Treat other religions with respect

Published July 9th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

When I first found this site, I was thoroughly amused.  I understand and even agree with your argument on the teaching of the Theory of Intelligent Design in public schools.  Your way of presenting this was very amusing, and wittily got your opinion expressed on the subject matter.

I sincerely wish I would’ve stopped scanning your website after reading your letter.
It was the attitude of the rest of the website that made me stop and feel terrible for the people who disagree with you.  From the video of the Flying Spaghetti Monster float performing a "religious action" on a random person to the tab specially designed for hate mail, I was instantly turned off to your concept of how you express your opinions.

Believing in something is one thing, but pounding others into the dust–pretty much BEGGING for the opportunity for someone to argue with you?  That’s something entirely different.  I know people must be begging for the hate mail that only screams at what a dumb religion yours is… just so that you can slam your argument into their faces. 

I think your message got lost a long time ago, Bobby.  It’s really sad… you had a good thing going, I think.  It’s really sad that your message of "don’t teach Intelligent Design in our schools" turned into "religion is pointless", which then turned into "everyone who believes in a religion is below me, and that gives me the right to completely disrespect everything they stand for".  It’s really sad that people join this group just so that they can slam onto other people.  Because really?  What are you hoping to accomplish at this point?

I may not agree with Christianity 100%, but I do believe "Do Unto Others" is a great philosophy to live by.  So is "Turn The Other Cheek".  Basically, treat other religions with respect… but if they don’t honor your viewpoints back?  Take the high road.  Maybe make a simple comment (like your letter) and be done with it.  By dragging it out like this, you’re making yourself look bad… and that’s all.

Thank you for your time,

838 Responses to “Treat other religions with respect”

1 19 20 21 22 23 25
  1. Maria Satelite says:

    If you think this church is going to offend people tell them not to go on it and ignore it yourself, and please do not
    offend us loyal Pastafarians.

  2. Cole says:

    Sorry, but y’all are bout stupid if you think anyone cares bout this crap. I heard of this bout a year ago and just laughed really hard because y’all are just dumb. So obviously you need to do somethin different if you wanna have any impact than just feeling better bout yourselves. But ya, have fun being retards!

    • OHMYFSM says:

      ODE TO COLE:

      Old King Cole
      Was a merry old soul
      With a buckskin belly
      And a rubber asshole.

      • Keith says:

        Reminds me of the old rhyme we had in primary school:

        Old king Cole was a merry old soul
        And a merry old soul was he
        He called for a light in the middle of the night
        ’cause he wanted to go to the dunny
        Lighning struck the toilet door
        When Old king Cole was in it
        So Old king Cole fell down the hole
        And swallowed all the shit

        Looks like he’s decided to share it with us.

    • Stonefield says:

      Well Cole,

      it obviously isn’t so dumb that you dont’t want to partake in it …

      (First think, then write…)

    • Neph says:

      Thanks Cole, being called a retard by someone who says “y’all” made me smile. ^_^

  3. Mike Mellor says:

    This “Hate Mail” page is the funniest thing on the internet. I laughed so much that Nurse Smedley ran out of oxygen and heart pills and had to sedate me. Those letters sounded so genuine, I almost thought they were real. A work of huge imagination, exceeded (arguably) only by “Catch-22” and “The Bible.”

    • Stonefield says:

      Mike Mellor, huh?

      aka Mikey Mouse, Marylin Monroe, Marylin Manson and the artist formely known as Prince?

      • Theo says:

        Dude, the artist formely known as Prince is not the preferred nomenclature. Prince, The Artist Formerly Known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince, please.

        • Stonefield says:

          I’m sorry,

          i just didn’t want to be redundant. But if i need to be the real proper nomenclature should be: Prince, The Artist Formerly Know as “Symbol” formerly known as the Artist Formerly know as Prince. (Whereas “Symbol” is represented by some cheap looking shiny thing you probably can buy a dozen for a buck in some esoteric online-store.) Right?^^

  4. Budweiser says:

    I like turtles!

  5. Rich says:


    Although I don’t know too many people who disagree with the referenced doctrine: “‘Do unto others…’ as they would do unto you”, it is important to note that this is NOT a Bible-verse or ANYTHING specifically Christian-related… This is the “Golden Rule!”

    • Budweiser says:

      wait so does that mean I should go to Darfur and rape and murder soldiers because that’s what they would do to me? or is that one of those “only applies sometimes when we feel like using it as an argument point” deals?

      • Stonefield says:

        Isn’t the exact quote “Do unto others, like you want them to do unto you”?

        Well Bud, you seem to have strange likings …

        • Budweiser says:

          I would thank you to leave my hobbies out of this kind sir.

    • Stonefield says:

      Hey Rich,

      im not entirely sure, cause it has been a long time since I last read the bible. But isn’t there a biblical quote quite close to the “Do unto others…”?

      The quote would be something like “What you have done unto the lowest of thy brethren, you have done unto me” … I think the more commonly known phrase is derived of this. So it would ALSO be Christian …

    • Rev Toni Rigatoni says:

      The actual quote is ‘Do unto others as you would HAVE THEM do unto you’ that completely changes the meaning of the quote as relayed by Rich; I most certainly would disagree with Rich’s version as it would, as Budweiser asks, allow us to rape and murder rapists and murderers. What it is saying is DON’T rape and murder if it’s not what you would like done to you. There is a lot of pedantry to be found on this site regarding spelling and punctuation but it is essential to ensure that errors and omissions do not give rise to ambiguity as this doesn’t help any argument, whatever side of the fence you are on. (Shame there has to be a fence)

      Sauce be with you all,

      The Reverend.

      • B. says:

        Well said. I would get you a beer, but there’s that fence in the way again.


        • Bekster says:

          Romans 1:20

          “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
          Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

        • Danimal says:

          This is total bunk. None of us have lust filled hearts or dishonor our bodies. Now let’s all hit the beer volcano and then the stripper factory ;)

  6. Danimal says:

    If I may be a buttinsky about this whole is Atheism a belief debate I want to try to clarify.

    It appears what Gordon and Stonefield debating is the difference between core beliefs and dispositional beliefs. If I said to a child who had never been exposed to religion and had some rudimentary reasoning skills and asked, “Does an invisible, omnipotent man live in the clouds and listen to our thoughts and reward and punish us for our actions?” The child would use their knowledge base to determine that no, no such man exists. This would be a dispositional belief because the child had never thought about the concept of a “god” before but was able to come to a conclusion using past knowledge. None of us on this site have that luxury and we all have been taught (force fed) mythology and therefore have actively thought about the existence of god in great detail not just in the rudimentary way in the child example but in more complex existential ways as well. This means that for us to now be atheists we have a core belief that there is no god. I would agree with Stonefield that the atheism evident in the CotFSM is a core belief.
    However, and this get’s into what B and Stonefield were debating, atheism is not a belief system or religion. We don’t have a universal truth, word, or ritual set. Also, as many here have said, if god came down today and could prove to us that he existed and he was the creator, etc. we would believe in him. This is the difference between faith and belief. Beliefs can change with new evidence, faith is a position taken which often (some would say always) flies in the face of evidence. So while atheists may believe there is no god, not all have faith there is no god. This of course opens the old debate of atheist vs agnostic but I don’t want to go there other than to say it isn’t an either/or but a spectrum of acknowledging that there may be a god.
    I think everybody involved here is pretty intelligent and made some great points. A lot of the disagreement, I feel, centered around semantics. This obviously complicated the matter because we have some non-native English speakers, cultural differences, etc. I hope I can at least help people see each others POV though I know I did make some educated guess about different people positions so I’m open to correction.

    • B. says:

      I agree with you. Tho I want to add something, since I somehow keep getting dragged into this discussion…

      I grew up in a country where, according to some statistics, 15 % have some belief, in God or otherwise. So my friends, classmates, parents and colleagues have, with some exceptions, never been religious. With this I want to point out that gordon_uk’s theoretical child doesn’t have to be as unaware of religion as previously pointed out. Me and a lot of people that grew up in the same circumstances as me all know about religion, we have been educated about it, but without making a conscious choice we have never believed in God. A lot of people here define themselves as atheists without making some kind of big decision of not believing.

      I said to Stonefield earlier that he was “God centric”. I meant that he thought that one must denounce religion to be declared an unbeliever. The above statement is why I think that statement, tho not always, falls.

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      I call myself an atheist, but as you say Danimal, that’s because there is no evidence of a God. I would gladly accept the belief of an eternal paradise if there were any indications, but there’s not. I don’t consider faith a virtue; it’s merely delusion.

      God or no, I certainly can’t ascribe to any religion that I know of. They serve man, not god. If god is perfect, he’s not vain enough to require our bowing and scraping.

    • Stonefield says:

      Hey Danimal,

      I think that’s a very good summary, so you won’t hear any correction from me. Actually I say thanks, for the valiant effort to write such a comprehensive text, that sums up the different points of view.

      Hello B.,

      I must apologize, as I was too culturally fixated and too bound to my own perspective. But I do see now that there can be a cultural background where “atheism” isn’t much less a “choice” but more of a standard way people live in a less religious afflicted culture. But (it seems there always is a “but” with me) in my understanding this would more be an “agnostic” POV. And no, I also don’t want to open a discussion about this. Maybe … lets agree to the point that not ascribing to a religion is a good choice? (With the exception of the cotFSM – of course!).

      @theFewtheProud …

      Seemingly we share a thought on this matter. Still I would go even a step further. If god is what humankind makes of him/her/it, if he/she/it is the all knowing, all compassionate and all perfect entity, it simply doesn’t matter, and doesn’t matter to him/her/it if we believe in him (I’ll keep it simple male now for sake of simplicity). And our (humankinds) savage egoistic rituals to praise him, may at best be amusing … and at worst a nuisance, because they keep us from reaching the true potential that was invested in us.
      And if he doesn’t exist … well, religion in any case is just a joke.

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        One of the “proofs” there is no god is that he/she/it/they allow such attrocities to be committed in his name. If I were god, I’d be bitch-slapping conquistadors/crusaders/jihadists/hypocritical evangelists who kill and steal in my name.

        • Lasgana_Guru says:

          god is:
          All powerful/Caring
          All powerful/Uncaring

          An all powerful/careing god could stop all evil and would want to
          An all powerful/uncareing god could stop all evil but would not want to
          A powerless/careing god can’t stop evil but would want to
          A powerless/uncareing god can’t stop evil and doesn’t want to

          Because there is evil god can’t be all powerful/caring or there would be no evil

          god is either powerless or uncareing

          drunk and made of pasta.


      • B. says:

        Well, Stonefield. No, a person that doesn’t believe in God is not agnostic. Once again you assume that not being religious is the choice. I will make an analogy.

        Over here there is a national register for donating your organs. You have to register in it in order to be seen as a donor. In other countries one is automatically a donor. A register is then used for those that chose NOT to be donors.

        An atheist can be an atheist simply by not stating that he or she is anything else, like the last example. He or she makes no active choice in the matter, but since he or she has no belief in God there is no reason of registering in the imaginary “Religion register”. You, on the other hand, assume that there is an imaginary register of Atheists and in order for one to be one, one has to actively register. Those that doesn’t say they are atheists are apparently agnostics – tho that obviously is a really incorrect term for those that have no belief in God, aren’t part of any religious group and isn’t interested in any kind of religious activity.

        • Rev Toni Rigatoni says:

          Well put B.

  7. Gali says:

    Agree with the respect to no matter what that deserves it. But…are you meaning this:
    When someone come to me and say “Hey you damned motherfucker what you are talking about is nothing but bullshit, listen to me and you stupid, rediculous brain will be better after it, I’m just surprised by you, fool.”

    If I understand correctly, then I refuse to do it, by the name of…euh…well, pasta, yeah, pasta.

    I think we don’t have to waste every piece of our conscience on those “who don’t deserve it”.

    PS. See? not really necessary to mention a certain name of religion, what we’re laughing at is not only a certain religion, but the attitude some people hold so strongly.


  8. Toastie says:

    “By dragging it out like this, you’re making yourself look bad… and that’s all.”

    Ooooh the irony!

1 19 20 21 22 23 25

Leave a Reply