Published: April 01, 2008 05:43 pm      

SEEING THROUGH THE HAYES: Flying Spaghetti Monster exposes myth of neutrality in public square

Funny. Deplorable. Profound. Weird. Those are just several of the reactions one might hear when discussing the Cumberland County courthouse’s newest lawn ornament – the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The art fixture may be seen as harmless by some, insulting by others, but one thing is for sure—our noodley acquaintance sitting in the middle of town proves a point.

At her blog at http://itlovesyou.blogspot.com, Ariel Safdie has stated the statue is “intended to create discourse on the role of religion on public property.” Whether or not the statue was put up to ridicule the notion of religion influencing public policy I cannot prove. However, I do think it’s safe to say there are some out there who look at someone allowing his or her faith to influence his or her views on government to be as ridiculous as considering the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a respectable deity.

While some may argue the statue was not locally done in effort to mock or belittle Christians, the idea of the spaghetti monster in its original context was proposed to do just that. In other words, the spaghetti monster concept was created to undermine the credibility of Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution. In spite of their best efforts to appear as the objective, rational party, those opposed to Intelligent Design and the influence of religion upon the state have shown themselves to not be so “neutral” after all.

Upholding something as tangible as the spaghetti monster affirms a connection to an ideology through a symbolic bond. This ideology holds that “separation of church and state” means one must divorce any conviction gained from religious faith from public policy in addition to prohibiting any discussion of a Creator in the realm of “science.” However, no one comes to the public square without drawing their ideas from some source whether it’s secular humanism, Marxism or federalism.

By a fallacious interpretation of the First Amendment, many in our society believe government cannot legislate based on ideas derived from ideologies deemed religious. Furthermore, it begs the question, who determines what’s considered “religious”?

In our present context, those advocating for a completely secular state discriminate against those who appeal to Christianity or the Bible for guidance in public policy by merely labeling their agenda as religious. In a country with a constitution that promises the right to free speech and freedom of religion, people from all worldviews should be able to argue their positions on public policy based on ideas drawn from their particular belief system.

In a liberal democracy, the free exchange of ideas should include arguments from those who are self-consciously religious, such as evangelical Christians, and arguments from those who may be unknowingly “irreligiously” religious, such as secularists.

In summation, the spaghetti monster unveils the secular myth of neutrality when it comes to politics. I applaud the county government in being consistent with the free exchange of ideas by granting the statue a place on the courthouse lawn along with the other artistic and religious expressions. While the idea of creation via the Flying Spaghetti Monster may seem ridiculous, modern Darwinist dogma is even more ridiculous in saying the universe came into existence out of nothing. To put it in mathematical terms, nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything.

If Congress is to give no precedence to one religion over another, let’s make sure the Church of Darwin is treated no differently.