Kansas School Board Responses to the Open Letter

Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh – District 1 – Received 6/25/05

From: [email protected][xxxxxxx]
To: [email protected]
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of Education

Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.

Thanks again,

Janet Waugh District 1

Response from Mrs. Sue Gamble – District 2 – Received 6/26/05

From: [email protected][xxxxxxxxx]
To: [email protected]
Date: Jun 26, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: Reply

Dear Mr. Henderson, Thanks for your message. Thanks for the laugh. Your web site is fascinating. I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate. I am practicing how to do this with a straight face which is difficult since it’s such a ridiculous subject; it is also very sad that we are even having the discussion.

I will be one of the four member minority who will be voting against the flawed science standards currently being proposed by the six member majority.


Sue Gamble

Response from Mrs. Carol Rupe – District 8 – Received 8/16/05

From: Carol Rupe
To: [email protected]
Date: Aug 16, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Kansas State Board of Education

Dear Mr. Henderson,

In the midst of the sad circumstances of having our science standards lowered, you and your legion of fellow FSM followers have offered wonderful comic relief. Rather than the form letters which we often receive on other topics, each FSM letter has been clever and unique. I responded to several at first, but now there have just been too many. I am a member of the Kansas State Board of Education and have voted repeatedly to maintain excellent science standards. Last week was the vote to send a new draft (written by the 6 conservative members) out for external review. The four of us on the board who are moderates were in the minority on the vote. The group of science teachers and university professors who had written the original standards (before they were changed) have now asked that their names be withdrawn from the document. The new version changes the very definition of science from “seeking natural explanations” to “seeking logical explanations”. That is why I think FSMism is able to be included. It is as “logical” as any other theory.

The final vote on the standards will be in October. We will be in Lawrence, Kansas for that meeting. Those of us who are moderates on the board are trying to have the meeting in the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. We think that would be an appropriate setting for the occasion. We welcome you to be in attendance.

We have received thousands of emails from scientists around the world. At first, they all tried to explain good science to us. After the vote last week, however, they have resorted to calling us hillbillies and morons. And those are the nice letters!

Thank you for adding levity to this situation. You have developed quite a following. I was wondering if we could reverse the effects of global warming if we started breeding pirates.

Carol Rupe

P.S. I ordered a Kansas Museum of Science t-shirt. I may just have to wear it to a board meeting.

From: Mrs. Kathy Martin, District 6

“It is a serious offense to mock God.”

1,912 Responses to “Kansas School Board Responses to the Open Letter”

  1. Netherboy says:


    (The sound made when partaking of the noodly one)


  2. Miroslav says:

    To Mrs. Kathy Martin District 6,

    The letter sent to the Kansas School Board regarding the FSM was not meant to mock “God.” A person in your position surely must be intelligent enough to realize that? The intent was to mock, well among other people, you. The idea that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory is what is being mocked, and those who believe that ID is a valid scientific theory and should be taught in science class are being mocked. The letter attempts to show that if Intelignent Desing actually does meet the standard for being taught as science, then based upon those standards, there is no reason why FSM should not be taught as an alternate theory as well.

    At issue isn’t yours or anyone elses belief in God. At issue is why should students be taught about God in the guise of science? I prefer my religion to be taught to me by someone who actually knows and understands the material, someone who can help guide me when I have a question, someone like, oh I don’t know, a Priest or Pastor? (or whatever title is used in your religion…) Wouldn’t that be more appropriate than say an overworked underpaid public school science teacher who has not studied religion as a major field of study? I think we can all agree that you would not want to have someone teaching nuclear physics who isn’t say a nuclear physicist? Right?

    Science takes a look at the available evidence and tries to come up with the best possible explanation that fits the facts. When more evidence becomes available, past conclusions are re-examined to see if it still makes sense with the new data. Things like “the world is flat,” or “the Earth is the center of the solar System and the sun revolves around the Earth,” were believed to be accurate, and were taught as fact. Eventually evidence came along that proved that the world was not flat and the Earth in fact revolved around the Sun (not the other way as was once believed…) Science can correct itself based upon new findings and new evidence.

    Science answers “how.” how does this work, how did it happen etc… By gathering evidence and obseving how things work now, you make theories on how they might have worked before or how other similar things work. In science there is a mechanism that allows errors to be corrected. That mechanism is called “The Scientific Method.”

    Religion answers the question “why.” It does so by the use of Dogma. Why should I not “Covet my neigbors wife?” Because God told you so. Why shouldn’t I “Use the lords name in vain?” Because God told you so. Dogma does not have a mechanism like the Scientific Method to validate its teachings. Dogma by definition needs no validating. Therefore it is not and can never be consdiered science. You have a problem with one of Gods rules? Then it’s tough to be you I guess, because that rule ain’t gonna change. Why? Because it is dogma.

    Dogma is not science. Religion is not science. The FSM site and the letter sent to the Kansas School Board was not intended to mock God. It was intended to mock those idiots at the Kansas School Board who think that teaching religious dogma disguised as science (Intelligent Design) sounds like a good idea. I am going to guess that God is smart enough to understand that He (or She) was not being mocked by this site or that letter, it’s a shame that you couldn’t see that, Mrs. Kathy Martin.

  3. Cam says:

    Dear Kathy,

    Do not mock the mocking, or the sacred semolina of His body will be upon you, and low, it shall be moist and starchy (if not properly rinsed). The coldness of his shoulder-like meat-ball will chill your shaky-cheese until it no longer shakes appropriately. I fear for your immortal sauce!


    Toronto, Ontaro

  4. Xaos says:

    I’m from Britain, so I’m not entirely sure how it works in the United States, but in Britain we have ‘Religious Education’ lessons, where ideas such as ID and deities can be discussed and argued rationally and coherently. Does America have such a thing? And if so, why don’t you teach Creationism in these lessons? At least with this, religion does not need to be couched in pseudo-scientific terms and taught as fact with ‘collaborating evidence’.
    Come to your senses and remove ID from science lessons and back to Theology where it belongs. At least then you won’t have to have evidence for your delusional rantings! I mean, surely all rational people know that the great FSM created all things! I pray that you will one day be touched by His Noodly Appendage, so that you too may come to know the glory that is the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

  5. Danny-love says:

    I second the breeding of pirates (only if all parties are willing of course! otherwise that would be violating #4 of the ‘Things I’d Rather You Didn’t)!!!

    And Miss Kathy… For shame… for shame…

  6. Huey says:

    The similarities between “It is a serious offense to mock God” and the recent puerile insecurities displayed by some muslims over what the pope had quoted are striking. Why does god, in all of its omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience, need one puny Kathy Martin to defend it? Why? Isn’t it just a little presumptuous, if not down right arrogant for you to be offended in god’s stead?

  7. Adam says:

    My dear Kathy,
    Don’t you see the hypocracy of it all? Your little sentence was a powerful comment, especially because you suggest that we are mocking God. Do you hate terrorists, mrs. Martin? Because the terrorists kill in the name of your God. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same God.

  8. Issac says:

    Dear Kathy,
    You say that it is a serious offense to mock god, but do you not mock our great, pasta-based creator by your insulting his teachings? You are willing to believe the bible, a book that has been altered so many times that we might as well get rid of the whole thing, but you are not willing to even take into consideration that maybe, you are wrong, and that our creator was in fact a spaghetti monster not a man. You are hypocritical and rather simple minded.

Leave a Reply