I think a much more interesting case is the Satanic Temple. On the one hand, they are pretty clearly designed with the specific intent of getting the legal pro

I think a much more interesting case is the Satanic Temple. On the one hand, they are pretty clearly designed with the specific intent of getting the legal protections of being a religion. And their campaigns are designed primarily as reactions to other group's (mostly Christian) exercise of religion in places where the Temple feels are inappropriate. I'm pretty sure that one of their tenents, "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone" was designed specifically to help their legal case for their pro abortion campaign. On the other hand, you would be hard pressed to argue that the member do not, generally, believe in the tenets of the Temple. I think the bigger issue is that we started with the notion that governments should not discriminate against religions, or give preferential treatment to any one religion. But over time, that has grown into the notion that religions should be granted extra rights. Long term, I think the only solution is to expand the rights we give to religions to everyone. Anything else is discrimination against the non religious. Returning to the case at hand: >adherents of actual religions genuinely believe in their tenets How do you define tenets? One could argue that the tenets of Pastafarianism is empirisism, a philisophy on how to view truth in the universe. To that end, the flying spaghetti monster is a parable, not meant to be taken literally. This is no different from the large number of Christians who would say that stories in the Bible are parables meant to teach us, and not true stories meant to be taken literally.