Published November 22nd, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

They use words such as Love and Family but I hear hate and anger in their tone.  These people scare me.  I started a new category named ‘creepy’ for them. Lou Engle is an Advisor to Sarah Palin, by the way.

66 Responses to “Creepy”

  1. Dusty says:

    I agree with B. in that this site is a showplace for all religions; kooky, satirical or creepy. I say let the category stand.

  2. Alvaro says:

    I will leave the category.

    The problem is on the religion no matter with political party it support. If Democrats receives support for this kind of “persons” we know that it will be creepy too.

  3. Matthew says:

    Keep this category. It is important to show how bad things can get when people keep drinking their own koolaid.

  4. Danimal says:

    So I guess it is two questions: 1. Keep the creepy category? 2. Include politics as part of the site?

    As to the creepy part I don’t feel strongly one way or another. Most religious rituals creep me out so that’s nothing new. Maybe we should have it be the “Seriously Unbalanced” category but then again that is most of the religious types that are against this site. Ultimately I would have to vote to keep it only because by sticking stuff like this under “creepy” it calls it what it is and that for me has been a big part of the FSM. Call talking snakes crazy, call believing that the most powerful being in the universe talks to you personally and directly crazy and conceited, call people chanting and raving and talking about piercing the darkness crazy and creepy. The “creepy” heading doesn’t put down christianity, the ranting and raving of these crazies says it all.

    As for the political views, it is not secret that religion has wormed its way into politics. Religion uses politics as a tool, (See Iran) and politicians use religion as a tool (see America). Where the two intersect should be fair game and I don’t think this video was out of line. When people start discussing economic policy, or a topic that has nothing to do with religion, then I would say take it somewhere else. I feel this above example is something I would like to discuss on the site. I didn’t even peg it as political until the very end and after reading Bobby’s comments.

    Finally I’d like to add that I don’t envy Bobby his position one bit. It would be difficult to have to consider every opinion one has against the potential backlash of a large community like this. I say, if the man thinks this video is creepy let him say it’s creepy, or dangerous, or scary or whatever. Bobby doesn’t speak for every person who frequents the CotFSM. That’s the beauty of this “religion”, the lack of dogma. People are free to make their own choices and have their own opinions. If someone, even a frequent poster, says something that is horseshit they get dressed down for it. It’s happened to me and I’m grateful for it. This video is a prime example, Bobby the holy prophet posted something and people disagreed with it, and he shared that disagreement which is great. Free speech is a wonderful thing, not only does it allow people to question and discuss topics to form a better understanding of society, it also let’s me identify who is totally batshit crazy by the batshit crazy things that come out of their mouth (see above video). So thanks Bobby and keep it up.

    • B. says:

      Yes, lets thank Bobby.

      Thanks Bobby. You’re great.

      • Forban de Mars says:

        Bobby You’re the greatestester.
        Can His Sauce rain on you for the centuries of the centuries

    • Zara says:

      Creepy category: Yes, please. These pepople are disturbing. Ignoring them only lets them grow stronger.

      Include politics: Yes, please. I am fed up of all his political correctness only from one side. Let’s be politically uncorrect and not nice anymore. They deserve it.

  5. Jameswaldo says:

    Yes, please, keep the Creepy Category!
    Just as totally batshit crazy christers get a thrill imagining their toughts to be pointy dangerous swords piercing the evil darkness of antheism, so can those of us blessed by noodly appendages thrill to the creepyness of christers getting their rocks off screaming in tongues.
    Transcendence, ecstatic religious bliss, bla bla ka ka na ring a ding dong do wha diddy you gotta admit Church is Entertainment, creepyness is fun, and there’s plenty of fun to go around in all directions.
    Wheeee! I feel the yummy slimy noodles in my soul! Gimme more! More!
    With Garlic AND Fish Sauce, please.

    • Johnnysnot says:

      You had me there till the “Fish Sauce.” I’m new to this religion, but are there any FSM dietary protocols, etiquette or formalities?

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        The civilized way to eat pasta is by twirling it around a fork placed in the belly of a spoon. That is all.

        • ADoS says:

          That makes a really awful sound though. I can’t stand it when people do that. It hurts my ears. Scraping metal… *shudders*

      • Jamie says:

        Let’s not exclude the Asian noodle dishes (since noodles originated in China then traveled to Italy). I’ve enjoyed many a noodle bowl with fish sauce. Besides, we do say “R’Amen”, and that’s a noodle that’s not quite pasta.

  6. markstoev says:

    even the background band knows the speakers are being creepy why else would you play like that?

  7. ADoS says:

    *thrusts hips repeatedly* “GOD!” *thrusts hips repeatedly* “GOD!” *thrusts hips repeatedly*

    Is this a sermon or a bad porno?

    Anyway, except for the reference to the right wing at the end, tacked on by the uploader of the video, there was nothing explicitly political about this. It was entirely an example of what a born-again Christian prayer gathering is like.

    But although the religious fervor and the fact that these people are so easily swayed is creepy indeed, this particular example didn’t strike me as malicious. One thing I noticed was that they were chanting for Satan to “let them go”. The insinuation that atheism and humanism are works of Satan is distasteful indeed, but at least to their credit they weren’t praying for atheists and humanists to burn in Hell or face God’s judgement. Rather, they were praying for them to “see the light”. Any “hate and anger in their tone” seems, to me, to be directed at Satan and his perceived grip on America, rather than the people he is supposedly gripping. Creepy and misguided, yes, but at least IN THIS EXAMPLE, not hateful. I’m quite sure if you looked around at these people’s “work” you will find examples of such hatred toward people who aren’t born-again Christians, but I have to say, in fairness, that I see none in this particular example.


    As for whether we should be discussing this at all on this site? The Church of the FSM, despite the emails you got, is explicitly political. The questions should be, to what extent should it be political, and to what extent should it be anti-religion?

    We know that at a minimum, the CoFSM should be, politically, against passing laws that force people to conflate religion with science (or satirically in favor of them), and religiously, against using one’s own religious views to interfere with the quests for knowledge of other people and of society as a whole (or satirically for the viewpoint that any quest for knowledge is hopeless). That was what the CoFSM was founded on.

    Then there’s the question of whether we should expand our horizons. This is something that Mr. Henderson has claimed repeatedly that he wants to do, but he’s afraid of making the wrong move, annoying his followers, and as a result dissipating the community that’s done so much good over the past few years. This is a distinct possibility, given the fickle nature of the Internet community as a whole. I can tell you that if he tries to expand the movement into a strong anti-religious area, he will alienate a good number of Pastafarians, because in addition to agnostics (such as myself) who are unwilling to rule out things of a spiritual nature, there are in fact Pastafarians who are also Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, etc., and as far as I’m concerned they are just as valuable an asset to the CoFSM as any other church member. Also, I know that our community contains liberals, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and many other political standpoints, and if we start leaning toward, for instance, socialized health care, we will again alienate people who disagree with those viewpoints.

    So where does this leave Bobby? This is his site, and he wants to state his mind, and I think it would be unfair to him if we took this wonderful, fun community he created for us, and refused to let him enjoy it as well. One thing I, and many others, notice about the CoFSM, is that there is a distinct anti-dogma feeling to it. Each individual, and each congregation, is free to have its own rules or lack thereof, and to get involved in whatever causes it so desires to get involved in. I know Bobby doesn’t discriminate when other Pastafarians get involved in politics and religion, and he posts their photos and stories on the site, and as far as I know he doesn’t get more than the usual amount of angry emails when he does that.

    So why shouldn’t Bobby be given the same freedom to use this “religion” for whatever purposes he sees fit? I’d guess the reason most people give is that he’s the “leader of the flock”, to borrow an insipid term from Christianity, and anything he does reflects on his “followers”. But still, I think this is unfair to Bobby. He can’t abandon the cause because everyone would be mad at him, and he can’t state his opinions because everyone would be mad at him. Man, that sucks.

    Therefore, I propose a compromise: delete the “Creepy” category, and instead create a category called “For Your Consideration (Prophet’s Personal Apocrypha)”. This category could be used for Bobby to do all the opining he wants, without making it look like his opinion is the opinion of the church as a whole. It’s true that most of the community will end up agreeing with him anyway, but he won’t have to alienate those who don’t.

    Feel free to bat that idea around, people, and see if you can improve it.

    • B. says:

      I don’t think banning creationism from biology a political standpoint.

      It might be in the US, but for me its a choice beyond politics. I think thats the case for many others, tho I can’t say I speak for them.

      I think its a matter of science and reason coming before religious dogma and not about how politics are run. If a party has as a national agenda to force teachers to teach creationism then I’ll go against that. No matter their political affiliation. So the CoFSM is not necessarily a political organization. For basically the same reasons, and the ones I’ve stated above, I don’t think there’s any problem with posting the video above. That is religion, and the dangers of it, not politics.

      I would love to discuss more politics on this site. But under the assumption that all opinions are equal. It would be harder trying to keep that neutral facade if Bobby let his own personal opinions run wild on the site. Whether we want to or not, Bobby is sort of the “leader”, the creator and conspirator. His opinions would dominate the discourse and thats not what, at least I, want.

      So my general point is this:
      Great, more politics. But when the neutrality goes, so goes civil discourse on equal terms.

      • ADoS says:

        Well, the point is it becomes politics when you start talking about making laws regarding it. Politics is more than just personal standpoints, it’s the entire process of government, and thus if you try to make laws about something it becomes politics. But that’s the extent of it, as I said in my original post.

        If you want to talk politics with Pastafarians, the discussion forum (link on the main page beneath the RSS, Facebook, Twitter and FeedBurner buttons) has a Serious Discussion section with forums for various serious discussion topics. Feel free to join up.

        • B. says:

          I’m already a member. Thank you for the kind offer. And I am a Pastafarian, since you hinted otherwise.

          Ok then, maybe we differ in why we have joined the ranks of pasta (and thats whats great about it). I don’t want to make laws. I would rather see people get reasonable by themselves and work if I can with educating, not lawmaking. When I said “Political standpoint” I meant that you seemed to think that if one expressed the desire to make laws against creationism in school, one was automatically affiliated with some ideological or political group. I don’t agree. I think we all come from different sides of this but agree on this specific thing.

          I retain my standpoint that sure, we could add more politics to the main side outside the forum. But I was merely explaining what I thought would be the immediate consequences.

          … since we’re done with that – you want some chicken in mushroom sauce?


        • ADoS says:

          Arrgh, matey, I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t a Pastafarian; rather, I took it as a given since most people who post here regularly are such! But I should know better – the discussion forum used to have a popular member who wasn’t a Pastafarian and hung around because he liked the mental challenge. He eventually turned really mean and was banned, unfortunately, but I digress.

          As for the laws, I said “against passing laws that force people to conflate religion with science”, not “for passing laws that force people not to acknowledge creationism”. What I said was a form of political defense, not political offense.

          As a matter of fact, political groups, parties, and ideologies are only a small facet of the greater field of politics in general. Here’s the Wiktionary entry:

          As you can see, factions aren’t even mentioned until the fourth definition. Politics is, primarily and in its most basic form, “the practice of responding to conflict with dialogue”. As I understand it, that’s exactly what you meant when you said “I would rather see people get reasonable by themselves and work if I can with educating, not lawmaking.”

          So in essence I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing. ;)

          As for the chicken in mushroom sauce, is it served with pasta? Sounds good to me! ARRRRRGH!

        • B. says:

          Well, sure, seems like we might not be disagreeing that much.

          As for your definitions of politics, as a student of political science I have a different view on it ;)

          Anyway, enough with my swelling ethos – there’s pasta for everyone!

        • Forban de Mars says:

          Do not legislate: it is a little an utopian maybe?

          The whole let say and let everything make is not an absence of politics, but on the contrary the politics dedicated to the coronation of the most aggressive.

          It is to give the possibility to the strongest, to the the best armed and the more aggressive to impose their will by the strength: the human being is not a globally soft and reasonable being: the human history does not stop demonstrating it.
          Then if, laws to protect the most low(weakest) against those who threaten them by shouting most hardly, why not?

          Certainly pastafarians need no law to behave correctly (?!?), but everybody is not pastafari.

          I thus suggest sending to Guantanamo all the unbelievers in My dogma (antipasti!) before they send to us there.

          Seriously let us have intolerance only the intolerance:


        • B. says:

          I don’t think its unrealistic not wanting to legislate. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression should cover the right of the religious to express their faith and the non-religious from being persecuted for not doing so. Those two should, by judicial praxis, be in a fair balance.

          I get ADoS original point that if people try to make laws that forces religion into schools, it becomes politics when we oppose it, after reading the posts again. Sometimes I trust my English is better than it actually is and don’t read carefully enough.

          Anyway, what I wanted to say was that when you have freedom of expression and freedom of religion, they should be enough. Someone trying to create a law that forces schools to teach creationism should be stopped because it forces religion into the public sphere where it doesn’t belong and that automatically infringes on others right to chose their own religion. I see how that might seem unrealistic but I don’t see it that way.

          As for the rest of your post, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.


    • Danimal says:

      How about instead of creepy we call the category:
      Creationists Really Enthusiastically and Energetically Preaching Yarns?

      • ADoS says:

        How about “Chefs Really Enthusiastically and Energetically Preparing Yams”?

        Yes, I admit it, I have Thanksgiving on the mind!

        • B. says:

          In that case there should be a category for each holiday meal.

          Who’s up for Kwanzaa?

  8. Lioss says:

    Dear Bobby,don’t you want to come live in France?
    No creationism,no melt between religion and politic (it’s forbidden by law),no ostensible religious signs in schools or adminitrations…

    • mari nari saus says:

      Of concern to the French is the growing population of Muslims. It is a very intolerant and violent religion.

    • Forban de Mars says:

      Aaargh no! It already full there of atheists to us, so in more it is necessary to get stuck to itself with pastafarians, we are wretched !

    • StJason says:

      Lioss: It’s illegal here in the United States, too… Doesn’t really stop anyone…

      • Lioss says:

        I don’t know how you do?In France it’s illegal and it stops everyone who tries (maybe cause in the past we decapitated priest,they keep quite now).

Leave a Reply