The Myth of Neutrality

On April 1, my op-ed column piece "Flying Spaghetti Monster exposes myth of neutrality in public square" was published in the Crossville Chronicle.

Though it first ran Tuesday at local newsstands, I received little feedback. However, once it ran online, that became a completely different story. I received dozens of e-mails in mere hours from people across the country. A thread at a message board was even devoted to "discussing" the article. To say the feedback has been largely negative would be an understatement. Some, in sarcastic tone, asked if the piece was an April fools prank due to the publication date.

In the column, I argue that whether or not an idea is considered religious, the Constitution allows for the free exchange of ideas in the public square. Then, in what has garnered the most backlash, I state that "modern Darwinist dogma" in its attempt to explain the origins of life is more ridiculous than the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" -- an art piece recently added to the lawn of the Cumberland County courthouse. Click here for background on the story.

In the editorial, I write:

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.

Based on our rights affirmed by the Constitution, the op-ed proposes that a liberal democracy should allow people from all ideological backgrounds to contend for public policy in consistency and conscientiously of their respective worldviews, even if it's a worldview most would consider religious. To end the column, I conclude the article with a statement against Darwinism in its contemporary form. This statement has caused the greatest amount of feedback.

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.

The entire article can be read here. On account of the large amount of feedback, I look to address the common objections raised by writing a follow-up piece.