Pastafarism ! what about that, that this... II

29 décembre 2009

Pastafarism ! what about that, that this... II

Seriousness under Pastas !

Of the letter of Henderson to the committee of Kansas a spontaneous movement built up itself, which very fast ridiculed all the faiths. But Henderson did not recognize its first intention in this movement, and he has reprécisé his intentions, by trying to limit the intolerant drift.

He made it on his site « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster », in particular his page « about », and in his book " Gospel of the Flying Spaghettis Monster ", in particular by them " 8 - really, I would like enough that you avoid of "said" 8 condiments ". He so inaugurates prophet of the pastafarianism, a joke furthermore, but beyond a real will to take back in hand "his" movement gently, without breaking its spontaneity.

* Out of his page « about », et ** Out of the "8 condiments"

« I’m all for pointed criticism and humor at the expense of too-powerful religious institutions, but that is a very different thing than declaring someone is stupid for being religious. I’m strongly against simple intentional offense just for the sake of offending ...I don’t want FSM seen as cynical and negative. This is very important to me. » * And he widens the purpose of his movement beyond the Intelligent Design : « we are not anti-religion, we are anti- crazy nonsense done in the name of religion. » * And logically what he fights in the religions, he disadvises it in his movement : « Didn’t Challenge The Bigoted ... Hateful Ideas » **

Apparently, the sectarian drift, the madnesses and the religious nonsenses are the result of the dogmae for him, because he makes his central axis: « By design, the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma. » * The reject of the dogma both in the other religions and in the pastafarian movement. : « What worries me is that right now I can be pretty sure there aren’t a lot of dogmatic nutty FSM people around, but what about in 50 years? … We will need to keep an eye on it for sure. ». *. It is a sketch of theology: any approach in spirituality has to distrust perverse effects of the dogmae.

But it is here that all the contradictions and the ambiguities of the pastafarianism take their spring. How can a "prophet" put rules without falling in the dogmatism ? So in its 8 condiments, Henserson puts a "moral ethics", to see a "lifestyle" : « Living in peace, loving with passion ... I enjoy the simple things in life » ** but tooi « Didn't build churches, Didn't make horror, no misogyny, no ostracism, etc. » **. It is necessary rest Firewalls against the dogmatisation of its principles, in a obvious way sometimes « I'd rather you didn't ... » **, No command but wishes thus, but most of the time in a allusive way parabolae by in good imitator : « purity is for drinking water, not people. » ** You do not have to be perfectly pure in the follow-up of these rules.

Every rule is coated with a good coat of moved humor. He so gives the example by not taking these rules too seriously: " thus make also ". So if a moralist wants to instrument these principles to make of the intellectual terrorism, the aimed persons can send back him to this funny shape. He so gets back the satire of the dogmatism of the other congregations for his own movement by laughing in advance of any sectarian drift within it. The humor is there very serious in itself : « Pastafarian scripture has some outlandish and sometimes contradictory components – and unlike the scripture of mainstream religion, these pieces were intentional and obvious, and our congregation is aware of this. » and « If it’s a joke, it’s a joke where to understand the punchline you must be conscious of underlying truth. » *. As this shape of writing is rather puzzling, in particular certain readers would be tried to see only the initial satiric continuation of any external religious dogmatism there, while it also applies in house. He sends to them : « But what I find interesting is that when people object to the idea of Pastafarianism, it’s never with our scripture or ideas they suspect to be tongue-in-cheek. They object to the most intentional, honest, real components of our religion. It’s the times when we break from satire that we’re ... called names. I am convinced there is a large number of people who need to believe that ours is not a legitimate religion because it can’t exist in their world view. . » *. So he applies to underline the "intentional, honest and real" character that he sets in "tongue-in-cheek", "satire" (internal and external) ; the 8 condiments begin all by " really " **, so indicating that the humor does not have to darken the underlying character of what is said.

He positions as "not dogmatic prophet" opened on the spontaneous freedom of each, and on other currents of thought. In « Didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-Thou ass when describing My Noodly Goodness. If some people don't believe in Me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain... » ** He applies at once this "prohibition" moralist and of vanity to himself by the humor pulled by the puppet worship. When he suggests using his money in « A. Ending poverty B. Curing diseases C. Lowering the cost of cable » ** C is not only a joke, he means above all that he says sometimes, that thus what he says must be permanently estimated in a critical way, and that the rest owes be put in perspective (in A, B or other). What he reaffirms : « That many of us don’t literally believe our own superstitions or in the existence of our own God is evidence that we’re thinking. » * He sets the critical thought in the dogmae. He incites the "believer" not to withdraw on his thought of prophet, but to take advantage of his own thought and that of the others : Didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint? » **.

Even if he inaugurated prophet, it is to defend better the spontaneous freedom of investment of the pastafarism, within the limits of 8 condiments and the not-dogma all the same : « Every member has a say in what this church is and what it becomes. » * the open-mindedness goes to the invitation in the religious currents of thought : « In addition to the Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers who have joined us, we have a number of Christian (and Muslim, and Hindu and Buddhist …) members and I would love to have more... You are welcome» * : Every person meeting in the fight against the madnesses and the religious nonsenses, including in the appropriate church of each, is welcome in the pastafarism, about is its attachment in its own movement, and for which he does not ask to deny (Cf: Christian, not ex-Christian). And to appeal of the foot by incorporating Judeo-Christian values into these rules « Didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you » ** and the « Love your fellow man ** », By creating "Ramendan" in its "Gospel" admitting it the couscous as the communion dedicated in its "church", normally pastas. It would be a modern tower of Babel, where all the currents of thought could meet in a common concept: around a certain tolerance, resting(basing) on a remote stake of the nonsenses made in the name of the fundamentalist respect for the dogmae.

He inaugurates her movement "religion", we can see only an additional joke there, but that does he say about it ? At first we saw that his movement had for pretext a puppet deity, but that it made rest the main part of the "worship" on much more serious reasons adduced, on it he says : «The Pastafarian church was built and its legitimacy formed by people tired of being disenfranchised for thinking rationally. We have every right to exist and form a religious community. » ; « That millions ... of people already follow this religion is strong social proof that there is something to it.» ; « The fact that millions of people get something positive out of a religion – even if it is based in superstition – *does* mean something. But that’s not to say it’s True, only that it has Value. For many people, religion is about being part of a community and being part of something bigger and more important than themselves. » ; « You see, our religion, like Christianity and other mainstream religions, is based *not* on a foundation of evidence, but of community. » *. He starts again in it of numerous reasons adduced for the sociologist Émile Durkheim ( 1858-1917 ) for whom " The religion is a united system of faiths and practices relative to sacred things, faiths and practices which unite in the same moral community, called Church, all those who adhere to it ", and Durkheim does not judge the intrinsic value of the sacred, every church of which has its own definition, and thus privileges their social function on the theology, which is other one than one auto-dubbing of a worship by itself, and he does not rest as prerequisite that all the community believe unconditionally in the dogmae of said churches, since these make social link for their community.

The religious location of his movement thus rests more on a culture sociological than theological (whatever also), than in the common sense also. Certainly his movement is opened in rationalist scientific and to the atheists, but goes all the same into these sociological definitions modern of the religion which sometimes classify the sport or the philosophy as religions. Once again his position appears as much more serious than at first sight. Moreover so certain researchers in human sciences admitted the religious character of the pastafarism, none of them risked saying that it could not go into a some classification of religion (it would be necessary to kill at first Durkheim).

A version similar in summer successful candidate to the definition of French-speaking Wiquipédia of the pastafarism, under the title " Seriousness behind the parody " putting in perspective largely the parodic character attributed in the beginning of definition to the pastafarism. (reference correctly Durkheim). Argh ! Erased...

V perdu ? la carte aux trésors :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Râmen.