back to article Flying Spaghetti Monster is not God, rules mortal judge

A United States District Court judge has ruled that Pastafarianism, the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), is not a religion. Stephen Cavanaugh, a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, brought the case after being denied access to Pastafarian literature and religious items while behind bars. Cavanaugh argued …

Page:

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Devil

          You can't Summon a God, they Summon You

    1. ElMarco
      Facepalm

      Re:

      FFS. You don't have to get angry about everything. In America religions don't pay tax so the opposite is true.

      Chill out and eat some spaghetti.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Re:

        "Chill out and eat some spaghetti."

        Is this like the pastafarian version of transubstantiation without the need for, er... transubstantiation?

    2. BlartVersenwaldIII
      Angel

      > So what exactly is the definition of a "proper" cult?

      I believe t'was Ambrose Bierce put it best;

      Cult: A small, unpopular religion

      Religion: A large, popular cult

    3. Mog_X

      A cult is a small unpopular religion.

      A religion is a large popular cult.

      Edit - BlartVersenwaldIII beat me to it.

    4. KeithR

      "So what exactly is the definition of a "proper" cult?"

      George Osborne's one.

      (I may have misread the question...)

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "George Osborne's one."

        And don't forget Jeremy Cult, the (ex-)Hunture Secretary.

  1. Psmiffy

    This is the kind of nonsense

    up with which I shall not put!

    I am a firm supporter of FSM and sport the fishy sticker on my car, but I am glad common sense won out at the end of the day. Although to deny the prisoner reading material seems a little harsh, especially as it is fiction.

    Can we now apply common sense to other things, like religions, politics etc?

    Ramen!

    1. Elmer Phud

      Re: This is the kind of nonsense

      There is no such thing as 'common sense', the phrase is merely a form of social blackmail to get others to tacitly agree with you.

      It is usually neither 'common' nor 'sensible' --- if it was it wouldn't be so widley used by UKKKIP/BF/EDL etc.etc.

      1. Jagged
        Joke

        Re: This is the kind of nonsense

        Have you been reading too many Scott Adams blogs?

        While we are on the subject, I am counting down the days till he starts a religion. I will happily sport a curling up tie.

        1. Michael Habel

          Re: This is the kind of nonsense

          Have you been reading too many Scott Adams blogs?

          Are you sure it wasn't Emily Brewster - Ask the Editor á Merriam Webster?

      2. Kurt Meyer

        Re: This is the kind of nonsense

        @ Elmer Phud

        "There is no such thing as 'common sense', the phrase is merely a form of social blackmail to get others to tacitly agree with you."

        I look each way before crossing the road.

        You?

        1. #define INFINITY -1

          Re: This is the kind of nonsense

          @Kurt Meyer

          You've never been to rural areas.

          1. Kurt Meyer

            Re: This is the kind of nonsense

            @ #define INFINITY -1

            I spent my boyhood summers working on my Uncle's farm.

            I did, and still do, look both ways. It's a habit which has stood me in good stead all my life.

            1. #define INFINITY -1

              Re: This is the kind of nonsense

              Different kind of rural... guess it'd be difficult to explain.

        2. Mike Moyle

          Re: This is the kind of nonsense

          @ Kurt Meyer: I'm from Massachusetts -- around these parts we learn to look both ways before crossing a one-way street but I've lived places (New York, Los Angeles) where this is, apparently, considered abnormal. "Common sense" varies from place to place.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: This is the kind of nonsense

          "I look each way before crossing the road."

          But do you reverse the order when in a country that drives on the opposite side to which you are used? People use to laugh at me for looking for traffic coming the wrong way down a one-way street. My answer was "You know it's a one-way street - I know it's a one-way street - someone coming the wrong way obviously doesn't".

          Not sure what one does in countries where everyone drives in the middle.

          Somewhere in the Far East there is apparently a busy city with no concept of traffic stopping to allow a pedestrian to cross the multi-lane roads. The pedestrian has to walk across the stream of traffic at a steady predictable pace - and the vehicles will accommodate them without stopping.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: This is the kind of nonsense

            "You know it's a one-way street - I know it's a one-way street - someone coming the wrong way obviously doesn't""

            OT...

            A cousin, a retired headmaster, visited the town where his school had been based. He failed to notice the sign and drove the wrong way down what was now a wrong way street. He was stopped by a policeman. Who recognised him.

            "I'm afraid you're driving the wrong way down this street, Sir," he said.

            "Oh dear, " said my cousin, "I suppose you're going to have to book me."

            "Well," said the policeman, "before I do that you had better turn in at that entrance and come back on the road facing the right way." So my cousin did, and stopped by the policeman. "All right, here's my driving licence."

            "What for?" asked the policeman. "You're driving the right way down this street. Thank you for the reference you gave me when I applied for the police. Have a nice day, Sir."

  2. Mad Mike

    All 'religions' the same

    I don't really see how Pastafarianism is any different to Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Because it's new, we're aware of how it was created and why etc., so we know its satire and fiction. Same is true of Scientology though. However, if someone in 2000 years time looked back on Pastafarianism, would they know this? Maybe Christianity was satire in it's time against some earlier religion. It's just that we don't know that because of the passage of time.

    I don't really see how you can differentiate based on the argument made between any religions. They should all be treated the same. After all, a religion is simply a set of beliefs followed by multiple people. There isn't any religion out there that can show their 'religious texts' are fact based and the events and interpretations are true. Some we can show definitely aren't (such as Pastafarianism), but most we simply don't know!! In many cases, they might even be fact based (as in the events took place), but are either misunderstandings of what went on or deliberate twisting of the event(s).

    Personally, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to following his religion any more or less than a person practicing one of the more established religions. As for Scientology.....if someones stupid enough to part with their money, that's their business. My issue is coercion, whether explicit or implied. There isn't a religion around that doesn't use coercion as simply calling someone a sinner or excommunicating them for an act is effectively coercion.

    1. dan1980

      Re: All 'religions' the same

      @Mad Mike

      As a godless heathen with no love for organised religions and appreciation for satire, I still think that there is a world of difference between Pastafarianism and, say, Christianity. I also, believe it or not, see an almost equally-large difference with Scientology.

      Is Scientology shamelessly made up and utterly unsupportable by evidence or reason? Absolutely.

      But the real difference is that the adherents of Scientology actually believe in it. One of the biggest crticisms levelled at Scientology is that it exploits and cons people into working for them and paying for the privilege.

      And yes, they are manipulative and use all the techniques other cults to indoctrinate and control the members. But that very manipulation is possible because those members actually put stock in the ideas and tenets of the 'religion'.

      Likewise with any other 'actual' religion - the adherents actually believe in what that religion teaches and promotes. Not all believers swallow the creeds wholesale, but 'real' Christians do actually believe that a man named Jesus existed some 2000 years ago and that man was the son of God who died in atonement for human sins.

      If any Pastafarianism honestly and sincerely believes that the FSM actually exists then that would be another matter but, let's face it, that's just not the case.

      So, while I have no time for religion and think those who follow religious creeds are largely fooling themselves, there is still a significant difference between these things.

      1. Alien8n

        Re: All 'religions' the same

        @dan1980 the biggest difference between Scientology and other religions, even the Mormons, is that they don't allow anyone to see their "sacred texts" unless they pay for them. And even then it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds before you're deemed worthy enough to read the really "important" texts about Xenu and the volcanoes. At least most other religions go "here's all of our religious texts, make your own mind up". This is mainly of course because if you were to read the OT3 texts before being brainwashed you would quite rightly declare it bullshit.

        The worrying thing is that celebrities, who get to bypass most of the indoctrination, still endorse this rubbish once they discover what it's really about.

        1. dan1980

          Re: All 'religions' the same

          @Alien8n

          ". . . the biggest difference between Scientology and other religions, even the Mormons, is that they don't allow anyone to see their "sacred texts" unless they pay for them."

          Oh, absolutely, though I would contend that the standard path taken by many in the 'mainstream' religions you mention is to be taught the religion early on. Which parts of the central text(s) are taught as actually true and which are explained as allegorical varies by denomination and the individuals doing the 'teaching'. It's generally not that those texts are simple plonked down for people to "make [their] own mind up".

          But still, the basic differentiation is between Pastafarianism as a self-consciously invented parody/satire/social-challenge* and those religions where the adherents actually believe at least the core tenets.

          * - I think this is the most important function of the 'religion' and indeed why it was invented in the first place. As I see it, the religion presents a challenge not only to religious people but specifically to authorities, to prompt them to explain why any given rule or exception should apply to, say, Christianity but not Pastafarianism. Essentially, challenging those people to legally define what is so special about those religions they do give special treatment to.

          1. Alien8n

            Re: All 'religions' the same

            @dan1980 while true that the standard path to most religions is to be taught it the vast majority are still very fond of giving out their religious texts for free. Think Gideon bibles. In fact the only one that I know of that expressly forbids letting "non-believers" see their texts for free is Scientology.

        2. Mad Mike

          Re: All 'religions' the same

          @Alien8n

          "At least most other religions go "here's all of our religious texts, make your own mind up"."

          Not sure about other religions, but the Roman Catholic church is notorious for keeping the Vatican library pretty secret. There are thousands of scolars who would desperately like to rummage through there, but are denied. Why might be a very pertinent question.........

          1. Alien8n

            Re: All 'religions' the same

            @Mad Mike they don't preach from their library documents though, just the standard bible that anyone can pick up in any book shop. Interestingly it's said that the vatican holds the world's largest collection of medieval pornography. The real reason for secrecy is more likely to hide all the secret deals and financial information from years ago. The Vatican was a major contributor to the war efforts of many a medieval nation. During the middle ages you couldn't go to war without the blessing of the Pope and you can bet the Vatican benefitted after the war finished.

            1. Teropher

              Re: All 'religions' the same

              @alien8n

              The Vatican Library/Archives aren't secret and haven't been since 1881.

              As for the Vatican Archives... Secretum, the Vatican says, translates more accurately to “personal” than to “secret” and refers to the private letters and historical records of past popes. In fact, the archives haven’t been secret since 1881, when Pope Leo XIII opened them up to scholars.

              http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/01/whats-hidden-in-the-vatican-archives/

      2. David Nash Silver badge

        Re: All 'religions' the same

        @Mad Mike is correct, that is indeed the point of FSM. (OT: I can't help thinking Finite State Machine...)

        Therefore they should be treated no differently than Christianity or various other religions. You may say you know the difference but how can it be proven? If it looks like a duck etc...

      3. KeithR

        Re: All 'religions' the same

        "If any Pastafarianism honestly and sincerely believes that the FSM actually exists then that would be another matter but, let's face it, that's just not the case."

        In other words - they're a shitload smarter than actual "people of faith".

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

      The big difference with today is that today we have the Internet and 99% of the population knows how to read. That is rather the reverse of those times where the Internet was the passing minstrel and less than 1% of the population knew how to read.

      Jesus was a Jewish Arab. He did not call himself Christian, obviously. Christianity was brought about in the following 300+ years after his death. I think that, for a movement that started so long ago, it's history is pretty well documented - mainly the fact the early Christians were basically considered a splinter sect from the Jews.

      If we keep our Internet intact, I think that, 2,000 years from know we'll still be able to look up Scientology and Christianity and anyone with a brain will see that there is a very, very big difference between the two.

      In any case, satire is a modern affliction. No religious movement of the time was started for the sake of satire, I'm pretty sure of that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

        The big difference with today is that today we have the Internet and 99% of the population knows how to read.

        You don't even need to travel beyond this forum to find evidence that the ability to read does not imply to ability (or desire) to comprehend what is being read..

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

          thankyou Symon.

          I was about to make a rather Juvenal pun on the subject, i'll stop being childish.

        2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          @Symon

          I said that satire is a modern affliction. I did not say that it didn't exist before 1950.

          I am well aware of satire used as social commentary in ancient Greece, although I do thank you for providing that link, and I've learned something about the scribes of Ancient Egypt.

          However, your comment basically does not contradict my intent, which is to say that it is only today that everything is satire and that religions in those days hardly knew the meaning of the word.

          Not to mention the dangers of being a Court Jester.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Symon- @Symon

              Aristophanes had to be careful (as did Euripides, who is in some ways more deviously satirical than Aristophanes). It was all right to make jokes about Dionysus because he was a god of taking drugs and getting your rocks off, so when he rows across the Styx complaining about blisters on the bum it's OK. It is all right to joke about the women in the thesmophoriasuzae revealing what they get up to when their husbands aren't around because again it's about ritual intoxication. But when Euripides is trying to prove all Aeskylus's prologues start the same way and starts a sentence which will end by telling us that almighty Zeus has lost his little bottle of oil, he has to be interrupted because Zeus must not be spoken of jestingly.

              The Greeks had what you might call a thearchitectonic or a pecking order of gods, just as we do. It would be very unsafe to joke about Zeus anywhere and equally unsafe to joke about Pallas Athena in Athens.

      3. Mad Mike

        Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

        @Pascal Monett

        "I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known"

        I know there's a lot of people who think and claim the origin is well known, but there is precious little true fact around it. By that, I mean the true start, e.g. what happened in the bible etc. and the events at day 0 rather than 300 years later. What people invented over the initial 300 years has no relevance on whether the original events of the religion actually took place or were interpreted correctly.

        Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that the history is rather badly known, especially as there are consistent rumours of suppressed documents and accounts of events. Also, why would the Vatican routinely deny access to its library of documents rather than simply make the contents known to all? Unless, there's something hidden in there they don't want people to know.

        To be honest, the more I think about it, the less we know of the TRUTH (as in proveable fact) of the origin of Christianity.....

        1. Teropher

          Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

          @MadMike

          Are you joking or just being wilfully ignorant. The beginnings of Christianity are very well documented. Have you never heard of a little thing called the New Testament? They are books and actual letters written by first hand witnesses written in the first century by men who were so convinced of the miracles they saw Jesus perform and of the example of his life that they spread his teaching even though it meant death at the hands of the Roman Empire for not worshipping their mythical god Zeus. These writings were then put together by the Church into the structured form we now have. "the evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning...It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians." (Wikipedia)

          As for the Vatican Archives... Secretum, the Vatican says, translates more accurately to “personal” than to “secret” and refers to the private letters and historical records of past popes. In fact, the archives haven’t been secret since 1881, when Pope Leo XIII opened them up to scholars.

          http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/01/whats-hidden-in-the-vatican-archives/

          "To be honest, the more I think about it, the less we know of the TRUTH (as in proveable fact) of the origin of Christianity....."

          The less you have to worry about your soul?

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

        > Jesus was a Jewish Arab.

        *Bzzt*. Nope. He was Jewish - yes. Arab, no.

        > Christianity was brought about in the following 300+ years after his death

        *bzzt*. Nope. His followers because called Christians in the few years after his death (as well as "Nazarenes"..).

        So - nice post, shame that the basis of it rests on pillars of sand.

      5. Michael Habel

        Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

        You mean 'Cause Christianity has a defacto Emperor with a very large Hat (mind you!), that this somehow must deminish all other (pseudo)religions? Hell there was a time when I prayed to the Valar, (e.g. J.R.R. Tolkien), before 'common sence' smacked me in the face and clued me onto what a sham all religions are. In fact looking back at it, it's just one more reason why I really do believe that he never got the credit he deserved as one of the great English Author's during his lifetime.

        But, how you could't read the Silmarillion as anything but, the new Testament (set within Middle Earth), is actually lost on me. Keep in mind that for some both the Old, and New Testament's are to such followed also a record of history. A false history, as anyone with a Radiological Carbondater Device would surly tell you.

        1. quasimodo

          Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

          Tolkien as you know, was a devout Catholic and a Professor. Was he too stupid to realise that all religions are shams?

          As for recognition ... this country of ours is Protestant. Perhaps the reason he wasn't recognised is that?

      6. Tom 7

        Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

        Christianity originally was a movement of people trying to live better.

        A certain Roman emperor realised there was a lot of money in religion and wanted to get his hands on it. All the other religions were pretty well set and organised so he chose one he could easily usurp and commissioned a shit load of PR stuff to be created - this became the New Testament,

        1. KeithR

          Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

          "Christianity originally was a movement of people trying to live better."

          No, not really.

        2. Teropher

          Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

          @Tom 7

          Oh my goodness thats a new one on me and gave me quite a chuckle. If he was in it for the money then he should've stuck to the mythical gods of Rome. Being persecuted and killed by the Roman Empire for 300yrs, not to mention not being allowed to build churches til Constantine legalized Christianity, the Church was NOT rich. Where on God's green earth did you come up with that rubbish? I think you're confused with a certain King Henry VIII of England who after not getting the annulment he wanted to his legitimate marriage declared himself head of the church in England and proceeded to pillage and plunder churches and monastaries kicking monks and nuns out and taking even the very property owned by the church. That Emperor Constantine did not do because the church had none of those things in the fourth century. However, the opposite was true for the entire list of Roman and Greek gods all over the empire with their elaborate temples of worship.

      7. Teropher

        Re: I think the origin of Christianity is rather well-known

        Wrong, Jesus was not an Arab but an Israelite, a Hebrew who spoke Aramaic. Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ, the Jews long awaited Messiah though the leading Jews did not accept him as such. His disciples continued spreading his teachings even though it meant death and according to the book of Acts chapter 11 verse 26 "it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians" not 300 yrs later. It was in the 4th century that Constantine legalized Christianity ending 300yrs of persecution against the Christians.

    3. Anomalous Cowshed

      Re: All 'religions' the same

      I think the definition of a religion is whether the people who practise it take it and themselves seriously.

      To test for that, you look for evidence of elaborate and perhaps seemingly senseless rituals, behaviours amounting to denial and even harming one's interests in the name of the religion, and above all refusal to accept any dissent, willingness to exclude / expel / excommunicate / exterminate the disbelievers or apostates or infidels and all that jazz.

      So far the FSM people have not reached that level, I believe they love it because they think it's funny and irreverent. But beware, with passing time, some people may yet arise who do take it seriously and are not aware that it was ever designed to make a mockery, and then...it will be a religion.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All 'religions' the same

        As a godless heathen with no love for organised religions and appreciation for satire, I still think that there is a world of difference between Pastafarianism and, say, Christianity. I also, believe it or not, see an almost equally-large difference with Scientology.

        As far as I know, Pastafarianism alone of the three has not used violence to further their aims. That makes it leading contender for the One True Religion in my book. It's a recipe book.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All 'religions' the same

      @Mad Mike - "There isn't a religion around that doesn't use coercion as simply calling someone a sinner or excommunicating them for an act is effectively coercion" - incorrect.

      I have my own religion, number of believers one. No-one is coerced by it. Methinks you're confusing organised religion with ALL religion, and also the 'One True Faith' religions with ALL religions. There are religions that eschew both the strict organisational structures found in the major faiths and religions that do not claim to be the OTF. Granted they are in the minority with regard to numbers of believers (and definitely granted, my personal case is an extreme), but you are quite definitely incorrect.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: All 'religions' the same

        @Esme.

        It depends a bit on how you define religion. Personally (and as I said), I think it has to have more than one person involved. Otherwise, it just becomes a set of personal morals. However, I agree the absolute definition is difficult, although most dictionaries call for it to be multiple.

        If that's the definition of religion (multiple people), I would challenge anyone to come up with any religion that hasn't used coercion at some point in its existance. I certainly can't think of one, but am more than willing to stand corrected.

        1. #define INFINITY -1

          Re: All 'religions' the same

          But now you're expanding the term to 'clique'; is that something that atheists are immune to, for example?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All 'religions' the same

        "There are religions that eschew both the strict organisational structures found in the major faiths"

        Indeed there are - I belong to one :-)

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon