> Why can't I as a Pastafarian have faith in reality rather than improbable documents?
There are a family of philosophical schools in which reality is all there is and the supernatural does not exist (or might as well not exist). Those philosophies are generally protected under freedom of conscience.
The proponents of pastafarianism are trying to score pedantic points; they do not actually want freedom to discuss and celebrate the chirality of the FSM's noodly appendages. They are likely agnostic and/or atheist and should be covered under those belief systems.
That being said, is it worth distorting the legal code even more to distinguish between pastafarianism and actual belief systems? No. It's harmless if you want to have a goofy spaghetti wedding. We definitely don't want the government picking which (actual) belief systems 'count'. That's an unattractive and tyrannical prospect.
There are a family of philosophical schools in which reality is all there is and the supernatural does not exist (or might as well not exist). Those philosophies are generally protected under freedom of conscience.
The proponents of pastafarianism are trying to score pedantic points; they do not actually want freedom to discuss and celebrate the chirality of the FSM's noodly appendages. They are likely agnostic and/or atheist and should be covered under those belief systems.
That being said, is it worth distorting the legal code even more to distinguish between pastafarianism and actual belief systems? No. It's harmless if you want to have a goofy spaghetti wedding. We definitely don't want the government picking which (actual) belief systems 'count'. That's an unattractive and tyrannical prospect.