@jym626 “…if anyone thinks the Citadel will allow a pastafarian to wear a colander, they are probably not too grounded in reality.”
@hanna "As far as I know, the “understandable to same-culture peers” rule is a medical and psychological one, not a legal one. "
This year the U.S. District Court of Nebraska ruled that Pastafarianism is satire, not sacred, and that anyone who thinks it is a religion has made an error “of basic reading comprehension…This is not a question of theology,” the ruling reads in part. “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.”*
This appears to establish a precedent that religious documents can be reviewed by the court and that, even if the there are believers who sincerely believe the religion, the court can rule that those believers have made an error of “basic reading comprehension.” It also seems to establish that the court can determine whether the writings of any religion are like “grounding a ‘religious exercise’ on any other work of fiction.” Perhaps unwittingly, the court has awarded some Pastafarians a huge victory.
The door now appears to be open to review religious writings in court, and decide whether believers have “made an error of basic reading comprehension” and whether religious writings are “in reality are like any other work of fiction.” If a religion has to prove its writings are non-fiction by any reasonable standard of science and reason to be a “real religion”, well then there are no more religions. That was the point of many Pastafarians from the beginning.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.