens to also be insulting to religion in general. I’m sure other people will guffaw at this, but personally I just don’t understand why people in the US seem to believe that the appropriate process for politics is the denigration of opposing beliefs… is this just a habit that people don’t know how to break? Or do you believe that something positive comes from deepening the entrenchment of opposing political views?

    You’re free to say whatever you wish, of course, but you’re a bright passionate individual, and this cheap shot is – in my opinion at least – beneath you.

  2. Chris, you appear to be simultaneously taking this diagram too seriously and misunderstanding it. Or it’s possible I’m misunderstanding what you are saying.

    ID is very much the result of mixing religion, politics, and stupidity. This is an opinion, of course, not a fact, but it is a well-supported opinion, I think.

    Note here, that since we’re talking about ID, the ‘religion’ part must necessarily be Christianity only … ID has nothing to do with any other religion. So, obviously, this is not insulting to any religion but Christianity. Plus, it’s not even insulting Christians either, since it is NOT saying all Christians are stupid … quite the opposite in fact.

    The conceit can be criticized as being a bit provincial, but that’s all.

    You talk about all these things forming a set … I don’t understand what you mean.

    “Stupidity, Intelligent Design, Republicans, and Fundamentalism” do NOT form a set, for instance. Fundamentalism can be described as the intersection between stupidity and religion. As such, any comparison to the “fundamentalism” of this blog simply does not apply. This blog is not religious.

    The diagram as a whole *is* a joke, not much more. However, it is not saying or implying the things you seem to think it is saying or implying.


  3. I don’t understand diagrams probably because I don’t completely comprehend geometry. It seems to me even though the diagram may be valid, one can insert any words they want in the spaces. So in that sense, it is nonsensical, at least to me. If someone wants to explain it to me, I will listen but that would probably be the same as someone trying to explain a joke. Either you get it or you don’t. And I don’t. On the other hand, I am not offended. But then, I am not a Republican nor a Democrat.

  4. As opposed to previous commenters – I GET IT. It meets all of my definitions of Mannichean thinking.

    Bravo Zulu, moonbat.

  5. I think the confusion comes from the centerpiece “Intelligent Design” standing for the clumsier, but more accurate, label: “Teaching Intelligent Design As Science.”

    Intelligent Design is a personal spiritual belief. It arises from faith, not science. Republicans and fundamentalists, with their Dark Ages mentality, are putting forth the lie that it is science, and insisting that it be taught in public schools.

    (And Chris: Religion married to Politics yielded the Dark Ages. I mean, really.)

    The overall design might make more sense if the centerpiece, rather than “Intelligent Design,” read “George W. Bush.” Any more, he’s not so much a person as a horribly failed concept.

  6. I’ve had a bit of time to think about this diagram after posting it. While it isn’t perfect, and has shortcomings as well as bias, I feel it still conveys a certain amount of truth, and manages to present it in a succinct, clever, and to me, funny way. Critics are right, this isn’t up to the usual standard of careful exposition found on this blog, but I found it amusing enough and truthful enough – despite the shortcomings – to post it anyway.

    As for grannyeagle’s comment #3, I’m a visual thinker – show me a picture – I’d never make it as a lawyer – and so part of this diagram’s charm is the way it expresses a lot with very little. I ate up Venn diagrams when they were taught to me in grade school. This simple example from wikipedia might help those who are unfamiliar with this way of expressing information.

  7. Ha!
    I don’t need no stinkin’ picture, I caught the reptilian “debate” the night before last. (nice job anywho, MB)
    Please make one correction, the intersection between insanity and religion = fundamentalism. Big difference between crazy and stupid.(ie: Pat Robertson, the bunch at TBN)

  8. I think, joanr16, that “Intelligent Design” and “teaching Intelligent Design as science” are essentially the same concept.

    Nobody independently came up with ID as a serious alternative to evolution. It was always meant to be a trojan horse for creationism. Oppponents of teaching creationism in school were extremely successful, because it is blatantly nothing but christian religious doctrine. ID was designed to be able to still say “god-did-it” without being obviously christian.


  9. What is it that links the Dark Ages to Politics exactly?

    In todays political arena it would be the Republican candidates. They might have better teeth than their predecessors, and aren’t wearing robes, but their mindsets and reasoning are exactly the same as the authorities of the dark ages. Guiliani and Romney wouldn’t hesitate to re-introduce the strappado for the interrogation of infidels or terror suspects. And Huckabee is off on a God serving tangent just like Torquemada of old. None of them are playing with a full deck.

  10. OK, moonbat, thanks for the example from Wikipedia. Now, I sort of get how each circle is supposed to relate to every other circle. I too am visual but I like things like mandalas or the symbol of the Tao. Something happens to my subconscious with them. I can’t just look at a diagram without having to figure it out. Strains my brain. Makes me tired. Think I will go take a nap.

  11. I think, joanr16, that “Intelligent Design” and “teaching Intelligent Design as science” are essentially the same concept.

    Only if you allow the Religious Right, who employ the former phrase as code for the latter one, to dictate your vocabulary. In the U.S. it’s still true that most people who hold the personal spiritual belief of “intelligent design” do not support the teaching of that personal belief in our schools.

    Intellectual shortcuts, obfuscation and misuse of language are the current tricks of the Right. Let’s be clear and correct, if only to piss them off.

    Having said that, I still “get” the diagram, and think it’s mostly true.

  12. fercryininthesink, it’s just a joke, folks! albeit a snarky and snide one, but the malice behind it is miniscule compared to the malice behind the creationists’ desire to indoctrinate the whole country into their beliefs.

    anyway, if you loved moonbat’s geometrical analysis of id, you’ll love the title of this book.

Comments are closed.