Anti-god displays invade Fla. Capitol: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in, Satan out

Rest assured there will be no religious displays of any kind in the Florida state Capitol next year after the floodgates were opened to allow every and all kinds of nonsensical displays this year.

spaghetti monster

Photo Credit: Ben Wolf, Department of Management Services via The Tallahassee Democrat

After allowing a Nativity scene to be placed in the Capitol Rotunda earlier this month, the Department of Management Services was hard pressed to refuse such ludicrous displays from atheists like a beer can Festivus pole and the most absurd of all placed in the Capitol Rotunda Tuesday by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – “a desk chair with a shredded cardboard representation of its deity – an eyed blob of noodles grasping two meatballs – with a sign reading: ‘A closed mouth catches no noodly appendages. – ProvHerbs 3:27,’” according to the Tallahassee Democrat.

But to the department’s credit, it refused a “grossly offensive” holiday display offered by the Satanic Temple on Wednesday.

Satanic Temple Display

Photo Credit: Department of Management Services via the Tallahassee Democrat

According to the Democrat:

In an email Wednesday afternoon, DMS Administrative Assistant Sherrie K. Routt denied Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucien Greaves the inclusion of a kiosk adorned with an angel falling into a pit of flames and the words “Happy Holidays from the Satanic Temple” because “The Department’s position is that your proposed display is grossly offensive during the holiday season.”

The group applied Dec. 10 to include their display in the Capitol rotunda, which is now home to six displays from various groups, but was stalled when it failed to submit a required photo of what their exhibit would be. Once the picture was submitted, the display was denied.

The Satanic Temple is waiting for “clarification from DMS” before deciding if it will challenge the denial, with Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves saying he was “surprised and dismayed” the proposed display was denied, the Orlando Sentinel reported.

Peter Wood, who applied on behalf of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, told the Democrat he was happy “state government is actively facilitating all of these people. The excitement’s contagious.”

But, guaranteed the debate between religious displays in government buildings will rage on now that state officials have opened the door to all after allowing in one.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
About Janeen Capizola

"And though she be but little, she is fierce." And fun! This conservative-minded political junkie, mom of three, dancer and one-time NFL cheerleader holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science. Janeen@BizPacReview.com. Twitter: @JaneenBPR

  • Altuson

    I was recently reading up on the Puritans for an online course I am taking. I honestly think they would have supported Mr. Greaves efforts over any “nativity” display.They would probably find the average Christmas lawn ornament hideously blasphemous. May the icons be with you, sisters and brothers!

  • Scott W

    I find your characterization of my faith as “absurd” to be very upsetting. But the flying spaghetti monsters teaches me to keep my heart al dente; firm is my resolve, yet willing to bend to the world around me, accepting and loving those with views different from my own.

    • Breezeyguy

      It’s not absurd, but rather stupid. What is absurd is that you would choose to be stupid.

      • Scott W

        Some of us believe in giant spaghetti monsters in the sky.

        Some find it easier to believe a virgin girl came to be with child by immaculate conception. Rather than believe a young girl might have made some poor life choices in a time when being unwed and pregnant by traditional means might get her stoned to death.

        Faith requires a suspension of what’s probable.

        • Breezeyguy

          No you don’t.

          Faith is required for knowledge, as premises precede logic.

          • Scott W

            You literally just contradicted the definition of the word faith.

            I don’t have faith that the earth orbits the sun; I have knowledge. Faith is a belief held in the absence of fact. That’s literally what makes it faith.

            Jesus himself scorned his disciples for their need of proof. In the resurrection story when Thomas needs to see the wounds from his Crucifixion to prove his resurrection:

            “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: but blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” John 20:29

            If anything, a lack of knowledge is required for true faith. That seems a crass thing to say though as it implies that the faithful lack knowledge, and some might use that to assert they lack intelligence.

            But the truth is, we all lack knowledge at some level; and each of us has found our own way of coming to terms with what we can’t yet understand.

            One way of doing so is no more right or wrong than the next.”

          • Breezeyguy

            No, you are confusing religious faith with all faith. There is a natural faith, like believing your senses, or “believing” that your mom loves you.

            Faith is not unreasonable qua faith. Although some faiths or things taken on faith may be unreasonable or untrue. So arguments against specific things taken on faith may be right or wrong, but arguing against faith per se is a fallacy.

          • Scott W

            “So arguments against specific things taken on faith may be right or wrong, but arguing against faith per se is a fallacy.”

            So what you’re saying is; you agree with me.

          • Breezeyguy

            That may be.

  • Detfan1

    I don’t know why that just don’t limit the displays to those that represent the Federal Holiday that is being celebrated. That would be CHRISTmas!

    • Breezeyguy

      Very good point.

  • Pocket Nem Esis

    So many media whores these days trying so hard to make a statement. At least they let the comedians in and the athiests are not trying to put up a giant letter after the press conference.

  • 9400budlang8406

    All these folks who seem to hate Christmas, hate the church, deny that God even exists, promote evil life styles, make fun of anything godly, are just proof that scripture is true. Just read second Timothy and you will find them aptly described. It’s sad that they prove scripture true by their own hatred of it.

    • Altuson

      9400, goodness gracious, I don’t see hatred at all. I’m kinda of taken back you do. Peace, man.

      • Detfan1

        Try posting from a Christian world view. Then you will see it.

        • Hal Barbour

          That is currently the world view, free thinkers, agnostics and atheists are in the minority, here in this country, now anyway. Now when the religious push their agenda on society, some members of the society push back. They yell “persecution” when they can no longer set the agenda and dictate from a supposed high moral ground.

          • Breezeyguy

            Get your own holiday. And pick a different date.

          • Hal Barbour

            I don’t care about any date, I care about the Constutition and what it means a lot more than a bronze age book of myths.

          • Breezeyguy

            Christmas is actually in the Constitution, where is says “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth”.

          • Hal Barbour

            Christmas is in the Constutition? really? What you’re referencing is a common way of addressing the date and had no predisposition as to the religious tendencies of the founders, who were, or most were Deists.

          • Breezeyguy

            They didn’t put “deism” in the Constitution. They did put “year of Our Lord” in there. If they wanted to downplay it, they could have just put “A.D”, which was the common practice.

          • Scott W

            It amazes me how many Christian are unaware of their own history.

            “Pick a different date”… See this is funny because in the days the church was trying to gain a foothold they decide Christmas would be celebrated on December 25th to coincide with pagan celebrations of the winter solstice, thinking it would be more popular among Romans if it was positioned among a time people were already celebrating.

            The church is a little fuzzy on the actual date of Christ’s birth anyway, so they made a strategic decision about when to assign the holiday.

            So your call for other to “pick a different date”, is really rather wonderfully ironic.

          • Breezeyguy

            In the USA, Christmas is a federal holiday. Where are you from?

          • Scott W

            Oh, OK! Well if we agree that Christmas is a completely secular holiday then perfect.

            If it’s a secular holiday then it shouldn’t matter at all what kind of displays and iconography any given person uses to celebrate it. So… Deck the halls with pasta meatballs! Fa-la-la-la la LA LA LA!”

          • Breezeyguy

            Huh? Not secular, federal.

          • Scott W

            What is federal is secular.

          • Breezeyguy

            Not so. Following a resolution of Congress, President George Washington
            proclaimed Thursday the 26th of November 1789 a day of “public thanksgiving and prayer” devoted to “the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.”

            Sounds slightly religious to me.

          • Scott W

            So, that quote is George Washington recommending that a day of thanksgiving be observed. But Thanksgiving didn’t become federal holiday until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, who made it a recognized federal holiday to help heal the nation after the civil war. True many people observed the holiday before, but it was not a federally recognized holiday. And the federal holiday has nothing to do with religion.

            How many people even remember thanksgiving has religious roots? Most Americans just have a vague idea that it’s a day to be thankful, binge on food, and be with your family. Oh and like pilgrims and stuff maybe?

            So again, you’ve only proven that federally recognized holidays have nothing to do with the religious holidays some people observe in concert with them.

            And if that’s not enough for you, the first amendment lays out some pretty clear guidelines about the mingling of religion and state. Quoting one man making elocution to his personal god doesn’t change the reality that our country has no national religion; and is a secular institution.

          • Breezeyguy

            So you prefer Lincoln’s proclamation? This sounds like a pretty religious invitation to me. By your doctrine, such federal proclamations are forbidden. “They are the gracious gifts
            of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for
            our sins, hath nevertheless I remembered mercy. It has seemed to
            me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and
            gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the
            whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens
            in every part of the United States, and also those who are at
            sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart
            and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of
            Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth
            in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up
            the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances
            and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national
            perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those
            who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the
            lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and
            fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal
            the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be
            consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace,
            harmony, tranquillity and Union.”

          • Scott W

            Are you even reading what you’re quoting and trying to understand it? Or are you just grabbing quotes that sound referential to God and using them to avoid doing any actual thinking?

            Lincoln is saying in that quote that his faith has helped heal him, and he wishes to invite all american people to share in the love he PERSONALLY find in god. He’s saying regardless of who we are individually, it is a time to come together and share love and remember what unites us all.

            Sure, it’s a godly speech, but it’s a far cry from saying that he is establishing a national religious holiday.

            And as I said, regardless of one mans speeches the first amendment has already settled this debate.

          • Breezeyguy

            Are you reading anything you write? You stated that Federal = Secular. Lincoln and Washingtons proclamations are instances of Religious Federal statements.

          • Scott W

            No, they are statements of secular federal policy made by men who happen to be personally religious. If the country worked the way you seem to believe any given president could just declare a new national religion. The U.S. has no national religion. The fact the the majority of our presidents where white male Christians doesn’t change our legal system.

          • Patrick Oxford

            It strikes me as odd that we get off work for one or two days for Christmas (it is a federal holiday) and have for centuries and school children get released from school for two weeks or so for Christmas and have for as long as I have been alive and some time before that and suddenly we can’t call it Christmas. It is an American tradition. It is a European and South American Tradition. Did I mention Australian. Yet here we are, because of self loathing bedwetting people who want the majority to do it their way. If you don’t like Christmas, tell your boss that you don’t believe in or like Christmas and you don’t want the holiday and that you want to work at your normal rate of pay. Give back all of the presents and just ignore the rest of us.

          • Scott W

            Who said anything about hating Christmas? I love Christmas. But the american tradition and Federal holidays you mention are the secular side of Christmas. The holiday has religious roots for many people, but for many it does not.

            If a government building is going to allow displays they must either be devoid of non-secular meaning, or the grounds must be open for all people to express their own beliefs. Muslim, and Jewish taxpayers helped fund that government facility just Christian taxpayers did.

            If the Christians are allowed to erect a monument to their faith on the grounds of a secular institution then other faiths should have an equal opportunity to do so. They’re being invited to celebrate the secular, federal holiday of Christmas on secular government property. If they choose to associate religious iconography with that; so be it.

            This isn’t a story about a church being told how to mark their religious celebration of Christmas. You can put the biggest baby Jesus in the church front lawn that you can find, i won’t say a word. Power to you.

            But if it’s happening on government property, we should all play by the same rules.

            As for you comments about my self-loathing; I feel the need to say that actually, I think I’m a pretty swell guy, if you got to know me. And I rarely wet the bed.

          • Patrick Oxford

            None of that is in the Constitution. Nor was it meant to be. Again, I suggest you read what the founders said about what they all meant and why it is in the Constitution as it is.

          • Scott W

            Please see 1st amendment and about a hundred years of legal precedent that says you’re wrong.

    • Hal Barbour

      I can only speak for myself but it isn’t that I hate Christmas, it’s not my favorite holiday but the problem is when states or local goverment entities display religious icons on goverment property. It’s a violation of the First Amendment, and seperation of church and state. As to the rest of your post, atheists are pushing back on the intrusion of religion into secular life. Things like denying science, obstructing medical research, intruding in curriculum in public schools, and bigoted views on fellow members of our society. I can just as easily suggest bible verse that tells the endorsment of slavery (Leviticus 2:44-46 Exodus 21:20-21) or children that disobey their parents should be executed (Duet. 21:18-21) or dashing children against stones (Psalms 137;9) I find little godly about it and with things like this and much more it’s not hard to dislike it.

      • Breezeyguy

        It’s not a violation of the First Amendment. It’s an exercise of the First Amendment.

        • Hal Barbour

          What do you mean? how is putting up a religious display on public property not a violation of the First Amendment?…. but as you say a “exercise” The First amendment says in part ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pohibiting the free exercise thereof”

          • Breezeyguy

            What do I mean? The “prohibiting free exercise thereof” part. This year they are not prohibiting it. Next year they plan to prohibit it, according to the article.

            But actually, the Constitution is a Fed thing and we are talking about a State building, not a Fed one.

          • Hal Barbour

            It doesn’t matter, Fed or State are covered by the Constutition as public land and property. We fought a war over this and the Supreme court established the over-riding authority of the US Constutition, period. The establishing of a religion over another is prohibited by the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It states that Congress shall have a non-preferential interpertation as far as religion goes. But also to not interfere with it’s free exercise thereof.

          • Breezeyguy

            Allowing religious symbols does not establish a religion. Prohibiting them does violate free exercise.

          • Hal Barbour

            According to the US Constitution it does, why do you think they ( those who put up religious symbols on goverment property) lose every court case? Your other assertion about prohibiting overt religious symbols on goverment property is somehow prohibiting free exercise of religion is absurd, all you have to do is move it to a private location, simple….put up the biggest, over-the-top manger scene you want, no atheists will care. Just keep your religion out of the courthouses, public schools, bedrooms and bodies of the rest of your countrymen. Believe anything you like.

          • Breezeyguy

            The word in the F.A. is “establishment”, a noun meaning an institution. It is not “establishing”, verb. We don’t lose every court case.

          • Hal Barbour

            Well, at least you were rifght about one thing, it does say “establishment” and how does that change the meaning of the Amendment? Also if you don’t lose every court case, give me one you didn’t lose, any one will do.

          • Breezeyguy

            Lynch v Donnelly

          • Scott W

            “What do I mean? The “prohibiting free exercise thereof” part. This year they are not prohibiting it. Next year they plan to prohibit it, according to the article.”

            So I assume you are outraged that this year the Satanist group’s display was already turned away? This is clearly an affront to their first amendment rights, is it not?

          • Breezeyguy

            I wonder what Washington and Lincoln would think.

          • Hal Barbour

            How about Franklin or Paine or Jefferson, what would they think about the religious and their intruding in the secular nation these men purposely set up. Corrupting and twisting the language of the Constutition and Bill of Rights to suit their narrow, bigoted worldview.

          • Breezeyguy

            So you think any of these men would approve of Satanism? Of blasphemy? Deriding Nature’s God, the Creator of inalienable rights, the Supreme Judge of the world, divine Providence?

          • Hal Barbour

            I don’t want ANY groups display including the satanists and yours. Their first Amendment rights are protected just like yours, they just cannot extend to displays of a religious nature on public property. It is beyond me why you deem so important to your religious life that you continue to impose your religion on others by insisting on displaying them on public property! please stop it, it is not your right!!

          • Breezeyguy

            Nonsense. Your hatred of religion is utterly un-American.

          • Hal Barbour

            My distrust of religion is completely American, perhaps you should read some Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, Madison or Benjamin Franklin? I dislike what the excuse of religion does to people and their thinking processes, causes people to think the first Amendment means that their religion is special and has rights that superseed the rights of other Americans who may not agree with them. It gives them permission to be bigots and extremeists and an excuse for not thinking.

          • Patrick Oxford

            Where is the Congress establishing a religion? Help me out here.

      • Patrick Oxford

        There is no seperation of church and state. Those are the words of one judge that the left took and ran with. And the uneducated. If you read the federalist papers you will see what they (the founding fathers) did and why they did it. Or if you are lazy think of this: The head of the Church of England is the Queen (or King) and your tax dollars went to the Church wether you went or belonged or not. Our founding fathers did not want that here. Even though a lot of the belonged to that church.

        • Hal Barbour

          Emerson vs. the board of education, 1947 Judge Hugo Black states, The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”

          • Breezeyguy

            The SCOTUS constantly violates the Constitution. Under Art 3 Sec 2, it doesn’t have jurisdiction in most of the cases it decides.

          • Hal Barbour

            It did in this case.

          • Breezeyguy

            No it didn’t. The case was between a State and it’s own citizen. It was not between different States or the Citizens of different States. Article 3 Sec 2. No jurisdiction. The SCOTUS has been violating the Constitution for a long time.

            Roe v Wade: no juristiction
            Eisenstadt v Baird: no jursisdiction
            Kelo v New London: no
            Lawrence v Perry: no

          • Hal Barbour

            Are you saying that this is not settled law?

          • Breezeyguy

            Settled? Settled by whom? By a SCOTUS that doesn’t recognize its own jurisdiction or lack thereof? Settled until the SCOTUS undoes it? Settled until Congress undoes it? An unjust law is no law at all.

          • Hal Barbour

            These laws, by the fact weare calling them laws, are not the law of the land? and unjust to who?

          • Patrick Oxford

            Yep, one judge says it one time and the left runs with it. I say we go back to the Dread Scott Supreme Court ruling.

      • Patrick Oxford

        There is no separation of Church
        and State. Those are the words of one judge that the left took and ran with as
        well as the uneducated. If you read the Federalist Papers you will see what
        they (the founding fathers) did and why they did it. Or if you are lazy think of this: The head of the Church of England is the Queen (or King) and your tax dollars went to the Church whether you went or belonged or not. Our founding
        fathers did not want that here. Even though a lot of them belonged to that church.

  • Ron Sorrells

    If that has become the price to display the “Nativity Scene of The Birth JESUS” in Tallahassee, Florida, then so be it. MERRY CHRISTMAS, Ron

  • thestormy

    Let them have their fun. Although I disagree,they do have the right to express their opinion. Unlike us,they work hard at suppressing the views of others. That’s just how the left works. Intolerance for others beliefs or opinions other than their own. The suppression of Duck Dynasty is a perfect example.

    • Altuson

      No, you have it backwards. It’s the Bible that got suppressed in FL. I say include the Bible quote and Fallen Angle!

      • thestormy

        I used Duck Dynasty as an example of the intolerance of the left.
        There is no book of ProbHerbs in the Bible. Hebrews 3 has no verse 27 & Proverbs 3:27 makes no sense regarding their point. Another made up liberal point to be ignored. Oh well, maybe they took it out of the new bible that the homosexuals created leaving all scriptures regarding homosexuality out.
        We all have to answer for our actions. As long as I try to live by my faith, I am happy What everyone else does is up to them. I will not try to force my beliefs onto anyone. If ask,I an happy to answer any questions unless the person is trying to anger or harass a person of faith. In those cases I refuse to participate.

        • BridgetBishop

          Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do. (I can’t believe you went looking for ProvHerbs!!!!) Have you ever heard of humor? Stay away from that shellfish…my son!

          • thestormy

            No, I did not. My post is for people who do not study the Bible. Just making a point that it is nonexistent & even if you try to quote the 2 closest books, to the quote they still have made no point.

      • Doug

        My sources say that Fallen Angle er. Angel is pretty pissed at being displaced.

        • BridgetBishop

          It was a typo but actually turned out to be quite apropos.
          (Pythagoras approved this comment.)

    • Hal Barbour

      How is someone being called out for being a bigot the same as being “surpressed”? How is it that your religion gets a pass for being and advocating prejudice and bigotry? What possible moral ground can you or your book provide that accounts for your standards? I want you to bear in mind, I have read the bible and know of it’s many, many failings.

      • Ralph Sampson

        Quoting the Bible is not bigotry. You are rather thick, I take it. I’m a homo and nothing the man said offended me. I rather respect him. People need to grow some skin and get over their false outrage and indignation.

        • Hal Barbour

          The bible calls for the stoning of homosexuals and many religious people clump being gay with beastiaity and podophelodia. Perhaps I am the one not so thick as you put it? I have a low tolerance for bigots, as anyone should.

  • Ron Sorrells

    Altusion: I accepted JESUS MY LORD, SAVIOR & FRIEND AT THE TENDER AGE OF 8 (1952) LEAD BY MY MOTHER ! HER GRANDMOTHER WAS BORN JANUARY 11, 1861 (The day of Florida or Alabama’s (?) seceding from The Union) in Pensacola, Florida who live a long life as JESUS THE CHRIST being her Savior, Lord & Friend. Flora Butler Buntin went to be with the LORD in 1945 and would be “shocked” to see “The Attack on JESUS in The State of Florida (as well as the rest of the other 49 states of This Union). IF THE “LAW OF THIS LAND” RERQUIRES THAT WE HAVE A DISPLAY OF “LUCIFER” IN ORDER FOR US TO DISPLAY A DEPICTION OF JESUS…..THEN THAT IS THE PENALTY OF SIN WE MUST BEAR. “LIFTING UP THE NAME OF JESUS IS BLESSED…EVEN IF IT IS IN A TRASH DUMP” ! Ron.

    • Doug

      Please translate that into English and post again.

      • EliseR

        He’s speaking in tongues.

  • Tampa Bri

    IF you really, strongly, believe what America was built upon (Constitution, Bill of Rights), now is the time to show it

    Do not be dissuaded by a godless sociopathic group – they, too, have FREEDOM

  • http://www.Xenu.net/ simkatu

    All Christmas displays are a form of idolatry that are specifically banned by the first commandment. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,”

    • Breezeyguy

      In that case, the Ark of the Covenant was an act of idolatry. No, your interpretation of the First Commandment is too extreme.

    • Ralph Sampson

      I could be wrong, but I highly doubt there are any Christmas trees in heaven above.