US Pastafarians demand equal rights to place a public holiday display

[FortyTwo]

Is politics more important than children, or old ladies who treasure their religion and do the setting up of the tree each year?.

To be painfully honest, yes. Wacky or non-conformist (read: not Judeo-Christian) holiday decorations are an expression of the fight that is continually ensuring religious freedom is kept and we don't revert back to a culture that treasures one over the other. So those old ladies and children can thank the weirdos hanging up FSM posters for keeping it real.

 

[Blobbenstein]

having the church and state too connected is bad for both, I think.....Christians should have more of the ethos of the first Christians, and they certainly didn't rely on the government to look after them.

 

[sequoia]

Is politics more important than children, or old ladies who treasure their religion and do the setting up of the tree each year?

Yes.

Where do you draw the line? Or is anything that upsets kids and grannies off-limits?

 

[KLS52]

I'm somewhat confused by this whole discussion, but then, what else is new?
What is all the fuss supposed to be about? If it's about separation of church and state and not having religious displays on government property, I'm totally cool with that. If it's about representing 92 different beliefs/non-beliefs and having Santa, a Menorrah, a nativity scene, the seven symbols of Kwanzaa, a statue of the FSM, and being all inclusive, etc. that's cool too.
I'm not sure if it's because I live in NY, under a rock, or whatever, but I'm so thankful that I don't come across, in RL, any of the dissension that I see in so many of the things I read about online.
But personally speaking from my perspective, something like what occurred in Leesburg, Va. is a definite ragging on Christian beliefs. They may well have the right to put up such a banner, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me that it wasn't done to ridicule and deface something that holds such importance to people of the Christian faith. This is where I'm not understanding the purpose of such actions. It's one thing if you want to put a banner of the FSM next to a tree/creche. What was actually done is entirely different. That type of banner does nothing, IMO, to make a positive point in favor of non-believers. It goes along with all of the jokes I hear/see regarding believing in an invisible man and making baby Jesus cry. What is the point of these types of remarks if not to ridicule and poke fun? Where does the anger/resentment come from?
Perhaps it has to do with all of the "shoving religion down our throats" bit. Again, I can only guess that maybe it's a regional thing because I don't come up against stuff like that...with an exception of an occasional JW person who may knock on my door in the Spring. But I have the option of not answering the door if I choose not to.
I happen to celebrate Christmas and I'll admit I also don't get what all the fuss is about "people trying to take Christmas away" that I see all over FB. No one can take away Christmas...hasn't everyone seen Dr. Seuss's "How the Grinch stole Christmas"?
I must be missing something or I'm over simplifying cause I kind of don't get it.

 

[Josh James xVx]

The way I see things is that it doesn't take away anyone's holiday traditions to either have the government recognize someone else's too or to not recognize anyone's at all.

Christians in the USA, especially conservative areas, seem to misunderstand what persecution and discrimination actually are. If they're not allowed to force people to participate in Christian prayers in school, for instance, they say people are taking away their beliefs or their rights. But nobody's telling them not to pray or not to believe. Saying you can't force everyone else to be like you is not the same as saying you can't be yourself.

 

[FortyTwo]

But personally speaking from my perspective, something like what occurred in Leesburg, Va. is a definite ragging on Christian beliefs. They may well have the right to put up such a banner, but there is no way anyone is going to convince me that it wasn't done to ridicule and deface something that holds such importance to people of the Christian faith. This is where I'm not understanding the purpose of such actions. It's one thing if you want to put a banner of the FSM next to a tree/creche. What was actually done is entirely different. That type of banner does nothing, IMO, to make a positive point in favor of non-believers. It goes along with all of the jokes I hear/see regarding believing in an invisible man and making baby Jesus cry. What is the point of these types of remarks if not to ridicule and poke fun? Where does the anger/resentment come from?

In the case of the hanging cross Santa, yeah, I agree, that's a bit over the top and rude. But in the case of the FSM banner? As I've tried to point out before, Pastafarianism isn't just some joke to try and rag on Christians (or even religion in general), it's a legitimate set of moral guidelines with concern to the separation of church and state and makes some very good points in terms of the educational system. Just because this religion likes to toy with goofy concepts doesn't make it any less legitimate, or reduce it to an attack.

As for remarks about the baby Jesus and whatnot... I don't know what to tell you. People have just as much of a right to say that in jest as they do to put honest thought into it. Much of the time, non-believers are going to be ridiculed by believers anyway, so there isn't really a positive case to even be made.

And of course, none of that applies to Pastafarianism. Adherents to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster believe in His Noodly Appendages as their saviors, and nothing should, or will, cause them to turn away from them.

 

[KLS52]

The way I see things is that it doesn't take away anyone's holiday traditions to either have the government recognize someone else's too or to not recognize anyone's at all.

Exactly.

Christians in the USA, especially conservative areas, seem to misunderstand what persecution and discrimination actually are. If they're not allowed to force people to participate in Christian prayers in school, for instance, they say people are taking away their beliefs or their rights. But nobody's telling them not to pray or not to believe. Saying you can't force everyone else to be like you is not the same as saying you can't be yourself.

I agree, again. Maybe the problem is with the fact that they are so used to having prayers in the school, for instance, so now when you tell them they can no longer do that, it does feel like you are "taking something away" since they previously had it. It's human nature. I used to be able to do this...now I can't. I guess my not living in a conservative area is the reason I don't come across these types of issues.

In the case of the hanging cross Santa, yeah, I agree, that's a bit over the top and rude. But in the case of the FSM banner? As I've tried to point out before, Pastafarianism isn't just some joke to try and rag on Christians (or even religion in general), it's a legitimate set of moral guidelines with concern to the separation of church and state and makes some very good points in terms of the educational system. Just because this religion likes to toy with goofy concepts doesn't make it any less legitimate, or reduce it to an attack.

As for remarks about the baby Jesus and whatnot... I don't know what to tell you. People have just as much of a right to say that in jest as they do to put honest thought into it. Much of the time, non-believers are going to be ridiculed by believers anyway, so there isn't really a positive case to even be made.

And of course, none of that applies to Pastafarianism. Adherents to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster believe in His Noodly Appendages as their saviors, and nothing should, or will, cause them to turn away from them.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I thought Pastafarianism was a joke, only that making the banner using symbols that Christians hold dear and changing it the way they did was intended to ridicule and insult. I understand that is my opinion and how I take it. I would think there are plenty of other ways of introducing a new belief system without trying to do damage to existing ones, that's all.
I am all in favor of free speech. I just don't like to see it used to bring people down. Blame my being a product of the 60's-70's...peace, love and all that jazz.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

I have used the "crying baby jesus" and "imaginary friend" things. I live in a very religious state, and have lived my whole life with people trying to force me to believe what I believe, or to shame me when I don't. So I do tend to lash out sometimes.
The majority of the time, I can just change the subject or walk away, but sometimes I can't. I'd also like to say that I'm far more likely to say something "made the baby jesus cry" when I'm online, either in a discussion, or venting, than I am to say it to someone's face.

I hide everything my step-mother posts on Facebook, because it's all about how she, as a Christian, is being persecuted. But if she comes onto one of my posts and says something jesus-y, I'm likely to reply with something to do with imaginary friends. Otherwise I just ignore her.

 

[Josh James xVx]

This thread's not about the school creationism debate, but it's the best thread I could think of off the top of my head for this:
Should creationism be taught in schools? Here's your answer:
"Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science."
—Justin Pope


^ Maybe government buildings should be used for government, for that matter.

 

[FortyTwo]

This thread's not about the school creationism debate, but it's the best thread I could think of off the top of my head for this:
Should creationism be taught in schools? Here's your answer:
"Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science."
—Justin Pope


^ Maybe government buildings should be used for government, for that matter.

YES. There we go, to the root of the cause.