
Spaghetti injunction: Pastafarianism is not a religion, Dutch court rules - kwhitefoot
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/16/pastafarianism-is-not-a-religion-dutch-court-rules
======
gleenn
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
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.

~~~
gizmo686
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.

~~~
pluto9
> their campaigns are designed primarily as reactions to other group's (mostly
> Christian) exercise of religion

I think this is key. The intent of the Church of Satan and Pastafarianism is
to make a statement about other religions. They're a form of social
commentary. Agree with them or not, that is not what a religion is.

~~~
gizmo686
As a matter of precedent, the Satanic Temple (a different group than the
Church of Satan) is a religion in the US for purposes of 1st amendment
protections.

More importantly, we do not have a clear standarn on what qualifies as a
"religion". And for, I think obvious reasons, that is a line we don't really
want to draw.

Even if we do draw that line, do we really want to deny people their rights to
deeply held convictions just because those convuctions are not part of a
"religion". Is that not religous discrimanation against the non religious?

~~~
pluto9
> More importantly, we do not have a clear standarn on what qualifies as a
> "religion". And for, I think obvious reasons, that is a line we don't really
> want to draw.

Some standard does and must exist, even if it's not clearly defined. Sincerity
of belief is a reasonable benchmark, I think, since religions are systems of
belief. Otherwise, nearly any set of axioms can be considered a religion, and
if everything is a religion, nothing is.

------
squozzer
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
With a few notable exceptions, like Scientology.

~~~
jobigoud
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
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

------
freeflight
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
I would definitely support a vegetarian fork of the spagghetti monster. Until
then my go to icon will be the invisible pink unicorn.

