Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pastafarians not giving up their claim to be a religion

Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Naturalism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The claim was recently dismissed by a judge. From Atlas Obscura:

Since its introduction in 2005, the mythology of Pastafarianism has grown to encompass pirates, an afterlife with a beer volcano, and more. There is, of course, a snazzy orientation video to welcome you into the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly arms:

Spaghetti, Wenches & Metaphysics: Episode 1—The FSM from Matt Tillman on Vimeo.

In fact, Pastafarianism is an officially recognized religion in three countries—first in Poland, where it became an officially registered religious community in 2014 thanks to a legal technicality, then in the Netherlands this past January. And just this weekend, New Zealand recognized the first legally-binding Pastafarian wedding, officiated by “minestroni” Karen Martyn. The happy couple were wed in the customary pirate’s garb, and Martyn is ready to perform additional ceremonies for any legally eligible adults, explaining to the BBC, “I’ve had people from Russia, from Germany, from Denmark, from all over contacting me and wanting me to marry them in the church because of our non-discriminatory philosophy.” More.

The underlying purpose may be to bring religion into disrepute by organized silliness.

A central characteristic of traditionally recognized religions, protected by conscience rights, is that, whether one thinks them right or wrong, sensible or silly, people do believe them. One somehow knows that these people do not believe what they say.

The result of successful legal challenges would be to undermine the importance of honest belief and conscience as such in determining cases involving religion.

See also: Wow: Court rules for common sense… Flying Spaghetti Monster not a religion Pastafarianism was so obviously a regional cultural parody, and yet… Maybe it’s instructive that it was a North American judge who figured that one out.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Yes, IE, I am making approximately the same point to Origenes. His belief about no morality without God is based on his belief that there is a God. If there is no God, as I believe, than the foundation for his beliefs is gone, and we are all in the same boat when it comes to morality, which is what I believe. And despite Origenes' and other's arguments about the existence of God, it is clear that they are not compelling to many, including billions of people who believe in other Gods: his belief is a religious belief which he can hold if he wishes, but it has no weight for others who do not hold the same beliefs. That is one reason, among several, why it is unreasonable to give special status to sincerely held religious beliefs over sincerely held beliefs that don't invoke religion for their justification.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PST
Origenes: "How old are you? 12?" No, but I have read plenty of KF's posts and the way he responds to any opinion that differs from his. What you quoted there were KF's words, not mine (except for the blah, blah). But you are avoiding the gist of my comment. The entire concept of IS/OUGHT, or that morality can't exist without God, are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. Claiming otherwise is just not supported by anything other than your own belief.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PST
Origenes, it is you are avoiding the point. I made no attempt to respond to your assertion because arguing whether you are right are wrong is not relevant in the eyes of the law. Your assertion is a religiously based belief, and it is not the job of the law to decide whether a God exists who grounds morality or not. You may decide to not try to respond to this point if you wish, but dismissing my point as "not even wrong" is missing entirely the actual point I'm making.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PST
Aleta:
Origenes: (...) there is no way that naturalism can ground morality and responsible freedom.
I assumed someone would make this point, and it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let me explain why. It is not the job of the law to adjudicate whether a religious belief is true or false. There is no legally valid way to do so.
Unresponsive. Not even wrong. And no, I'm not going to explain it. --------
Indiana Effigy: KF has plenty of arguments. They usually go along the line of “if you disagree with me you are a troll building straw men soaked in oil of red herring and…blah, blah, blah”.
How old are you? 12?Origenes
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PST
Origenes: @We are in agreement on this, but I have to ask — are you sure that “because I say so” is KF’s argument? You are not just making things up, right?" No, KF has plenty of arguments. They usually go along the line of "if you disagree with me you are a troll building straw men soaked in oil of red herring and...blah, blah, blah". But no, I understand where the IS/OUGHT argument comes from. But, when it is examined in detail, it still never gets beyond "opinion".Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PST
Origenes writes,
Surely we are all very much aware of the fact that all this talk of “should”, “rights”, “laws” and so forth is meaningless to the naturalists on this forum, simply because there is no way that naturalism can ground morality and responsible freedom.
I assumed someone would make this point, and it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let me explain why. It is not the job of the law to adjudicate whether a religious belief is true or false. There is no legally valid way to do so. The argument given above by Origenes is a religious belief. There are others (me, for instance) who believe that it is a false. It is not the job of the law to support Origenes' religious belief over my non-religious belief that all people, in their own way, have the right and ability to make moral judgments. My rights in this regard are not lessened in the eyes of the law just because I don't make the claim that my beliefs have a religious justification. Arguments that atheists have no moral basis for their judgments are religious arguments, and it is not the job of the law to decide whether those arguments are true are not. So the point goes back to the original question: why should sincerely held religious beliefs have special status? Saying that only religiously grounded moral beliefs are justified is circular reasoning because it avoids the question of why that religious belief has special status. Origens thinks strongly, and no doubt sincerely, that he is right. I think he is wrong. Our disagreement is philosophical, but it is not relevant to a legal discussion.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PST
Indiana Effigy: Just because KF says it, doesn’t make it so.
We are in agreement on this, but I have to ask — are you sure that “because I say so” is KF's argument? You are not just making things up, right?Origenes
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PST
Origenes: "Surely we are all very much aware of the fact that all this talk of “should”, “rights”, “laws” and so forth is meaningless to the naturalists on this forum, simply because there is no way that naturalism can ground morality and responsible freedom." Surely you are not going to get into the IS and OUGHT BS. The only people who believe this are the ones who falsely believe that theists are somehow superior to atheists. Just because KF says it, doesn't make it so.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PST
Aleta,
But the question is why should a sincerely held religious belief have a special status as opposed to a sincerely held belief on a similar topic that doesn’t claim religious justification? To be more specific, why should my sincerely held belief be considered less valid than yours in the eyes of the law just because I claim no religious justification for my belief and you do for yours?
Yeah, I have issues with that too.daveS
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST
Surely we are all very much aware of the fact that all this talk of "should", "rights", "laws" and so forth is meaningless to the naturalists on this forum, simply because there is no way that naturalism can ground morality and responsible freedom.
Dawkins: In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
Origenes
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST
I can't figure out how the government can decide whether something is a religion or not without violating the separation of church and state. The same goes for the IRS. This makes me think churches shouldn't have tax exempt status. Then again, I'm not sure how the government can decide how much a church ought to pay in taxes without violating the separation of church and state. Maybe we could take religion out of the equation by making tax exemption purely about charitable organizations?Phinehas
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST
I agree with you, IE. But I am interested in the opinions of others here who might believe that, as I asked about in 16, that a sincerely held religious belief should get special legal status. My question to them is "why?".Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST
New Zealand has recognised Pastafarianism for purposes of solemnising weddings: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/noodly-knot-tied-in-first-legal-marriage-of-pastafarians/7332360CLAVDIVS
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST
Aleta: "Should the law support person A because their beliefs are religious, but not support person B because their’s is not religious?" The law shouldn't support either. Religious freedom gives you the right for you to live your life according to your beliefs. It does not allow you to force others to live their lives according to your beliefs. Another hypothetical. Should an emergency room physician be able to withhold a transfusion for a patient because it is counter to his religion.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST
IE, I believe (although I don't a source and might be wrong) there are people who have made that exact claim. But here's the question I am trying to focus on. Suppose person A is a Catholic who doesn't believe in contraceptives and person B is an atheist who also has the sincerely held belief that women should not use contraceptives. Should the law support person A because their beliefs are religious, but not support person B because their's is not religious? Again, why should the fact that a belief is religiously based give it a special legal status that a non religiously based belief doesn't have?Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PST
Aleta @14, I agree that this would be a minefield. For example, what if you lived in a town with a single pharmacy and the pharmacist is Catholic. Your doctor prescribes birth control pills. Can the pharmacist refuse to dispense them because his/her religious belief is opposed to birth control?Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PST
But the question is why should a sincerely held religious belief have a special status as opposed to a sincerely held belief on a similar topic that doesn't claim religious justification? To be more specific, why should my sincerely held belief be considered less valid than yours in the eyes of the law just because I claim no religious justification for my belief and you do for yours?Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PST
So offer the progressives who are going after religion this: Churches lose their tax exempt status, but aside from fraud, coercion, and violence, the claim of sincerely held religious belief is a full defense against all criminal charges.EvilSnack
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PST
But various states are passing, or at least considering, bills which would give accommodations based on "sincerely held religious beliefs", so at some point courts might have to address both the question of whether a belief was "religious" as well as whether it was "sincerely held". Some questions occur to me: 1. If a belief is a standard belief of a religious denomination, is that enough to declare it "sincerely held" by all its members? Or, even if so, would a court look into how "sincerely" a particular individual held that belief? 2. Also, what if an individual claimed a sincerely held religious belief even though it was not a universally supported belief of his church? 3. And does denomination make a difference? What if different denominations, or even churches within a denomination, take a different stand on a particular situation? Would it be possible for two people to be in a conflict in which both were acting upon their particular sincerely held religious belief? These types of questions are one reason, of several, why I don't believe religious beliefs should have any special legal status.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PST
After some googling, I guess I was wrong to refer to "recognition of religions" by the US government. The issue is rather tax exempt status granted to religious organizations by the IRS.daveS
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST
Ooops! My apologies. I googled this and didn't see an answer, but I'm interested now.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PST
Aleta: "See the OP – I think it answers your question." I was asking about Rastafarianism, not Pastafarianism.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PST
See the OP - I think it answers your question.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST
Is Rastafarianism a recognized religion?Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PST
The other thing they could have done is to request that the rights enjoyed by members of state-recognized religions be extended to everybody, regardless of religion. (Most libertarians would love this, since that is precisely what they've advocated all along.) I notice particularly that the Pastafarians didn't come up with a religion that requires its adherents to do anything that Western culture's progressives oppose, such as to bear firearms 24/7 or to refuse to pay taxes.EvilSnack
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST
News,
Commenters at 1 through 4: Recognizing religion has several functions; one is to support conscience rights.
In the US, this results in outfits such as the Church of Scientology being awarded tax exemptions. I would prefer that the government just stay out of the business of recognizing religions. Surely we can still protect conscience rights without the government trying to decide whose religious beliefs are sincere.daveS
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PST
I agree that Pastafarians don't believe what they say, and am not saying they should be recognized as a religion. I agree they are a spoof. What we are saying, I think, is that the issue being brought up is why should any religion, or religion over non-religion, get special rights just by virtue of being "really" religious? News says,
Recognizing religion has several functions; one is to support conscience rights.
But I also have an equal right to have my "conscience rights" supported, even though I don't claim them to be derived from some religious source.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST
Commenters at 1 through 4: Recognizing religion has several functions; one is to support conscience rights. The Pastafarians probably don't in fact believe what they say and they aren't likely to attract anyone who does (Scientology did not originate in a spoof). The end result of recognition would be to blur issues of conscience by making it sound ridiculous.News
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST
DaveS: "I think there are several underlying purposes, some more serious than others. In my view, one serious purpose is to challenge the notion of state-recognized religions." I agree. I don't like the idea of state recognized religions because that automatically gives them a legitimacy over those that are not recognized. Even the People's Temple enjoyed tax free status because it was the off-shoot of a state recognized religion.Indiana Effigy
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PST
Yes. I sometimes question why something officially deemed a religion gets special considerations, such as not having to pay taxes or having their "sincerely held beliefs" have more weight than sincerely held beliefs that don't ground themselves in a religion. I think this a point that several groups are trying to make.Aleta
April 18, 2016
April
04
Apr
18
18
2016
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply