Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Court confirms: Spaghetti is not a god

Court confirms: Spaghetti is not a god

Sorry Flying Spaghetti Monster, you’re still legally mortal

Bad news for Pastafarians. A federal court in Nebraska ruled Flying Spaghetti Monster is not actually a god.

Stephen Cavanaugh, prisoner of the Nebraska State Penitentiary sued prison officials because, “their refusal to accommodate his religious requests.” His request to have Pastafarianism recognized as his official religion was smacked down by a U.S. District Court who wrote, “The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a ‘religious exercise’ on any other work of fiction.”

According to Religion News:

Pastafarianism was created in 2005 as a means of protesting the Kansas State Board of Education’s decision to include “intelligent design” — the notion that the universe is so complex it must be the work of some unknown designer — in its science curriculum.

There are Pastafarian groups around the world that frequently gather for events involving pasta, meatballs and alcohol. Some have won the right to wear colanders on their heads for driver’s licenses and other government-issued identification.

The decision is pretty obvious if you think about. As Professor Jacobson so astutely pointed out, “no where in the constitution does it state that spaghetti is a God.”

The Constitution wins against the spaghetti onslaught.

Cavanaugh v Bartelt

[Featured Image By Alessio Sbarbaro User_talk:Yoggysot – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0]

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

FINALLY we find a judge who’s willing to use his noodle…

Honestly, I’m kind of expecting atheists to use the court’s language against Christians.

    genes in reply to malclave. | April 15, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    Since all atheists consider all religious books to be works of fiction, I’m sure they will.

    DaveGinOly in reply to malclave. | April 15, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Certainly Scientology is based on a work of fiction, or at least one man’s imagination. The same could be said of the Mormon religion. We know these “religions” were literally created in modern times. Christianity’s roots are less visible, but, yes, it’s based on a fiction too (the story of a man who was crucified and survived the ordeal became “fictionalized” as a story of bodily resurrection from the dead). This is precisely why courts shouldn’t be in the business of deciding what is, and what isn’t, a valid religion or religious belief. In validate some religions, it must validate some that are equally fictitious as the Church of the FSM, because they can’t all be “true” or “correct.”

      American Human in reply to DaveGinOly. | April 16, 2016 at 8:56 am

      Certainly the Methodists and the Baptists and the Episcopalians and the Lutheran churches would all fall under your description of what is and what isn’t a religion. They are all “modern day” as well. Or is there an official Christian church cut off date as to when a Church is or isn’t Christian. What about the modern day Christian Mega-Churches who have 20,000 people in attendance? Are they a religion?
      If you claim to be a Christian, be careful about who you point your finger at claiming to the world that they are not a Christian. In your opinion the Mormon Church can’t be considered a religion because it is a modern church?
      Where is it written in scripture that one must believe the Nicean Creed in order to be considered a Christian. I don’t recall Christ ever having been to Nicea.

The Judge fails to realize that one man’s satire can be another man’s religion.
Besides, if Westboro can be considered a real church…

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

What about Scientology?

And Global Warming?

Does the Government have the right or authority to define what is a religion?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    Another Ed in reply to genes. | April 15, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    The Government appears to have as much right or authority to define what is a religion as the right or authority to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Good luck on attempting civilly to convince them otherwise. What could be plainer to understand than “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”?

    Milhouse in reply to genes. | April 17, 2016 at 1:44 am

    In what way does defining what religion is either establish one or prohibit its free exercise? If the government can define what ketchup is, why not religion? On the contrary, since the constitution protects religion, the government has to define it.

Say what you will about Pastafarians, it’s a bad day when a court decides what is and is not a religion.

    Milhouse in reply to Same Same. | April 17, 2016 at 1:47 am

    That’s ridiculous. Just as the 2nd amendment requires the government to know what “arms” are, and what it means to “keep” and “bear” them, the 1st amendment requires it to know what “speech”, a “press”, “assembly”, and “religion” are.

“To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a ‘religious exercise’ on any other work of fiction.”

There goes the Bible and all religions not supported by 97% of scientists.

Spaghetti Monster, no.

Emanations from The Twilight Zone (a.k.a. penumbra), yes.

What is the Spaghetti Monster’s religion or moral philosophy?

Intelligent design, no.

Evolution from conception, no.

Spontaneous conception, yes.

Are the Pastafarians as anti-science and anti-obvious as their Pro-choice counterparts?

Abortion rites, really?

And what’s with planned parenthood or clinical cannibalism?

That’s a religion? A cult, perhaps.

Something truly primitive, barbaric, and neo-satanic that can only be found in The Twilight Zone (a.k.a. penumbra).

Pastafarians strain to understand where in the constitution the actual location of god resides. I’m sure an appeal is in the sauce now, and will eventually egg the Supreme Court to whet the appetite of this simmering challenge. With appropriate thyme I’m sure they will boldly flavor the ruling in the Pastafarians favor. The FSM will boil otherwise.

All Hail Bob!

(Now let’s see if anybody gets it…)

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend