Comment on the Open Letter

I wrote the Open Letter sometime around January of 2005 and posted it online several months later after receiving no reply from the Kansas School Board. Within days of posting it online, the letter became an internet phenomenon, generating tens of thousands of visits each day, as well as personal responses from the school board members themselves. To date (July 2010), the venganza website has received tens of millions of visits. This website operates on a dedicated server which lives in Sweden. I’ve received over 60,000 emails in response to the letter.

The letter, after making the rounds on the internet for months, was printed in several large newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun Times, and many others. The newspaper articles caught the attention of book publishers, and at one point there were six publishers interested in getting the Word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster out to the public. In the end, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was released by Random House in March of 2006.

It’s now been several years since the FSM phenomenon started and it seems that there is a staying power that no one had anticipated. Future goals for the church include becoming recognized as a legitimate religious organization with all inherit benefits *and tax loopholes* that the mainstream religions enjoy.

Please leave me a comment on the Letter, the FSM movement as a whole, or whatever you like. Thanks,


4,300 Responses to “Comment on the Open Letter”

1 3 4 5 6 7 359
  1. Thor says:

    You are the greatest man who ever lived! Finally I can see the truth!!!

    And some idiotic christians should be enlightened!!!

  2. TOMATOE the PROPHET says:


  3. mossdog says:

    All hail the noodly appendage!!!

  4. Ryan says:

    I know you get a lot of emails claiming that you are against religion or whatnot, but your arguments don’t support those claims. It seems you’re interested in keeping science in the science class. While I have no problem with the theory of Intelligent Design, I do have a problem with it being taught as science. It abandones the scientific method. As such, it can’t possibly constitute a science of any kind. It’s a theoretical proposal that bases itself in an absence of evidence. To be science, it must base itself in the presence of evidence. If someone so wishes to teach ID in a science class, then they should be willing to teach FSMism as well, and likewise to teach German in an English class, and to teach political theory in a math class. You have my full support! Besides, it’s more fun to pillage and plunder and get drunk than to sit in church listening to a man talk about not doing this or not doing that in a mono-tone voice.

  5. Captain Reed Bradenbeard says:

    Arg, I think this young lad has it in the Gospel Truth! Me mateys and I support this lad in his mission to enlighten the wee tykes to our peaceful ways. Long live Captain Mosey! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!

  6. WB says:

    Interesting, Ryan, your argument against intelligent design being taught… It’s what philosophers refer to as a “straw man” fallacy. That is where you paint an incorrct picture of your opponent’s position and proceed to argue against this “fake” position. The problem is that you are not arguing against the actual position of your opponent at all. First of all, I would inform you that there is plenty of evidence for a young-earth creation. Geological studies of the grand canyon and niagara falls, biological studies of mitochindrial DNA, paleontology, etc… I could write an encyclopedia on all the specifics, so check out some resources like They have articles on all sorts of topics, many of which include very detailed scientific evidence for young-earth creation. Second, I would draw down your ill-founded notion that (macro)evolution theory is based upon any vestige of evidence or experimentation at all. It is not shown by any form of the scientific method, but rather by pure speculation. It kind of SEEMS like science IF you walk into the laboratory assuming evolution to be true, but beginning with major assumptions is not a part of the scientific method. So, for macrevolution (the kind required to turn amoebae into people) to be given scientific evidence, someone somewhere has got to prove, using the scientific method, that some new feature arose by changes in DNA over time. You simply will not find this supposed evidence. No scientist has ever seen any new feature arise in any creature. They are always after the “missing link”… If you look at the proposed constructs of what evolved from what, you will see that absolutely NONE of these creatures are “linked” in the way you would expect if they had arisen by gradual change. Now, what they use in textbooks to support macroevolution is called microevolution. No reasonably informed person would reject microevolution.. you can see it in dog breeds and such. However, microevolution is merely a redistribution of already-present genetic information (i.e. dog breeds again if you study it, no new genetic info). It dows not show any NEW genetic info, a MASSIVE amount of which is needed to account for evolution. The only other supposed “evidence” for evolution is basically that many animals looks kind of similar and have similar bone structures (note that the differences ares still significant enough not to be accounted for by microevolution). So the “argument” for evolution based on “science” is “they look kind of similar, this system kind of makes sense if you think about it with a lot of assumptions and don’t examine the evidence.” All sorts of so-called evolutionary “proofs” can be shown not to support thair claims… many even dis-prove evolution (ref. irreducible complexity). Evolution, in a sense, requires more faith in man’s opinion (not science) than creation does in God. If evolution, then, is good enough to be taught in classrooms, so is intelligent design.

  7. nathanial reed says:

    i can see that this is a joke, and very funny to show us how crazy one persons beleafes can seem to some one eles

    but i think it as gotten way out of hand when you sale a book and other stuff

    but nice to see that you can make money off of anything

    just think of the pet rock, some one made a lot of money off of that too and it was just as dumn

  8. Leslie says:

    Yarr, you spelled midget wrong!

  9. Sister NoodleHead says:

    Does anyone know the exact limit of lines allowable in a comment before it becomes too long to read? PennHigh and WB and even Geona all might have very interesting things to say but in fact when a comment is over 15 lines long it is skipped by 90% of readers coming along. Now, studies show that when a blog entry is divided up by blank lines, then the total readable number of lines increases to 25. Interesting.

    All Hail His Noodly Appendageness!

  10. djjack says:

    To Nathaniel… You do have a point about the Pet Rock, and how people can make money off really stupid things. More power to them, I say. I never bought a Pet Rock, but I’d buy some FSM merchandise just for fun and to do my part to get in the way of right-wing crackpots insinuating their version of reality into my children’s education. If Bobby makes money, good for him. He deserves it for being so silly and clever at the same time.

  11. California Boy says:

    I wouldn’t want to be you when you stand before God.

    If you are right, and evolution is the only answer, then we will all just be dirt-food when we die. But if you are wrong, and the intelligent design people are right and there is a God, then you’ll be in a tough spot.

    By the way, did you ever read what the Kansas School Board had proposed? It doesn’t sound like it from your letter.

  12. Brad says:

    Great site and keep up the good work!

    @WB – You say that intelligent design is supported by things such as mitochondrial DNA, but you fail (or decide not) to acknowlegde that mitochondria being present in cells today is a proof in favor of evoution.

1 3 4 5 6 7 359