Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pastafarians not giving up their claim to be a religion

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The claim was recently dismissed by a judge. From Atlas Obscura:

Since its introduction in 2005, the mythology of Pastafarianism has grown to encompass pirates, an afterlife with a beer volcano, and more. There is, of course, a snazzy orientation video to welcome you into the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly arms:

Spaghetti, Wenches & Metaphysics: Episode 1—The FSM from Matt Tillman on Vimeo.

In fact, Pastafarianism is an officially recognized religion in three countries—first in Poland, where it became an officially registered religious community in 2014 thanks to a legal technicality, then in the Netherlands this past January. And just this weekend, New Zealand recognized the first legally-binding Pastafarian wedding, officiated by “minestroni” Karen Martyn. The happy couple were wed in the customary pirate’s garb, and Martyn is ready to perform additional ceremonies for any legally eligible adults, explaining to the BBC, “I’ve had people from Russia, from Germany, from Denmark, from all over contacting me and wanting me to marry them in the church because of our non-discriminatory philosophy.” More.

The underlying purpose may be to bring religion into disrepute by organized silliness.

A central characteristic of traditionally recognized religions, protected by conscience rights, is that, whether one thinks them right or wrong, sensible or silly, people do believe them. One somehow knows that these people do not believe what they say.

The result of successful legal challenges would be to undermine the importance of honest belief and conscience as such in determining cases involving religion.

See also: Wow: Court rules for common sense… Flying Spaghetti Monster not a religion Pastafarianism was so obviously a regional cultural parody, and yet… Maybe it’s instructive that it was a North American judge who figured that one out.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Hi Phinehas. I'm confused about exactly what you are saying, and would like to be clearer - I can't tell whether we disagree about something or are just not clear about the position I'm stating. I understand that people sometimes choose to break the law because they believe the law is morally wrong and because they are willing to accept the consequences for doing so. In Rosa Parks case, there were legal and social consequences that negatively impacted her, but she also made a difference and helped bring about a change in the laws that she objected to. But you ask,
Do you not think Rosa Parks ought to have been legally excused?
I'm not quite sure how to interpret this question. Yes, I personally agree with Rosa Parks that the laws she broke were morally wrong, and I honor her for the role she played in confronting them. But do I think that just because the objected to the laws on moral grounds that it would have been reasonable to expect for the legal authorities to say, "That's fine - if you object to the laws you don't have to follow them." Of course not. That's my main point. One can't expect to be legally excused from following a law just because they morally object to it. Maybe it would clarify things if I knew what you thought: Take the pharmacist example: do you believe that a pharmacist who is legally licensed to, and thus legally responsible for, dispensing birth control pills should be allowed to refuse to do so, without legal consequence, to unmarried women because he believes it is morally wrong for those women to use them. Does his moral belief give him the legal right to not follow that part of the law to which he objects? What are your thoughts on this situation?Aleta
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Phineas: " At bottom, I do claim that Rosa Parks ought to have been excused from having to follow the law, don’t you?" I must have missed something. Did Rosa Parks swear an oath to uphold the law? Was she receiving a pay check to uphold the law?Indiana Effigy
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Aleta: "Excused from having to follow the law" is different from "legally excused?" Do you not think Rosa Parks ought to have been legally excused? Or would you merely tell Rosa Parks that she is to be commended for her moral stand, but ought to understand that she still must face the legal consequences of her actions?Phinehas
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
I mean legally excused, not morally excused. I think I clarified this some in #86.Aleta
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Aleta:
What they cannot legitimately do is claim that because of their moral beliefs they should be excused from having to follow the law.
Yes and no. I suppose it depends on what you mean by being "excused." At bottom, I do claim that Rosa Parks ought to have been excused from having to follow the law, don't you?Phinehas
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Trumper: "One would have to be considered ignorant if they claim that their beliefs must follow the laws of the land at the time the laws are laid down…this is basically what you are trying to claim. Free will…sure you can change your mind as you mature…but it is not dictated by a law." Nobody is saying that a county clerk cannot act on their moral values. All we are saying is they cannot let them impact the carrying out their duties as a clerk. If these duties run contrary to the current laws that they are sworn to uphold, then they are morally bound to resign. To refuse to carry out those duties is, in itself, moral as long as they continue to accept the pay checks. Here is the oath that clerks must take. Please point me to the part that says that they are only swearing to uphold the laws at the time that the oath is taken. "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, "and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor", affection or partiality, so help me God." I especially like part about "without favour".Indiana Effigy
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
You are leaving out a critical part of what I have said, and perhaps therefore not fully understanding me. We all could be, and perhaps have been, faced with situations where our moral beliefs conflict with the law. In that case we have to make the decision how to act: is the situation important enough to us to therefore not follow the law? If we make that decision, though, we need to also be prepared to live with the legal consequences. Our moral beliefs may cause us to choose to not obey the law, but they don't relieve of us of our legal obligation to follow the law. They just put moral obligation above legal obligation. Do you see the difference: there is a difference between saying A: "I have moral objections to this law and therefore I should be legally excused from having to follow it.", and B: "I have moral objections to this law and therefore am going to willfully choose to not follow it, even though I am aware of the legal consequences of not doing so." A is a statement about the society's response to your moral objections, and is wrong: society should not excuse you from a following a law just because you have moral objections to it. B is a statement about your own response to your moral objections, and is a choice that you can make if the situation seems serious enough.Aleta
April 21, 2016
April
04
Apr
21
21
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
"I agree that someone could support a law but not support the law after it was changed – obviously this applies to Davis in Tennessee. But that is different than the legal obligation to follow the law: when the law changed she was, by virtue of her office, legally obligated to follow the new law, even if she morally disagreed with it." -You are saying two things here... One could not support a law after it was changed but... should follow it due to ones position/standing. This is a rather weak attempt to make ones position supportable. This is very similar to Hitler..... say you were transfered to a 'camp' to murder millions of innocent souls..your job was to decide who was killed and who was allowed to work..... the law was clear...the orders even clearer.... "What they cannot legitimately do is claim that because of their moral beliefs they should be excused from having to follow the law"..... Ouch. I fully disagree with you on your claim that one cannot claim this...morals are what would save us or lack thereof what would end us.Trumper
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
Perhaps there is some confusion between us here. I don't think we (IE and I) were talking about moral duties - we were talking about legal obligations. I agree that someone could support a law but not support the law after it was changed - obviously this applies to Davis in Tennessee. But that is different than the legal obligation to follow the law: when the law changed she was, by virtue of her office, legally obligated to follow the new law, even if she morally disagreed with it. When people are in that position, they have to decide what to do, and that is an individual moral decision. But if they do choose to not follow the law, I think they should acknowledge that they are prepared to take the consequences. What they cannot legitimately do is claim that because of their moral beliefs they should be excused from having to follow the law.Aleta
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
@ Effy "Nobody takes an oath to only uphold the laws that are in place at the time they take the oath. " You seriously are trying this path? Let's take a few examples to show how wrong your though process is: 1- You take an oath/pledge to uphold the laws of the state of California... 3 years later the state votes to split into north and south one liberal one not-so-much...does your oath still apply?...if so to which? 2- You make a vow to your significant other to uphold the sanctity of marriage...the next year the laws change and invalidate the marriage, your 'other' then re-marries...are you still considering yourself married for life? You may try to wiggle away and cry about hypothetical s... to which you would be wrong (Cali is an example of an actual state split..hint hint). One would have to be considered ignorant if they claim that their beliefs must follow the laws of the land at the time the laws are laid down...this is basically what you are trying to claim. Free will...sure you can change your mind as you mature...but it is not dictated by a law. I just invalidated your claim that if the law changes then so should your moral duties.Trumper
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
"If someone is sworn to uphold the law...and the law changes".... then they are no longer held to same standard. Pretty easy to follow the logic. If you were certified as a CPA and the rules/regulations changed then I would hope that you would have re-certified yourself. If your employer does not require it then shame on them for allowing someone to continue to practice under older regulations. This puts the state as a deplorable entity...at the very least ignorant. Funny how some try to spin things their way...till it is pointed out how moronic it seems: If one was a political science teacher and they did not believe that God was the foundation of our civilized country and they taught a fair and balance curriculum ..but one day the laws changed where they now must lead prayers before each class and then teach creationism...... how would that settle down with them? I now I would have an issue with it....Trumper
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Aleta: "IE is right." I don't read that much here. It brings a tear to my eye.Indiana Effigy
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
IE is right. If someone is sworn to uphold the law, and the law changes, that is what they are to uphold. Allowing otherwise, besides being wrong, would be chaotic, as enforcement would involve knowing when every person whose job it was to enforce the law was first elected.Aleta
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Trumper: "– you seem to ignore that she was elected when the law was clear on not allowing gay marriage – to which she took an oath to uphold the laws at that time</b?. " Nobody takes an oath to only uphold the laws that are in place at the time they take the oath. They take an oath to uphold the law. Period. Full stop. Laws change all the time. Officials such as her are charged with upholding all current laws. When the government passed laws allowing inter-racial marriage, elected county clerks could not refuse to provide inter-racial licences simply because it was against the law when they got elected. If their conscience does not allow them to do this they have the option of quitting. Again, I think deplorable is the perfect description for her. But you are free to feel otherwise.Indiana Effigy
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Thanks, Dave. Trumper asks,
Basically should their be laws on the books protecting someone from being considered deplorable and hated in the eyes of a few others.
Hmmm. I have no idea what this question is asking???
Would you have a problem with the government requiring a place of business to perform it’s duties in a fashion contrary to it’s mission statement?
Yes, if the mission statement asked it to perform duties that were against the law. If the pharmacy had a mission statement that stated it would not fill contraceptive prescriptions, that would go against legal responsibilities that all pharmacies have. In that case the law would take precedence over the mission statement.Aleta
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Has anyone directly responded to Aleta's post #60? I see Andre did reply, mainly addressing tax exemptions, but I think Aleta's concerns are broader than just that. Why should sincerely held religious beliefs have a legal status that sincerely held nonreligious beliefs don't have?daveS
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
I.E @55 - you missed the point there. I clearly showed that not just religious and non-religious groups can hold tax exempt status...you seem a tad too defensive there. you then spew out "Not at all similar. She was an elected official who swore to uphold the laws of the country, and then refused to do so. She could have resigned but chose to break her oath instead. An oath she swore on a bible. In my mind, she is just a deplorable individual." - you seem to ignore that she was elected when the law was clear on not allowing gay marriage - to which she took an oath to uphold the laws at that time. Now I do not know if she is required to take a new oath every year or every law change..that would settle it for me if so. is she "a deplorable individual" because she swore on a bible or because you don't understand the situation? @FAuleta- Maybe you have a specific example in mind where you see this imbalance? you stated a pharm example where a religiously inclined individual was tasked with violating one or any of their core religious beliefs. Basically should their be laws on the books protecting someone from being considered deplorable and hated in the eyes of a few others. My response is that the pharm worker should allow for the fair and good treatment for all customers guided by their personal/professional knowledge and the mission statement of the employer by which they work. (basically I trust honest and ethical individuals more than dishonest and unethical) One can't always know another's motivation unless they state it...if that worker states that she will not fill the prescription but a co-worker can then I have no problem with that. Would you have a problem with the government requiring a place of business to perform it's duties in a fashion contrary to it's mission statement? ( I.Effy may not understand this since it verges on a hypothetical...afraid to be pinned down but you have been fair in your responses) This is no different than the requirement/laws on a religious charity to perform services contrary to its core belief system.Trumper
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
KF: "IE, you have not merely disagreed with viewpoints over many weeks now, you have specifically dismissed worldviews analysis." You use the word "dismissed" as if I never thought about it. That is not the case. My major disagreement is with your IS/OUGHT conclusions. I pointed out that reality does not conform to your view and that subjective morality better explains the variations that we see. I understand that you do not accept my conclusions. The fact that you chose to characterize that as being dismissive (straw man, oil of red herring, turnabout, blah, blah) — that speaks volumes — and those not well — of you. "But then this twisting and attempted turnabout accusation is just more of the red herring, strawman, ad hominem tactic that is so habitual with too many objectors to design theory. KF" Now who is being dismissive?Indiana Effigy
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
IE, you have not merely disagreed with viewpoints over many weeks now, you have specifically dismissed worldviews analysis. That you now try to twist my pointing that out into an accusation against me that if you differ I accuse, that speaks volumes -- and those not well -- of you. But then this twisting and attempted turnabout accusation is just more of the red herring, strawman, ad hominem tactic that is so habitual with too many objectors to design theory. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
"IE, you have a track record. That track record shows you belittling and dismissing worldviews analysis." The fact that you interpret disagreement with belittling says more about you than it does about me. "In addition, it is not an ad hominem attack on my part to point out the habitual fallacies of too many atheistical objectors as has become demonstrated across years;..." Let's examine this statement. You said “But in fact that glib, supercilious, snidely dismissive superficiality is precisely one of the strongest indicators that there is little substance behind the toxic rhetoric and bombast.” Sounds like an ad-hominem to me. But what do I know. "trying to play the rhetoric of personalising and polarising against me only further underscores the problem on your part." Refer above. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. "God, patently, is a serious candidate necessary being [which such being would be inextricably entangled in the basis for existence of a possible world, even as no world is possible without distinct identity and twoness, etc]." You repeating this does not make it true. "Either you and/or ilk show that God is not a serious candidate ..." Been there. Done that. The fact that you don't accept what I have said is your problem, not mine. All observations suggest that morality is subjective. How do you explain different morals between people in a community, different morals from community to community, different morals in the same community over time? "Of which the 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection are the capital example." A single documented claim that there were 500 eyewitnesses does not have the same evidentiary value as 500 documented eyewitness.accounts. "And in which context, absent a miracle of guidance to the doctor who saved my life, I would be dead over 40 years past now." I wouldn't underestimate the value of the ten years + of training that your doctor underwent before becoming a doctor.Indiana Effigy
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
IE, you have a track record. That track record shows you belittling and dismissing worldviews analysis. In addition, it is not an ad hominem attack on my part to point out the habitual fallacies of too many atheistical objectors as has become demonstrated across years; logic after all includes the study of fallacies. That you have fallen into some of these fallacies is a matter of your track record, trying to play the rhetoric of personalising and polarising against me only further underscores the problem on your part. I do not have time for a step by step point by point just now, so I leave it at a slice or two of the cake. I have already pointed to a far more central issue. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
Andre, thanks. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
IE, the pivotal issue remains. God, patently, is a serious candidate necessary being [which such being would be inextricably entangled in the basis for existence of a possible world, even as no world is possible without distinct identity and twoness, etc]. God, being here understood as an inherently good creator of the world, a necessary and maximally great being. Either you and/or ilk show that God is not a serious candidate (as a flying spaghetti monster is not a serious candidate) . . . which is frankly futile on thousands of years of thought at the highest level . . . or else you and your fellow atheists and agnostics have the task to show that God is an impossible being even as a square circle is impossible. Not, that one may doubt the reality of God or deny the individual and cumulative force of arguments pointing to God, but instead that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable incoherence in the concept God such that logical or dynamical impossibility obtains. Formerly, it was often suggested this is so on the problem of evils, but that has collapsed post Plantinga's free will defence. Likewise, you have to reckon with the implication of general delusion on our common sense of being under moral governance and law, and the devastating implications for general credibility of mind of it being a mass delusion that millions across the world and across thousands of years have met God in power and have had minds, hearts and lives transformed thereby, often in miraculous ways. For millions, there is no more reason to doubt the reality of God than to doubt the reality that they have loving mothers who are not mindless, unfree, programmed zombies. Of which the 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection are the capital example. And in which context, absent a miracle of guidance to the doctor who saved my life, I would be dead over 40 years past now. KFkairosfocus
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
F/N: Still busy, so I will briefly clip Haldane on the core problem of materialism . . . a problem that remains there as the elephant in the middle of the room never mind attempts to act as though it is not there:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
Food for thought. KF PS: For those who imagine that they can push being under the government of ought into the domain of subjectivity (which itself becomes a delusion under evolutionary materialist assumptions) and thus into radical relativisation, I point here in context (and do, bear in mind Plato's warning from 2350 years ago): http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals PPS: Those who imagine that the 1st Amdt to the US Const under the post 1947 "separation" USSC doctrine is a global law should think again of wider experience in our civilisation. Also, they should ponder the relevant history and proper sense without projecting a convenient anachronism by way of the Jefferson correspondence with the Danbury Baptists. To wit, post Westphalia in 1648, the principle in the Germanies was that there would be no overarching religion in the Empire, but local rulers could have state establishment; in context Lutheran or Catholic with Calvinist sometimes tolerated. This was extended to republican circumstances in the US. The Federal Government being set up and regulated was to have NO JURISDICTION to legislate on matters of established, Land Churches so there could not be a Federal Church of the USA. At that level all would be freikirke. Local states per amdt 9, 10 retained the right of local establishment (and 9 of 13 states did have established churches). In that context, a cluster of key rights was to be recognised as the dissenters had insisted . . . and recall, it was the dissenters' insistence that led to the incorporated amendments. So, we may now more accurately read the Amdt as recognising -- God grants rights per the DoI as acknowledged in the preamble -- classic rights connected to freedom of conscience:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [--> no federal landeskirk], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [--> at this level all churches and chapels are freikirke]; or abridging the freedom of speech [--> so one is free to preach and witness to one's conscience, no preacher licensing games], or of the press [--> one is free to print what one has to say, within common law on defamation]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble [--> no forbidding of dissenter chapels] , and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [--> as was done by dissenters, leading to the 10 amdts]
Yes, these freedoms have and always had much broader significance, but this is the root context that should guide and guard understanding. Yes, guard from those who would wrench and distort to practically mean just the opposite, quasi-establishment under false colour of law of the de facto anti-church of evolutionary materialist secularism and scientism leading to all the ills of might and manipulation based amorality and ruthless factionalism Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X. PPPS: It seems there is need to note that the power to tax is the power to subvert, corrupt or destroy under colour of law. If we have this much trouble when churches as charitable benevolent societies are in name tax exempt, imagine what would happen when Plato's ruthless amoral factions sit in control of taxing agencies with power to intervene in the churches that have courage to speak moral truth to amoral power, in the name and prophetic voice of God. (Notice, a wide array of civil society groups and organisations are tax exempt almost as a matter of course; too much of what is going on patently reflects an evil eye set on a hated target, driven by a hostile heart and wolfish appetites. And FYI I have a perfect right to say this as my very name tells me. My family shed martyr's blood to have my name literally inscribed over the door of my native land's parliament in a context of a dissenter member speaking up in the name of oppressed people and warning of a coming explosion, only to be scapegoated, kangaroo courted and judicially murdered on one hour's notice. If we do not learn from history bought with blood and tears, we doom ourselves to repeat it.)kairosfocus
April 20, 2016
April
04
Apr
20
20
2016
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
IE Let me be very clear, knowing there is a God and assessing the evidence and weighing up the facts to make an informed decision on the matter is not the same thing. If I could dispense any advice to anyone it is this...... "Question everything hold onto the good."Andre
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT
IE, There is far more positive evidence for the existence of a Prime First Mover than negative..... you are welcome to post what this negative evidence is.... go right ahead.Andre
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Andre, did I ever say that I know there is no God? Nobody can ever make that claim. However, there seems to be no shortage of people claiming that they know their is a god. Even they have far less evidence for the positive than I have for the negative. Go figure.Indiana Effigy
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
IE you changed your post now..... so lets comment on your new response
Nobody disagrees. It is the nature (and aroma) of the “substance” that is open for debate:)
There are many truths I don't like nor do I, like, the nature, "aroma" or substance of many others, but here is the kicker, it does not make it less true.Andre
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
IE
It may help you in trying to convince yourself of this delusion, but it won’t help anybody else.
Right... lets test your knowledge, do you know everything? because to know there is no God instead of believing it would mean you do know everything... Do you know everything Indian Effigy?Andre
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Andre: "I find that BA and KF post substance..." Nobody disagrees. It is the nature (and aroma) of the "substance" that is open for debate:)Indiana Effigy
April 19, 2016
April
04
Apr
19
19
2016
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply