Cardinal Fang wrote:If you find the idea or the name "Pastafarian" offensive to you - don't frequent places it is used.
Not only is the term being thrust specifically into places frequented by Rastafarians as a tactic of its aggressive repression not to be tolerated, but compromising movement on account of any manifestations of such motives is cowardice its perpetrators then demand for appeasement.
Can you cite an example (and by cite, I mean you need to cite sources) of Rastas being singled out?
Rather adherents to your Church seem to think a term offensive to members of the Rastafari movement refers to them.
I'm sorry, are you Rasta? I just want a straight yes or no, since I was under the impression that this whole shindig started when you claimed that Pastafarianism was offensive to Christians, because it draws attention to Rastafari, which suggests that Haile Selassie was the earthly manifestation of God, or Jah, which was slander against Jesus.
...should reject "isms and schisms"
Since this has been mentioned three times let it be known that the term Pastafarian exists as slander regardless of it or any other word's agentive ending or suffix.
Sigh. By rejecting "isms and schisms," you deny the validity of the term, and thus, it's nature as an offense. It's just a word.