7 ms·

Spaghetti injunction: Pastafarianism is not a religion, Dutch court rules

33 points by kwhitefoot 8y ago

freeflight 8y ago
Imho, like any proper religion, Pastafarianism is overdue for a schism/fork. Talking like a pirate does not translate well to many languages, and ninjas are generally considered way cooler, which would make the ramen noodle the most superior noodle of noodles. One could argue this outcome was already prophecized over a decade ago [0], but back then we just didn't understand the memes proper context, as we lacked belief in the FSM. This forked Pastafarianism could also be specifically tailored to have a higher acceptance as a "proper religion" in front of worldly courts, to get the proper recognition, and same benefits, like other "proper" religions. It'd be a rather peaceful solution to the very obvious discrimination and oppression of a religious minority. If they won't change, then we have to. [0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pirates-vs-ninjas https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pirates-vs-ninjas
- jobigoud 8y ago
  I would definitely support a vegetarian fork of the spagghetti monster. Until then my go to icon will be the invisible pink unicorn.
gleenn 8y ago
It's troubling that the judge ruled Pastafarianism as "not serious enough". That seems like a very weak argument given I don't know how you define seriousness. These people clearly pass some level of seriousness because they are showing up to the courts to defend their beliefs.
- pluto9 8y ago
  Not sincere enough is probably what they meant. The distinction between Pastafarianism and any mainstream religion is obvious: adherents of actual religions genuinely believe in their tenets (by design, at least--the sincerity of any particular individual notwithstanding). Pastafarianism is a set of memes designed to parody them.
  - PopsiclePete 8y ago
    How do you "prove" faith? You can't prove I'm not a serious Pastafarian, much like I can't prove you don't really believe in Jesus?
    - pluto9 8y ago
      You mean, how can you know someone's true thoughts? You can't, but you can make a reasonable guess based on their actions, social cues, and communications with others. There is plenty of precedent for making legal decisions on this basis. That's why our legal vocabulary includes phrases such as "intent to do harm" and "knowledge of wrongdoing". That's beside the point, though. What's relevant in this case is the intent of the religion itself, not its individual adherents. Geniune religions are intended to be sincerely believed in, even if every single one of their followers is faking it. Pastafarianism is intended to be a parody, no matter how many Pastafarians happen to genuinely believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
      - perl4ever 8y ago
        "Pastafarianism is intended to be a parody, no matter how many Pastafarians happen to genuinely believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." So if you demonstrated through a preponderance of the evidence that the historical figure behind a religion wasn't serious, it would retroactively change its status? Consider: - L. Ron Hubbard - Joseph Smith - Anton LaVey Do empirical facts about these founders really affect whether they started religions?
        pluto9 8y ago
        > So if you demonstrated through a preponderance of the evidence that the historical figure behind a religion wasn't serious, it would retroactively change its status? Possibly, though in practice I think it would be unwise to revoke the status of an already legally recognized religion, especially if it has a large and genuine following. But I would argue that Scientology and the Church of Satan should never have been legally recognized in the first place, precisely because their founders were not sincere. Mormonism I'm not so sure about--your comment seems to imply that it's an established fact that Joseph Smith founded the LDS church in bad faith, but it is not. There's plenty of room for debate on that subject. One could argue that if enough of a religion's adherents are sincere, the religion takes on a "life of its own" independent of its founder's intentions, and should therefore be considered sincere. That argument could be used in favor of Scientology's legitimacy, for example. However, that is clearly not the case with Pastafarianism, so it doesn't apply to this court decision. This is all really quite simple: the difference between a sincere religion and a parody religion is that one is sincere and the other is a parody. Stated another way, any "religion" that exists solely to be a parody of religion is, by definition, not a religion. That is what the Dutch court recognized. The willful blindness to this obvious fact on the part of the FSM crowd is amusing. They're appalled that a court doesn't take their "religion" seriously when they've publicly stated that they don't take it seriously themselves.
- merinowool 8y ago
  All accepted religions are floating on the sea of blood. If nobody gets crucified over pasta then it is just bollocks.
squozzer 8y ago
I think Ms. De Wilde's colander is simply smashing, it's hard to distinguish from a proper bowler. Frankly, religion has Western courts and other institutions in a tizzy. It seems everything established after The Protestant Revolution has to pass a higher bar, probably to discourage undesired behavior masquerading as "freedom of religion."
- Floegipoky 8y ago
  With a few notable exceptions, like Scientology.
  - jobigoud 8y ago
    Many European countries, including the Netherlands, don't recognize scientology as a religion. Some have it as a charity, others as a commercial entity. In France we classify it as a cult and treat it as such.
galaxyLogic 8y ago
I think we should ask who has the right to manipulate other people's beliefs into non-sense. Then once somebody believes it does it give the believer special rights? If traditional religions have the right to do so why don't I, or my group of friends? But on the whole I would say that Pastafarianism is more of a question than an answer? Well it is an answer in that it tells us we can believe whatever we want and the society seems to have accepted that notion

33 points by kwhitefoot 8y ago

Imho, like any proper religion, Pastafarianism is overdue for a schism/fork. Talking like a pirate does not translate well to many languages, and ninjas are generally considered way cooler, which would make the ramen noodle the most superior noodle of noodles. One could argue this outcome was already prophecized over a decade ago [0], but back then we just didn't understand the memes proper context, as we lacked belief in the FSM. This forked Pastafarianism could also be specifically tailored to have a higher acceptance as a "proper religion" in front of worldly courts, to get the proper recognition, and same benefits, like other "proper" religions. It'd be a rather peaceful solution to the very obvious discrimination and oppression of a religious minority. If they won't change, then we have to. [0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pirates-vs-ninjas https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pirates-vs-ninjas

jobigoud 8y ago
I would definitely support a vegetarian fork of the spagghetti monster. Until then my go to icon will be the invisible pink unicorn.

gleenn 8y ago

It's troubling that the judge ruled Pastafarianism as "not serious enough". That seems like a very weak argument given I don't know how you define seriousness. These people clearly pass some level of seriousness because they are showing up to the courts to defend their beliefs.

pluto9 8y ago
Not sincere enough is probably what they meant. The distinction between Pastafarianism and any mainstream religion is obvious: adherents of actual religions genuinely believe in their tenets (by design, at least--the sincerity of any particular individual notwithstanding). Pastafarianism is a set of memes designed to parody them.
- PopsiclePete 8y ago
  How do you "prove" faith? You can't prove I'm not a serious Pastafarian, much like I can't prove you don't really believe in Jesus?
  - pluto9 8y ago
    You mean, how can you know someone's true thoughts? You can't, but you can make a reasonable guess based on their actions, social cues, and communications with others. There is plenty of precedent for making legal decisions on this basis. That's why our legal vocabulary includes phrases such as "intent to do harm" and "knowledge of wrongdoing". That's beside the point, though. What's relevant in this case is the intent of the religion itself, not its individual adherents. Geniune religions are intended to be sincerely believed in, even if every single one of their followers is faking it. Pastafarianism is intended to be a parody, no matter how many Pastafarians happen to genuinely believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      "Pastafarianism is intended to be a parody, no matter how many Pastafarians happen to genuinely believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." So if you demonstrated through a preponderance of the evidence that the historical figure behind a religion wasn't serious, it would retroactively change its status? Consider: - L. Ron Hubbard - Joseph Smith - Anton LaVey Do empirical facts about these founders really affect whether they started religions?
      - pluto9 8y ago
        > So if you demonstrated through a preponderance of the evidence that the historical figure behind a religion wasn't serious, it would retroactively change its status? Possibly, though in practice I think it would be unwise to revoke the status of an already legally recognized religion, especially if it has a large and genuine following. But I would argue that Scientology and the Church of Satan should never have been legally recognized in the first place, precisely because their founders were not sincere. Mormonism I'm not so sure about--your comment seems to imply that it's an established fact that Joseph Smith founded the LDS church in bad faith, but it is not. There's plenty of room for debate on that subject. One could argue that if enough of a religion's adherents are sincere, the religion takes on a "life of its own" independent of its founder's intentions, and should therefore be considered sincere. That argument could be used in favor of Scientology's legitimacy, for example. However, that is clearly not the case with Pastafarianism, so it doesn't apply to this court decision. This is all really quite simple: the difference between a sincere religion and a parody religion is that one is sincere and the other is a parody. Stated another way, any "religion" that exists solely to be a parody of religion is, by definition, not a religion. That is what the Dutch court recognized. The willful blindness to this obvious fact on the part of the FSM crowd is amusing. They're appalled that a court doesn't take their "religion" seriously when they've publicly stated that they don't take it seriously themselves.
merinowool 8y ago
All accepted religions are floating on the sea of blood. If nobody gets crucified over pasta then it is just bollocks.

squozzer 8y ago

I think Ms. De Wilde's colander is simply smashing, it's hard to distinguish from a proper bowler. Frankly, religion has Western courts and other institutions in a tizzy. It seems everything established after The Protestant Revolution has to pass a higher bar, probably to discourage undesired behavior masquerading as "freedom of religion."

Floegipoky 8y ago
With a few notable exceptions, like Scientology.
- jobigoud 8y ago
  Many European countries, including the Netherlands, don't recognize scientology as a religion. Some have it as a charity, others as a commercial entity. In France we classify it as a cult and treat it as such.

galaxyLogic 8y ago

I think we should ask who has the right to manipulate other people's beliefs into non-sense. Then once somebody believes it does it give the believer special rights? If traditional religions have the right to do so why don't I, or my group of friends? But on the whole I would say that Pastafarianism is more of a question than an answer? Well it is an answer in that it tells us we can believe whatever we want and the society seems to have accepted that notion