A recent US court decision in Nebraska ruled that “that FSMism is not a ‘religion’ within the meaning of the relevant US federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education..
The court ruled that ” it is evident to the Court that FSMism is not a belief system addressing ‘deep and imponderable’ matters: it is a satirical rejoinder to a certain strain of religious argument”.
The case came about when Stephen Cavanaugh, a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, claimed that he is “Pastafarian” – a believer in the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster who practices “FSMism.” .
The “church” has been battling to gain legal recognition around the world, with mixed success. It was formed in 2005 as a way to poke fun at efforts in Kansas public schools to teach not only evolution, but also “intelligent design” – the idea that the universe must have had a creator
Nevertheless, New Zealand on Saturday hosted the world’s first Pastafarian wedding, conducted by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The group, which began in the US as a protest against religion encroaching into public schools, has gained legitimacy in New Zealand, where authorities recently decided it can officiate weddings.
Bryan Patterson's Faithworks 
I wonder what guidelines there are in the relevant US federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. There must be much individual interpretation of what comprises a religion. I would imagine sincerity of belief would rank highly, and in this case it’s quite obvious this is just a parody. Some other cases may not be so easy to decide.
These spag people may have had more luck in forming a community if they had called themselves the Atheist Church. And I don’t see why that isn’t reasonable.
LikeLike
Ah! It already exists.
LikeLike
Taking a step back, why did this end up in a court in the first place ? Do some people need to invent a purpose in life ?
LikeLike
It seems so.
LikeLike
Hey Dom,
I think not only do some need to invent a purpose they also create a who mythology to back it up.
Gods, demons, heaven, hells you name it people will dream it up.
LikeLike
“The group, which began in the US as a protest against religion encroaching into public schools, has gained legitimacy in New Zealand, where authorities recently decided it can officiate weddings.”
How loving and romantic for the wife and husband. The non belief in God produces a protest about a non existing God creating a belief in a new religion of which they do not really believe in causing a wedding of two people.
LikeLike
“How loving and romantic for the wife and husband.”
So sayeth Alexie – arbiter of all that is loving and romantic!
LikeLike
Good to see you are still adding to discussion.
LikeLike
Good to see you still are judging people based on your preconceptions on how you think they should live their lives.
LikeLike
Funny, because the whole parody is making fun of believers, no judgment there of course. So it must be so romantic to get married by a celebrant belonging to a fictional monster based on a parody of the true and living God.
Your sarcastic comment about me being an arbiter had no judgment either I suppose. Hypocrite anyone.
Still waiting for you to join the discussion.
LikeLike
“Funny, because the whole parody is making fun of believers, no judgment there of course.”
It’s a subtle difference of course, and I promise that I don’t expect you to really understand it, but there’s a difference between parody of beliefs and making fun of believers.
“…fictional monster based on a parody of the true and living God.”
Pastafarianism is not a parody of the god you believe in Alexie. It’s a parody of all theistic religions.
LikeLike
Yep, still a hypocrite by your words.
You still judged others then condemn for judgment.
Still waiting for you to join the conversation.
I feel very flattered that you wait for me to reply to posts and then try to attack me with insane comments. I must be really important in your life. I have not posted for ages and yet here you are. I do feel special.
I believe a parody is still a mockery, a judgment, making fun of. I believe your “subtle” difference” is simply you trying to squirm out of your judgmental thoughts. The arbiter comment was also judgment. Somehow you forgot to “defend” that subtlety.
It would be good to see you join in a conversation for once.
It is quite possible you lack the thinking processes for this.
LikeLike
“I feel very flattered that you wait for me to reply to posts and then try to attack me with insane comments.”
Again, you mistake my mockery of things like your attitudes towards homosexuality, SSM and aspects of your beliefs as a personal attack. Oh, the insanity!
LikeLike
“Again, you mistake my mockery of things..”
Yes, the judgment you initially denied. Oh the insanity.
Well, I look forward to more useless stuff from you.
LikeLike
“Yes, the judgment you initially denied.”
Quote me directly where I denied anything in this thread. Inverted commas please.
LikeLike
Alexie being romantic and all let me suggest a classy gift to help you with building a relationship. lol
https://www.gettingpersonal.co.uk/gifts/personalised-wooden-hammer.htm
Not as romantic as a coffee cup with “I love you a latte” but it is right up there.
LikeLike
If only I was a carpenter.
LikeLike
so you admit judgment! Hypocrite!
LikeLike
“no judgment there of course”
So, do you admit to judgment, (which you have with the mockery comment) or do you admit to hypocrisy (nuff said) or admit to the fact you now say you did not make a judgment? You are so confused.
Still waiting for an entry into discussion on this thread (or any) or will you simply add to the dung pile of useless comments?
LikeLike
You do realise that you just quoted yourself, then tried to attribute that quote to me, don’t you? And then you accused me of being confused. Wow.
LikeLike
Well I’ve read all of Alexie’s comments a couple of times and I know I’m confused.
LikeLike