Pastafarianism (not to be confused with Rastafarianism) is the world's fastest growing carbohydrate-based belief system which worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster. An omnipotent deity consisting of a moist heap of spaghetti which floats around in a zero gravity like state with two large meatballs and a pair of eyes in stalks. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Supreme Being, invisible, and omnipotent. It is also undetectable; therefore, it is impossible to prove that he does not exist. Outsiders call the group's members satirists, enemies call them heretics, and landlubbers call them scallywags or deceitful pirates, but one thing is certain about Pastafarians – they sure love carbohydrates such as pasta and beer!
If you haven’t figured it out yet, simply switch out Pastafarianism for Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.... and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (otherwise known as FSM) for GOD. This applies to all mentions of both going forward throughout the body of our work till the end of time.
The FSM, according to Pastafarians, is a benevolent supernatural entity who created the world some 4,000 years ago while very drunk. Although they assert that in their religion “anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental”, the Church of the FSM also knows religion in general does not require literal belief in order to provide spiritual enlightenment. Pastafarianism is obviously a parody religion in a similar vein to other past religious parodies such as Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius. Founded by Bobby Henderson, a self-described hobo and hammock enthusiast, the FSM was revealed to the world in 2005. As a physics graduate, Henderson wrote a letter to the bad shit crazy Kansas State Board of Education satirizing its decision to primary creationism in the state's school curriculum by arguing that his belief that “the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster” is as valid as intelligent design.
Parody religions are a comical and clever way for those not buying, not signing up for, or otherwise analyzing, stepping back from, or being critical of religion to essentially make fun of it and some of its absurdities. For mainstream religions far too often than not take themselves way too seriously. We personally have absolutely no allegiance to any religion nor do we ever have any plans to and also find it hilarious when any stand up comic makes fun of religion. Such as Australian comedian Jim Jefferies, who says "asking questions man, that's fucking cancer to religion". My grandparents, parents, and then myself each grew up in an agnostic household where no one was indoctrinated into religion nor were they hostile to it. They acknowledged anyone to believe what they want to. However, for us personally growing up, from as far back as we can remember, we have never been impressed by it. And came to know by the time we were teenagers that the faiths of the world have some good things, but far too many bad things as well. Into later adult life, we have become more and more spiritually open, but without subscription to anyone's pre-set menu.
An initial problem with a religious based system (parody or not) is that it requires you to essentially do, just what we said, follow it. Meaning buy what they are selling. Pre-packaged and wholesale. For what in the West we call Abrahamic based religions, those centered around worship of the God of Abraham, and other mainstream adapted religions of the East such as Hinduism or Buddhism, essentially present menus, which you essentially swear your allegiance toward. But why swear your allegiance at all? Why not instead look at what they all do well, and not well, take the best bits and look even further back to where they each acquired their separate but similar knowledge? That's what we do and what you are likely most interested in as well, for we like a balanced culinary diet. For those who want to limit their diet into less range, or variety, they order off only one type of selection menu. Such as saying, "I am a Pastafarian" I will now only eat this type of food for the rest of my life. Which, in this case, due to the deities' meatballs and noodly appendages, would surely be Italian. So the problem with joining these preset systems is that one has to somewhat swear their allegiance to them, through family, community, or sometimes their entire country. Essentially claiming "I'm only an Italian food eater, and will only eat Italian food for the rest of my days." But why not like different foods from all over the world? Or perhaps have your half a dozen or so favorites, but give yourself the option to access any down your gullet at any future time.
All self development training systems, and especially systems related to spiritual self development, whether veiled in religion or not, generally have rules for those who wish to train in them which have to be followed to progress. There is nothing wrong with that and, like military training, discounting some lite to heavy brainwashing, can actually have some good things such as inspiring hard work and discipline. But a major problem comes into play if someone decides they no longer want to be in the system. Real spiritual training systems demand you ask questions, you do not move forward unless you ask continuing questions. And a real spiritual one, such as the esoteric mystery traditions, which expect constant questions, will essentially dump you or drop you, or amicably separate with you, and happily send you on your way if you do not pass their tests. But a CULTY one, will not let you leave without pain. For you are then reducing the size of the flock. So one of the beauties of a parody religion such as Pastafarianism is that if you’re not satisfied, the parody church offers a “God-back guarantee” in which “your old religion will most likely take you back.”
Now here's the main reason we lay this out at this time as a second essay in our pro-democracy political philosophy series, if someone wants to believe in and worship The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and do it within a specific menu of Pastafarianism, they should have absolute freedom to do that. Denying them that would be the most oppressive, Communist thing ever. Yet what is equally as terrible as Communism is a theocratic, Fascistic attitude that one must force the flying spaghetti monster and Pastafarianism to be imposed on others. This leads us to the first amendment of the United States constitution. Which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So in this line written multiple hundreds of years ago with three commas and two semicolons we have valuable things said. In regards to religion there are two main clauses mentioned. One is the establishment clause, and the other is the free exercise clause. The "establishment" clause prevents the selection by the government of an "official" church. It would be an "establishment" of a religion if the Government financed one church or several churches. The "establishment" clause protects citizens also against any law which selects favorability to any religious custom, practice, or ritual, puts the force of government behind it, and fines, imprisons, or otherwise penalizes a person for not observing it. This is unfortunetly, a very outdated operating system which still continueds to run it's software in parts of the Muslim world today. Even though the founding documents of the US do have mentioned an analogue of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (the God word) in its language, which certainly implies that the founders supported the idea of a creator, they were conscious, wise enough, and sophisticated enough to make sure there was no official state religion. So the Government plainly could not join forces with one religious group and decree a universal and symbolic creepy and mandatory genital mutilation circumcision on its youngsters. Nor could it require all children to undergo what is secretly an occult ritual - a baptism against their will or give tax exemptions only to those whose children were baptized.
“The First Amendment commands government to essentially be free of one's interest in theology or ritual and admonishes government to be interested in allowing religious freedom to flourish or to either produce in the long run atheists or agnostics. On matters of this kind, the government must be neutral. This freedom plainly includes freedom from religion, with the right to believe, speak, write, publish and advocate both pro-religions or anti-religious programs as freedom of speech. Certainly the "free exercise" clause does not require that everyone embrace the theology of some church or of some faith, or observe the religious practices of any majority or minority sect. Which is stating, as would be the freest expression for all, neutrality. This is super awesome because it gives full free exercise to the country's citizenry to practice respect, worship, or swear private allegiance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and also simultaneously have full freedom to ignore, discount, or be extremely critical of both the belief of FSM and the practice of Pastafarianism.
Probably the most beautiful part of the founding documents is what's said in this line from the first Amendment and followed up in other founding and early documents such as the Treaty of Tripoli. Which is the beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, Separation of Church & State. A philosophical and jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the state. Conceptually, the term refers to the creation of a secular state and to disestablishment, the changing of an existing, formal relationship between the church and the state. Although the concept is older, the exact phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from "wall of separation between church and state" which is a term coined by Thomas Jefferson. The concept was promoted by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke - a person the red cult, and we'll get into the red cult later, loves to hate. The philosophy of the separation of the church from the civil state parallels the philosophies of secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. By way of these philosophies, the European states assumed some of the social roles of the church and the state, which the US also eventually adopted.
In all seriousness, we want anyone who reads or listens to this, whether you're tolerantly atheist, agnostic, religious, or perhaps any combination thereof to feel welcome here. But an underlying foundation to those things co-existing is a mutual respect for allowing each to have their own way within people's private lives, and keep the shared contract of government neutral on the subject. For as the founders knew, neutrality leads to the strongest form of democracy. This is very important to state at this time in our pro-democracy series because there is a type of person, who blends across these spectrums, who has aggression against subordinate groups. The extreme nature of their one menu means they want to dictate not only what they are allowed to do in private but what others must do to abide by their one and only menu in public. They discount neutrality as well as the shared social contract of society, putting everything into a friend-enemy dynamic, and not only does not respect and aspires toward true democracy but instead has pro-authoritarian political leanings, and then completely denies what is fact versus what is fiction.
In short, they want their deities' noodly appendages to stretch into every branch of your life, whether you're into that or not. Details and deconstructions are what we are leading toward in regards to this will be followed up on in the next essays.