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. KeithR

      Re: Can't We All Just Get A Long?

      "Most religions - Judaism being the exception - all believe that there is a better place to go to after living on Earth. All religions believe that there is some greater body that will exact punishment or praise on to everyone on Earth"

      Any more wildly inaccurate sweeping statements to hand?

      Seeing as we're discussing works of fiction anyway...

      But as you seem to like sweeping statements:

      "But above all you shouldn't be a dick"

      Most religions (there it is) EXPECT their followers to be dicks to anyone who worships a different imaginary friend, or even anyone who worships the same imaginary friend in a different way.

      Sadly, the only inaccuracy in that part is the "most" - it's just (far too) "many".

      1. Teropher

        Re: Can't We All Just Get A Long?

        @KeithR

        Sadly the inaccurate part is what constitutes getting along and being a dick. And frankly there are just as many dicks among atheists, agnostics communists, socialists, etc.

        To me being a dick and not getting along is the homosexuals who can't take a polite no from Christians with sincerely held beliefs about marriage. Christians who do not call them names, denigrate them and would sell them anything else from their bakery except a wedding cake which would make them participants in something that goes against their sincerely held beliefs. But instead those same homosexuals with their friends and supporters initiate a campaign of threats of violence and obscenities against said couple. Now tell me who is not getting along and who is being a dick? It's not the Christians. There are plenty of places willing to cater to homosexual weddings, in fact in the particular recent story I'm referring to they were given a list of alternate bakeries. Yet Christians are continuously being singled out, never Muslims mind you, and then harassed and/or driven out of business for POLITELY refusing to participate against their conscience. I've yet to see one media outlet say that any of those homosexuals were verbally mistreated, not one. They were merely told no. Why is it that only homosexuals, in a lot of people's minds, are the only ones who must be free but the Christian must be coerced against their will? Why can they not go somewhere else like everybody else does when the store they're at doesn't carry what they were looking for without throwing a temper tantrum and filing a lawsuit. Perhaps I should do that the next time my local store doesn't carry what I want and throw a public temper tantrum and insist that everyone cater to my whims.

        1. smartypants

          Re: Can't We All Just Get A Long?

          There's nothing in the bible against selling homosexuals wedding cakes, but it does mention the 'abomination' that is mixing threads and eating shellfish, but are there any christians who give a damn about that?

          No.

          Religion has always pitted 'them' against us. protestant against catholic. Sunni vs shia. All you need to do is claim it's your 'belief' and somehow that makes it alright to behave in a sub-human way. Magic!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Can't We All Just Get A Long?

            "To me being a dick and not getting along is the homosexuals who can't take a polite no from Christians with sincerely held beliefs about marriage. Christians who do not call them names, denigrate them and would sell them anything else from their bakery except a wedding cake which would make them participants in something that goes against their sincerely held beliefs. But instead those same homosexuals with their friends and supporters initiate a campaign of threats of violence and obscenities against said couple. Now tell me who is not getting along and who is being a dick? It's not the Christians.

            Beg to differ; but the Christians are not only being dicks; but they made the opening move. ...make them participants... is a bit rich. Their approval was -I believe- neither asked for nor required; they were just asked to supply a fucking cake. As far as I know there is no passage in any religious book or law in any land where supplying baked goods as a service makes you any way involved in; condoning of; or responsible for the use of that cake.

            The cake shop owner was attempting to ostracise the homosexual couple and -oh yes- that is indeed a dick move. They were attempting to assert their morality on others in a situation where the sexuality of their customers is none of their damned business.

            Now both atheists and homosexuals have as many dickheads as any other group; and I've no doubt that the ensuing 'social' media storm was both disproportionate and unpleasant to behold; but that's the internet for you. Both groups have centuries of oppression to make up for and there was probably some of that in there too.

            Yet Christians are continuously being singled out, never Muslims mind you

            You don't read the news then?

            Why is it that only homosexuals, in a lot of people's minds, are the only ones who must be free but the Christian must be coerced against their will?

            It was the Christian attempt at coercion that kicked it all off. You can't bleat when the situation gets reversed. And nobody got stoned to death or set light to, so you're ahead on points.

  1. SolidSquid

    Honestly I might have been tempted to pick holes in the reasoning, but the judge went to the trouble of doing the reading and actually considering it seriously, including raising the point of how close it is to an actual religion, so I'd say he's done exactly as he should have in this case in quite a professional manner (rather than simply dismissing the arguments as nonsense)

    That said, I do wonder if they're now going to start questioning (apparent) Christians on the contents of the bible to see if they're "real" Christians or not before allowing religious exemptions to them

  2. kain preacher

    To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a 'religious exercise' on any other work of fiction

    Ummm Church of Scientolog.

  3. Scott Broukell
    Meh

    In order for organised religion to flourish it is required that all infants below the age of consent have their brains polluted, by their parents and/or elders, with said theological drivel, reducing to zero, in most cases, the chances of said infants ever being able to truly make their own minds up about any theology once they have received a well rounded education and reached the age of consent. If religious folk are worried that their particular theology will come to nothing without taking such abusive measures then that tells you everything you need to know about the ways in which humans like to assert power and control over one another and make up sh*te to provide a spurious basis for such actions. We are all born with an innate sense of good and bad which is reinforced by learning from our parents and, as we grow, from wider social understanding. Some parents are born with a leaning towards bad and it is likely, but not a given, that their children will follow suit. If any self respecting follower of Pastafarianism is discovered to have been guilty of bludgeoning the minds of his/her child(ren) with untrue thoughts of pasta/spaghetti, before they have reached the age of consent, and can make their own minds up about such matters, then I will be the first to arrange the prompt incarceration of that individual in a deep pit of finely grated hard cheese. But worry ye not Mr. Judge, you see, Pastafarianism is will not continue and has no future, because it is not rammed down the throats of the innocent, instead it is learnt about and discussed.

    /<rant> over

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I see that you have religious objections against such heretic constructs as paragraphs and well structured sentences, so clearly the school indoctrination didn't take. Well done.

      :)

      1. Scott Broukell

        'Ere, don't you go getting all shirty now with yer new fangled evangelical grammer n'all that!

        ; )

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "In order for organised religion to flourish it is required that all infants below the age of consent have their brains polluted,"

      It is not that simple. Children raised in a moderate religion will tend to treat it like other childhood myths as they grow up. It is a good vaccination against becoming zealously religious in later life.

      Like many of our Pagan traditions it helps to express our feelings about the bounties and vicissitudes of life. Most people learn not to take it seriously. It is primarily theatre - as Augustus Pugin recognised when he applied his theatrical design talents to the moribund English churches.

      Those who are seriously indoctrinated have their religion as a major part of their identity. To give it up, or even to question it, risks both social ostracism and deep mental scars of rebellion.

    3. fandom

      And yet another one advocating censorship, with a 'will no one think of the children' rant.

      Those self righteous pricks are all the same.

  4. jake Silver badge

    Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

    Can you show me (or anyone else) why any religion is actually based on reality? If not, how can you conclude that FSMism is NOT real?

    There are no gawd/ess/s. Anybody who claims to think otherwise needs to prove their theses. During the meanwhile, idiots like Judge John M. Gerrard don't actually understand what "proof" means, nor why "I believe in FSM" means exactly the same thing as as "I believe in God".

    Humans worldwide need to get off the "my shaman said so" bandwagon. It would do us all a world of good, and probably transfer a lot of money into helping humans who need help surviving.

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

      Simple answer to this: Prove it.

      You can no more disprove the existence of any sort of God than I can prove the existence of one.

      The only way we'll both find out whether one exists or not will be when we die. At that point I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to comment on this thread to see you comment "I TOLD YOU" or whether I will be able to write "Where abouts are you in heaven? Let's have a coffee".

      1. 9Rune5

        Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

        "You can no more disprove the existence of any sort of God than I can prove the existence of one."

        By that logic there are leprechauns everywhere. I also have several bridges to sell you.

        At one point or another, hopefully, it will dawn on you that if this God entity is so all powerful, he/she/it should be able to make his/her/its presence known quite easily in ways that would leave very little doubt.

        Further more, certain Christians (and muslims too) should also consider how ridiculous it would be for an entity to create the universe and this planet, then sit around for millions and millions of years twiddling his/her/its thumbs until finally creating Man only to tell him "no buttsex and no equal rights, m'okay?". An entity that backwards is hardly worth any serious prayer time. Just sayin'.

        1. wolfetone Silver badge

          Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

          Well in that case Schrodingers cat must be dead in the box then?

          But what does it matter to you what I believe in? I also believe Panda's are pointless and should be left to go extinct.

          To be honest I believe there is a grain of truth in the bible, that some of what happened did happen. Those events aren't confined to the Bible, it can be found in lots of other books like the Quran and the Tora. But at the same time the Bible and other books have been bastardised over time to suit the needs and wants of the religion to gain more followers. The same way Coca Cola use a sweaty muscular man mowing a lawn to sell Diet Coke to females. You have a product to sell, you do what you have to do to make it popular with the public.

          But there is this belief, misguided belief, that humans are these bloody incredible people who are so so so smart that we can't possibly be outsmarted. We have been around for feck all time really, yet we're so confident we know it all. I think in the 1500's a man was burned at the stake in England for saying the Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe. That was a popular decision, because the humans around him knew best. Right now it's popular to believe that the countries on a map are all to scale with each other, when in fact Africa is drawn smaller than it really is to stop all the White people shitting themselves about it. (Look it up, it's interesting).

          And this whole "no buttsex and no equal rights", that's not a religious thing! That's humans, yet again thinking they know best. In Roman times, even in Egyptian times, it wasn't alien to have two men get it on with each other. But they both had religion at the same time? Gay marriage is legalised now, but there are plenty of Catholics who think its wrong, and there are plenty of Atheists who think it's wrong. There are still Catholics (myself included) who think it's alright for a Gay couple to marry, like wise (I'd hope) you being Atheist would also think it's fine. In the Church of England there are Gay bishops and vicars, in the church! Openly Gay bishops and vicars, and - here's a shocking revelation - there are women vicars! Up until 1700/1800's Priests could also marry in the Catholic church. So to blame religion for the infringement on the rights of homosexuals and women is misplaced.

          It isn't God writing the Bible, it's the humans running the show here on Earth who are dictating what we do and don't do. It's the same with Islamic extremists, they say they have read the Quran and that it says all non-muslims must die. They get around this by quoting lines of the Quran, out of context. But the people they preach it to lap it up for one reason or another. The Quran, like the Bible, is a book made up of smaller books and like every other religion violence, hate, all the nasty things just aren't there.

          We all know about the 10 commandments, one of them being "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Well I think that's a given isn't it? That's not too bad.

          "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is also a good thing. But it gets in the way when you need to get some oil out of a middle eastern country. But if you spin the reasons why you need to go to war - like terrorism - then it isn't murder. It's self defence. Sweet! But that's society moving the goal posts. Just because someone dies in the theatre of war doesn't mean it's not murder. Murder is murder regardless of the circumstance. But that's society's view. Society thinks it's fine to go to war, they don't want to think about the soldiers on the other side being killed, or the kids being blown up. If that happened outside of wartime it'd be Murder. But Society says "If you go to War it isn't murder. More of the opposition killed the better!". Religious texts are simple about it though. You kill someone, it's murder. They don't give caveats.

          This is an argument that's regularly had, and I've had it with Atheists, Muslims, Rastafarians etc. My girlfriends Grandad whos 76 has been Atheist all his life - which is a big deal considering what the UK was like in the 50's - and he knows it's human beings who make life shit for everyone else. Religion is the excuse. If you removed religion from the table, what would the excuses be for actions people or countries took?

          Because of the human condition, if everyone was like you and Atheist, wars would still go on. People would still be raped. Women would still be second class citizens.

          Society is the problem.

          1. KeithR

            Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

            "Well in that case Schrodingers cat must be dead in the box then?"

            Bound to be, by now...

          2. KeithR

            Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

            "Society is the problem."

            No, it's DEFINITELY religion.

            1. wolfetone Silver badge

              Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

              Nope, it's society buddy. I don't know what drugs your taking but I've never seen a Bible speak, or a Tora stand up and shout at me telling me that I should hate men who love other men.

              However, I have seen plenty of people doing that on the TV in America. They didn't look like Bibles.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Serious question for Judge John M. Gerrard ...

          You are assuming that the human race was created alone, also that He didn't have other things to do (angelic revolts etc, and what are angels anyway?). Also, it is impossible to have any kind of real free will if you know with absolute certainty that God exists, God knows what you are doing and why and what God wants you to do - so God steps back from your direct awareness. And a lot of the prescriptive stuff is made by priestly people out of their own bile.

          Personally I prefer being a Jedi - mines the one wiith a Wookie in the pocket

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    " To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a 'religious exercise' on any other work of fiction. "

    What, like the Bible or the Quran? Funny, 'religious exercise' based on that horse dung is accepted by the state.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As an ardent pastafarian I find the assertion that my religion is a parody and that my religious texts are satire DEEPLY OFFENSIVE, and I feel discriminated against by this judgement.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      See! Satire doesn't have to be funny or clever!!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm sorry to hear you are offended. Don't change your religion because of it though, that's apos-pasty.

      If someone draws a cartoon featuring pastafarianst icons, is that offensive?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If someone draws a cartoon featuring pastafarianst icons, is that offensive?

        No, we preach tolerance. Wheat tolerance, mostly.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'm wheat intolerant, so would that make me an antipastafarian?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Nah, but you're probably breaking some anti-discrimination laws.

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        If someone draws a cartoon featuring pastafarianst icons, is that offensive?

        I suppose those meatballs might bother a vegetarian pastafarian. Is there a tofu sect?

        1. Semtex451
          Pint

          Happen to be eating a Quorn mince Spag Bol. Was all they had left in the canteen.

          See I converted to Pastafarianism yonks ago, and have no plans to launch a Quorn sect, yet.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Golden Bough

    by Sir James George Frazer covers a vast number of ancient beliefs. They boil down to druidic rituals that people hope will control the bounties and vicissitude of everyday life. Whether any of these rituals have any effect is never understood - and factual investigation is discouraged.

    Organised religions feed on that human need. They dictate conformity within a group for fear of losing its protection - while the inherent levers of social/political control can be used for good or ill.

  8. TRT Silver badge

    And the question of morality...

    as both a feature of religion and of rightful law occupies the time of countless philosophers, legal and otherwise. Now don't anger them or the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries, and other professional thinking persons will call a pan-galactic philosophers strike.

  9. Jedit Silver badge
    Joke

    Denying this man access to his means of worship?

    Honestly, it only sounds reasonable under the circumstances. If Cavanaugh had access to sufficient quantities of pasta he might make a noose from the noodles and hang himself.

  10. #define INFINITY -1
    Coat

    RECORDS

    It seems that the difference between Pastafarianism and other religions is being overlooked. Possibly YOU believe you have 'all knowledge'; from my vantage point, most recorded history was recorded by members of a religion (pre-gutenberg). Yes that makes much history debatable, but if you're going to stand on your soapbox and tell me 'some scientist drew such-and-such a conclusion' and I must believe it, well ---->

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: RECORDS

      It seems that the difference between Pastafarianism and other religions is being overlooked.

      I think you meant to say "overcooked"..

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Indeed!

    "The Flying Spaghetti Monster Is Not God"

    Quite, it's a strawman.

    and a poor one at that, but how could anything trying to be God be anything but poor imitation, except God himself.

    1. smartypants

      Re: Indeed!

      "how could anything trying to be God be anything but poor imitation"

      Easy with such a low barrier to entry. All you have to do is ensure that your strawman has no actual effect on reality, other than via the minds of the faithful.

    2. Fortycoats

      Re: Indeed!

      And which god would that be? Jehovah, Allah, Ra, Vishnu, Zeus, Jupiter, Muad'Dib, Offler the crocodile-god, or is it really the FSM?

      1. King Jack
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: Indeed!

        Muad'Dib!! Brilliant.

        1. Semtex451

          Re: Indeed!

          Speaking of Muad'Dib, reminds me that the spice used in your recipe is added to your taste.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Indeed!

        What god?

        You know very well what God.

        1. KeithR

          Re: Indeed!

          "You know very well what God."

          No. Is it the made-up one you believe in, or the made-up one I've just come up with?

  12. ukgnome

    Let Us Pray

    Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles.

    Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven.

    Give us this day our daily sauce,

    and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us.

    And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce.

    For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce,

    forever and ever.

    R'Amen.

  13. Millwright

    No, he didn't. He broke with Rome and created the Church of England but he was doctrinally Catholic. Protestantism - which started mainly in mainland Europe and whose followers in England, like the Lollards, had been given a hard time for centuries - came later under Edward VI and Elizabeth 1.

  14. Sooty

    "The decision to teach Intelligent Design was justified as it being one of many widely-held religious beliefs about the origins of the Earth"

    I thought the whole point of Intelligent Design was that you can't teach religion in schools, so they were pretending it was science.

  15. pro-logic

    Troubling precedent

    Pastafarianism is clearly a 'joke' religion. But the beauty of it is that it's written and designed in the exact same way as a 'real' religion.

    The judge has opened a can of worms here...

    I would have thought that Pastafarianism is actually registered as a religion in the US by now. In which case it would make it even harder for the judge to go with the 'joke' excuse.

    1. Chorotega

      Re: Troubling precedent

      This could have wider implications. A Pastafarian Minister (Which I am) can currently legally conduct marriages in the US, with a Marriage licence. This can be obtained with just your Ministerial certificate ($20) and a letter of good standing from the Church (Free with the certificate). Also, serving US soldiers can have "CFSM" as their religion on their dog tags. I wonder if these rights will also be revoked?

  16. james 68

    Supurb

    Somebody get this guy to rule on scientology sharpish. (yes, that's scientology with a small 's', because it is not a real religion - or word for that matter according to the spell checker).

    In all seriousness this judge has a rather sensible outlook which could give a major blow to those fuckwits.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Supurb

      (yes, that's scientology with a small 's', because it is not a real religion - or word for that matter according to the spell checker).

      But it is a proper noun, even if it's not a proper religion, so the capital 'S' is valid.

  17. arctic_haze

    Next time they'll tell us Jedi is not a religion!

    Actually I count as a Christian. However, I feel uneasy with judges ruling what is a religion. This is the first step down a very slippery slope...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Next time they'll tell us Jedi is not a religion!

      Actually I count as a Christian

      Oh? Do Christians count differently? What do they use, octal?

      :)

      1. Swarthy
        Joke

        Re: Next time they'll tell us Jedi is not a religion!

        Well, Pagans use hex....

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