Worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster Isn't a Real Religion, Court Rules (arstechnica.com) 527
WheezyJoe writes: A court in Nebraska has officially ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion, and therefore a prison inmate with "several tattoos proclaiming his faith" will not get $5 million or privileges to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, nor meet for weekly worship services and classes and receive communion. The Federal judge ruled that The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a "real" religion eligible for protection under the First Amendment...
In ruling against the inmate and the church of Pastafarianism, the judge wrote "there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such... A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds [citing Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle and Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land]. The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
In ruling against the inmate and the church of Pastafarianism, the judge wrote "there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such... A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds [citing Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle and Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land]. The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
A prisoner could just as easily read the works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why stop at scientology ?
Bible ? Coran ? Tora ? Any other ?
Thank you, judge, for stating that all religions are fake.
Re:A prisoner could just as easily read the works. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Well this is going to prove really interesting, can't wait to see if it manages to make it to the supreme court or not.
Re:A prisoner could just as easily read the works. (Score:5, Funny)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement
This "plainly" here is difficult to judge. How can we be sure any unbelievable religious text wasn't some sort of "pointed political statement" or "satire"?
For example, I now take you back a few thousand years to the drafting of the Book of Genesis:
HEAD RABBI: "Hey, you nimrods! It's time to get to work on that 'history' of our people. I expect to see some results when I get back. Make sure it's entertaining!" [exits]
RABBI A: "Okay, let's get going. God created the universe over 7 billion years."
RABBI B: "Come on. That's not very exciting. How about 7 days?!"
RABBI A: "No way. Nobody will believe that. It's just ridiculous!"
RABBI B: "But maybe that's what we need here. A touch of the ridiculous!"
RABBI A: [scribbles furiously] "Okay, fine. 7 days. And God made a beautiful paradise. And God created men and women..."
RABBI B: "Wait, wait, I got it... maybe the woman is made from the guy's RIB [wikipedia.org]."
RABBI A: "Okay, that is pretty hysterical. And now we need to explain why life sucks so much, and all these stupid rules we have about not being able to eat bacon."
RABBI B: "Hmm... I love me some bacon. What to do? Well, we need God to look completely ridiculous from the start, with all sorts of arbitrary rules. How about we put a tree in paradise with lovely fruit, but the people aren't supposed to eat it for no apparent reason? And then they do [wikipedia.org], and God just says, 'Get the hell out of here!' "
RABBI A: "BRILLIANT! Hey, I got an idea. Remember that big flood they still tell stories about? What if God told a special 'chosen' guy to build a giant boat [wikipedia.org] and sail around in it?"
RABBI B: "Yeah, and he packed up all the stuff in his house to save it from the flood."
RABBI A: "Wait, wait... no we need to make this even crazier. Remember, we gotta make this silly and entertaining, or nobody will read it. How about the flood covers everything, so the guy has to save all the animals. So he packs up two of everything on his boat!"
RABBI B: "That's insane... and hilarious. Everyone's going to crack up at the ridiculousness of that. And then when they land the boat after the flood, the guy gets all drunk and naked... and his family has to come in and cover him up."
RABBI A: "But, but... he's all drunk and curses the guy who saw him, and thus we can justify serfdom and slavery for millennia [wikipedia.org]!"
RABBI B: "Fantastic! But what are we gonna call the people who get cursed?"
RABBI A: "Well, they keep telling us we can't have bacon. Let's call him HAM [wikipedia.org]!"
RABBI B: "Okay, where do we go now? Well, there's that guy everybody brings up as the founder of our people -- Abram [wikipedia.org]."
RABBI A: "No, when he gets called by God, you gotta add more bacon jokes -- he's AbraHAM... get it?"
RABBI B: "That's really hamming it up..."
RABBI A: [groan]
RABBI B: "Okay, let's say this Abram... er, no... AbraHAM has a guy in his family [wikipedia.org] that lives in a city that needs to be cured."
RABBI A: "Cured? Like bacon! Well you'll need some salt."
RABBI B: "Yeah -- so the guy flees the city, and his wife turns into a giant pillar of salt [wikipedia.org]!"
RABBI A: "That's going too far. This is getting preposterous."
RABBI B: "No, no. Hear me out. And his daughters are so stupid, that after they fle
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A prisoner could just as easily read the works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, don't use religion as a reason why you're bitter about life and your dad fucked in you in the ass like a nickel whore.
This is exactly the sort of high-class, deep-thinking argumentation I love coming to Slashdot for.
[In case you don't get this, that was sarcasm.]
And in case you didn't notice this, I explicitly noted at the end that my post was meant to be satirical. In other words, I was making a joke to further an important point -- all religions tend to have some elements which can appear ridiculous to outsiders.
I make no claims about whether these Bible stories are true or false -- only that a reasonable person could apply the judge's standard in this case to the opening pages of the Bible and conclude that it was meant to be a parody and/or political satire or commentary. (In fact, in cases like the story of Lot's daughters, it probably was intended to be something like political commentary or even satire to poke fun at the origins of neighboring tribes.) Thus, while I concur with the judge's ruling that I doubt this prisoner has a "serious" religion, the actual judgment standard is pretty arbitrary and doesn't hold up to the kind of deep logical scrutiny we usually demand of legal opinions.
Re: (Score:3)
I make no claims about whether these Bible stories are true or false ...
Probably false - or at least unsubstantiated. I just checked my copy and there's no copyright, no original publishing date, no references. They mention this person "God" a LOT -- seriously, so much that you'd think he/she wrote the thing -- but there's no history on this person or that he/she even exists. There have even been Lawsuits against God [wikipedia.org], but they are usually dismissed because the defendant doesn't appear and/or "because God could not be properly notified, not having an address." At the same time
Re: (Score:3)
Judges are not the pope; they're not infallible.
[DISCLAIMER: this text is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Re: (Score:3)
He's a specialist in LAW, not history, philosophy, psychology or religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Please, judging is not difficult. The idea that you need to be some expert to do it is both dangerous and ridiculous. To the extent that it is true it is a *failure* of judges and the legal system. A (not the, but a) primary goal of any system of laws ought to be the simplicity and understandability of laws by everyone as everyone is, or should be, governed by them and ought to be able to apply them. The idea that we can't all understand the law is absurd and leads to the idea that you then need to be s
Re:A prisoner could just as easily read the works. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...of L. Ron Hubbard and claim it as his holy book. Oh. Wait.
He never publicly admitted his book/faith was a satire, a joke, etc. He smiled and kept a straight face and said that its real. That's why the FSM didn't make the cut, they admit the farce, they did not take the farce far enough.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
well, why can't you worship through satire?
You can -- of course you can. This isn't about means of worship, it's that this isn't worship because the guy in question doesn't actually believe there is a flying spaghetti monster.
But dismissing the entire thing as not a religion because satire, well, no. Sorry, that just doesn't fly.)
In what sense? A religion is a formal structure incorporating a belief system. What do "pastafarians" believe? None of the professed beliefs on the website are genuine beliefs -- they're just a parody of other people's beliefs. No belief, no religion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Deuteronomic requirement to stone to death anyone wearing cotton/polyester clothing, for example?
Whether or not Deuteronomy requires this, even the most minimal fashion sense does.
Re:Somebody ask the judge, please (Score:5, Insightful)
I see people whose genuine beliefs look a lot like a parody of Christianity of Islam all the time. They usually call themselves Christian or Islamic respectively.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Arguably, no real religion has a formal structure or a belief system. Those are just the hollow outward appearances that attempt to take the place of the real religion, which is usually lost forever as soon as its founder dies. "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life". Try to write down religious insights, and they slip through the pages like water between the fingers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Laws don't need to be completely objective in that sense. We do not need to be able to perfectly define something to legislate around it. One of the explicit given reasons for regulatory guidance and common law is to address the fact that the black letter law is quite often rather remote from the law as practiced. I get that you might prefer well thought out fully objective laws which don't require much interpretation: I agree with you, judges agree with you and regulators agree with you. But judges and
Re: (Score:3)
A novel about how special agent Adam Lance is sent to steal a crystal skull from the temple of the Snake God is qualitatively different from a book professing the gospel of the Snake God as truth, and the former makes adopting religous belief inspired by the book appear less likely than the latter.
And precisely how do you tell the difference? Because one book has the subtitle "A Novel" and the other has the subtitle "A Religious Text" on the front?
Also, "truth" is problematic here. There are plenty of high-profile Christian and Jewish theologians who claim that many Bible stories were NEVER meant to be taken literally... and sometimes those stories are explicitly framed that way (e.g., New Testament parables) On the other hand, there are plenty of novels that present themselves in a tone as if t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just going to have to write the Ravioli Testament in which the FSM makes it very clear that followers of his religion must at no point actually believe he exists.
I'll close it with the admonishment that satire is the only true representation of pastafarian belief.
At this point the judge will have to acknowledge that the prisoner's beliefs are fully aligned to the holy texts and that they are a true follower of the religion.
Or maybe they could stop giving wankers privileges based on arbitrary statements
Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it dubious that people who have been convicted of crimes, nearly all of which are expressly forbidden in major religions (killing, theft, etc), are complaining about the lack of exceptions being made for their closely held religious beliefs.
I think most of these religious protests in prison are bullshit, an excuse to be defiant and rebellious against prison rules and authorities.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
The #1 crime in America is drug possession. Most religions don't say anything about drugs, and if they do it's usually only to say not to consume alcohol and they do not mention any other drug. Many religions even have stories of their priests and ascetics taking hashish and other drugs for enlightenment. So your "nearly all of which are expressly forbidden in major religions" claim doesn't hold water.
[Disclaimer: I'm not a drug user]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the beard thing has been overruled.
Just Wait (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Just Wait (Score:2, Funny)
Plainly you are not a child of the Pastafari faith. The sauce is the holy liquid covering of the sacred noodles. You, and this so-called judge, for your blasphemies, shall verily be overcooked forever, and never see the great colander, remaining eternally in the salted cooking water.
Re: Just Wait (Score:3, Funny)
In the name of all that is Ravioli,
What was he thinking?
Just because he has a fetuccini for facts he should be allowed to approach the holy garlic oregano and tomato sauce center of worship in his own lasagne time!
In the name of the chef the momma and the Holy customers AMEN
TORTELLINI UNACCEPTABLE
Indeed (Score:3)
Re: Indeed (Score:2)
What about Scientology, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the summary: "A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds [citing Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle and Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land]. "
I don't get it -- so inventing a religion from science fiction authors Kurt Vonnegut or Robert Heinlein would be bogus. But inventing a religion from science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard yields a viable and constitutionally protected religious practice. What's the difference?
Re:What about Scientology, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cult: a small, poor religion.
Religion: a large, wealthy cult.
Re: What about Scientology, then? (Score:3)
Cult: Prophet is still alive.
Religion: Prophet is dead. People still follow his teachings. It hasn't killed them yet.
Re: What about Scientology, then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cult: at least one person knows it's all a scam
Religion: everyone who knows the truth is dead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is whether or not "followers" actually believe.
Re:What about Scientology, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
How should a court of law test whether or not a follower actually believes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about Scientology, then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: What about Scientology, then? (Score:3)
Pastafarians believe all established religions are bullshit and I'd be willing to bet their belief is way more solid than that of those who adhere to a court-approved religion.
Re: (Score:3)
How so? Because the judge saw one white swan and declared that all swans are white?
Re:What about Scientology, then? (Score:5, Insightful)
How should a court of law test whether or not a follower actually believes?
This one I can do! It was worked out long ago. Tie them up and throw them into a deep river or lake. If they sink and drown, they were believers. If they survive, they obviously had help from the devil, so they are wicked unbelievers and must be burned.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case there aren't very many Christians, are there? Real followers don't judge others, and give away what they have to the poor.
There aren't many real apples, because real oranges have peel. Christians believe that God had a son around 2 millenia ago to a virgin who was engaged to be married, that he was nailed to a bit of wood and walked out of his tomb. That many self-identifying Christians fail to live up to one of the two central tenets of the faith (love your neighbour) doesn't mean they don't believe in God, Jesus and the Resurrection.
Re: What about Scientology, then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lack of evidence is crucial for a religion. (Score:5, Funny)
This ruling actually makes sense. An important part of a real religion is a total absence of real evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that God or Allah or Vishnu or Jupiter or Zeus or Thor actually exist, making those real religions. But spaghetti does exist. You can likely even find some at your local grocer. I know that my grocer stocks several different varieties, and I actually ate some last week. So that's evidence that spaghetti does exist, which means that any "religion" based around it cannot actually be a real religion, because there is real evidence that spaghetti exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Spagehetti yes. A spaghetti monster? I have never seen any evidence for a spaghetti monster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that supermarket spaghetti actually and literally Him, or does it merely represent Him? Transubstantiation is the word, I believe.
This could lead to a schism. Wars have been fought over less.
Re: (Score:3)
Transubstantiation is the process of going from one to the other. I guess that means it's a matter of uncooked versus cooked pasta.
Re: (Score:3)
Pizzafarians FTW, Alex.
Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope he doesn't run into Russell's teapot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. As distasteful as the origins and practice of Scientology may be, it's still a real religion because it's practitioners take their tax breaks seriously.
Fixed that for you. Of course, its kinda circular... but then court rulings often are.
Are JavaScript and Rust religions? (Score:4, Interesting)
In light of this ruling, would the JavaScript and Rust programming languages be considered religions?
They aren't religions in the traditional sense, like say Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu and Wicca are.
But they aren't intentional satire either, like the FSM is.
Yet their adherents exhibit the same sort of blind, often illogical, devotion that we see from the followers of other religions.
JavaScripters have a holy book in the form of Crockford's "JavaScript: The Good Parts". They worship their saints, including John Resig and Node.js. They don't care how awful JavaScript's semantics are, or how limited its standard library; they're so devoted to it that they will use it anywhere and everywhere, especially when doing so is the worst idea possible.
Rustaceans study the absurd and contradictory Rust Code of Conduct [rust-lang.org], and base their entire existences around it. They idolize Rust's borrow-checker. They worship Rust developers like Patrick Walton and Steve Klabnik, as well as the Rust Moderation Team. Rustaceans will launch a downmod crusade against you if you don't glorify Rust in the discussion at Hacker News or Reddit.
So should JavaScript and Rust be considered religions? I would think they should, since their followers are actually seriously devoted, and not joking, despite the many contradictions and the complete idiocy we see surrounding such programming languages and their communities.
Re: Are JavaScript and Rust religions? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Vi is definatly a religion :-P
No, vi is a text editor with religious functions available from command mode, emacs is a religion that can also edit text.
Vi (Score:3)
Vi is a modal editor. It has two modes: "Beep repeatedly" and "Break everything".
That's right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That being, the government should allocate no special status to any religion, no tax breaks, no mention at any public meetings, no special zoning, while at the same time allowing as much freedom as reasonable for individuals to practice their beliefs such that those practices do not impact others.
Translation: The government should voluntarily reduce its own power.
Thats a rare thing, and wont happen in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
I will not address the arguments on the other things you mention because they are complex issues and while I lean towards agreeing with your position on the point, I recognize that there are arguments which might cause me to support the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the "government" does not mention any religion at public meetings.
The government mentions religion every time you spend a dollar. It says so right on the money.
State religion (Score:5, Insightful)
And by deciding what is and what isn't religion, we are a step closer to a state religion.
The judge could have used standards applied to other religions (must have a fairly consistent, established dogma; must not pose a hazard to the operation of the prison or prisoners, etc), but instead decided to plant his flag on satire and political stance, which conveniently ignores centuries of Christian political advocacy and the mutant strands of Christianity that appeared with the hippies in the 60s.
I mean Mormonism is an established religion. Snake handlers even get their day.
But to deny religious belief simply because he doesn't like where it originated from is begging for a Supreme Court ruling, and then the floodgates will really be opened.
Re:State religion (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling has nothing to do with making a 'state' religion, it's just pointing out the obvious difference between satire and it's subject.
As a side note: If you don't understand what religion is for its practitioners, then you shouldn't be making fun if it as all you're really doing is making fun of somebody for something that you haven't taken the time to understand yourself.
Re:State religion (Score:5, Insightful)
As near every religion I can shake a stick at is, by degree, ridicule of human folly, can you name any religion that doesn't incorporate satire? And by what means do you intend to separate the satire aspect from the religious aspect? By what proportion makes one religious satire and the other satirical religion? "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex" is satire in the same breath that it is religious. And let's not forget Ray Stevens is inducted in the Christian Music Hall of Fame. Religion takes many forms.
One of the reason the Supreme Court has tread very lightly with regards to religious belief is purposely to avoid any inference of a state religion. When you start dictating what qualifies (keep in mind worship of Zeus is condoned in federal prisons), you set the stage for religious persecution.
As a side note: I'll pass judgement on any damn thing I please.
Supreme Court has already ruled on this (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they will find an earnest believer or two, but if they do, how are the rest of the 'practitioners' going to react when they realize that they're promoting what has become a real religion?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
select any religious faith or none at all.
I think this judge ruled that since FSM is a parody, the inmate selected "none at all".
That said, I still think it's discrimination to give extra benefits to religious inmates, and none to agnostics/atheists.
Re: (Score:2)
How far can you take this? Say my religion requires me to eat a delicious steak at least twice a week, and I must always sleep on a feather mattress because angels or something.
Meanwhile, in New Zealand (Score:3, Informative)
I know it when I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
Much as I share the judge's doubts about sincerity of the plaintiff, I suspect, the ruling will not stand.
He is right — in this case. But it is difficult (if not impossible) to define a criteria — like in that earlier case, where judges where asked to distinguish between erotic art and pornography: "I know it when I see it [wikipedia.org]. Religion is even more difficult to define.
But the whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military [washingtonpost.com], wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers seems like a violation of the First Amendment. I mean the establishing part of it — you can still freely exercise whatever as long as it does not require special accommodations.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone really believes something then it should have an impact on how they behave in the world. If folks who say they believe in something don't actually do anything that such a belief might lead them to do, even something as simple as showing up a building to discuss their faith on a semi regular basis, then we have no evidence that such a belief is real
Re: (Score:2)
But the whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military [washingtonpost.com], wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers seems like a violation of the First Amendment. I mean the establishing part of it — you can still freely exercise whatever as long as it does not require special accommodations.
well lucky for those in prison or those of us in (or formally in) the military, you are once again wrong and vastly ignorant of how it works.
hell, the damn supreme court case affirming that prisons cannot bar inmates from religious beards was only 3 months ago!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, that's because beards do not, in fact, require any special accommodations. Or, maybe, SCOTUS simply made a mistake this time.
Re:I know it when I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what he was getting to is that there are no reasons for religious exemptions.
In the case of the beards, I assume from your wording it is still forbidden for some people, that doesn't make any sense!
Either there is a good reason to forbid beards, and no one gets one, or there is none strong enough, and everyone can have one.
Do you really think it is fair that someone from religion X or Y can have a beard, but not a guy from religion Z or a non-believer?
Re: (Score:2)
since you need a refresher on accomodations:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-dat... [opm.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
wrong link. that's the one for disabilities.
here's religion: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/type... [eeoc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is part of the Executive branch. They don't write the laws, they enforce compliance — to the best of their understanding. Next time a cop beats you up, will you accept an argument, that he has done so in accordance with his department's rules?
What makes your link even more off-topic is that they are enforcing the laws of employment only.
Re: (Score:2)
"there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such.
He is right - in this case. But it is difficult (if not impossible) to define a criteria - like in that earlier case, where judges where asked to distinguish between erotic art and pornography: "I know it when I see it. Religion is even more difficult to define.
I think if you take the sum of every practice generally recognized as "religious", past and present as prior art then excluding something as a potential religious practice would be an impossible task. Of course you can suspect that if an inmate claims $deity demands he only eats Kobe steaks and lobster dinners with Beluga caviar and Champagne you might doubt the sincerity, but you'll never prove it and I doubt you'll find a principal difference to kosher, halal, sikhs that won't eat meat and so on.
As for si
Re:I know it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll start by saying that I agree with your post about 100%. My only point of contention is that I actually don't doubt the sincerity of the plaintiff or the validity of the religion. Specifically:
"there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. [...] The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line."
He is right — in this case.
I disagree that he is right. The judge correctly identifies Pastafarianism as satire designed to make a political point but then proceeds to make a ruling making that political point invalid. The issue members of the FSM church try to bring to light is that members of religious groups get special treatment all the time. You can't wear hats for your driver's license picture. Wait, your religion says you must wear one? Ok, then you can wear one. Everybody else has to follow this rule, but you can't. Or, in this case, people in jail who are religious get to wear clothing the others aren't allowed to, they get to congregate at special times when others aren't allowed, etc. All the FSM church members want is that whatever rules you create apply equally to everyone. It's not even to remove those privileges from the religious. If there's a reason why inmates shouldn't be allowed these things, that reason doesn't disappear if they're religious. If there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed these things, then there's no reason it should be banned for anyone.
The judge makes the point that members of other religions truly believe, while members of the FSM don't. But even that's not really true. Members of the FSM truly believe in the tenets of their religion: they truly believe that making special exceptions to the rules to accommodate someone's religion is unfair and unethical. Their practices are designed to bring this perceived injustice to light and are central to their moral code.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge makes the point that members of other religions truly believe, while members of the FSM don't. But even that's not really true. Members of the FSM truly believe in the tenets of their religion: they truly believe that making special exceptions to the rules to accommodate someone's religion is unfair and unethical. Their practices are designed to bring this perceived injustice to light and are central to their moral code.
This is a really great point.
And I'd go even further to note that many religions have a long history of disparaging the followers of other religions and/or their practices. This particular "religion" is no different in that regard. In our modern multicultural world, most people tend to ignore those aspects or downplay them... but they are often still official dogma in many religions.
Just because a religion wishes to argue against another religion through parody or satire doesn't mean that the argument
Flip the argument (Score:3)
"there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such... A prisoner could just as easily read the bible and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Mormonisnm or the church of seventh day adventists. The Christian Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
This is the same argument and it actually makes sense, how do we know that the Bible was not meant as a satire? How do we know the Bible is a holy book? Just because some people said so? You either have to allow everything to be a religion or none of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, religion is like pornography. You can't define it, but you know it when you see it...
Wait, there's such thing as a real religion? (Score:2)
devastating :( (Score:4, Funny)
I do not worship the FSM, but I sympathize.
In the 60s (that would be the 1960s for you young folk), I became a minister for the Missionaries of the New Truth ($10 back when that was real money). We seemed to be a small religion though I never met other believers in person (mail order ministry). It is shocking to think that my faith could be questioned by an arbitrary group of 'authorities'. Might they then insist that I pay 45 years of back taxes? Might they make me take down the giant pink and orange middle finger fetish in my front yard? Could they disperse the devout young maidens with whom I celebrate in connubial bliss every day?
No religion deserves protection (Score:3)
What is and is not a religion? Is taking a position on God a religion? In some ways, atheism is “religious” because it makes a definitive statement about the existence of higher beings, while agnosticism is perhaps not because it refuses to take a position. Buddhism is treated like a religion, but it’s really an orthogonal philosophy, and many people are Buddhists and also some other religion at the same time.
Although I will argue with people whose beliefs defy logic, nobody has the right to dictate to you what you should believe. And that goes both ways. Just because there’s a label for your peculiar superstitions doesn’t mean you can force me to respect you.
We have so many real things that are NOT choices that people struggle with. Race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation. Hell, in the UK people put you down if you have red hair. I think this “hate speech” thing is bullshit. If you want to flap your mouth about some ignorant belief you have, go for it; you just don’t have the right to interfere in their lives by hurting them, preventing them from getting jobs, etc.
I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
All religions are obviously works of fiction, according to everyone not of that religion...
Take any religion, much more than 50% of living human beings think it's obviously fake.
So, tell me again: what is a "real" religion, objectively?
Re: (Score:2)
what is "real" ?
if you are not ignorant, you would know that objective existence of what most people call "reality", "world'", etc, cannot be demonstrated rationally.
we merely believe there is a reality preceptive to our senses. but it is all in our mind. it is impossible to rationally prove there is anything is outside our mind. if you are rational you have to accept that.
and even our mind is a constant flow of thoughts. or at least our mind, at one point in time, merely believes it had/will have other th
personal choice (Score:2)
it doesn't actually matter what *other people* think - yes pastafarianism was created as satire, but there *will* be people who will choose to follow it religiously (and i do use that word quite deliberately). let's take it the other way round: should this judge be permitted to rule that an individual who *pretends* to follow christianity is somehow "okay"??? that because that individual merely *claims* to be following a religion - yet his daily life and thoughts (if they were made public) would clearly de
Work of satire? (Score:2)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
I though all religion were work of satire meant to entertain. The main broad difference is that FSM is indeed making a political statement whereas other religion are not meant to be anything else than pure entertainment, or when they are making political statement, it's most of the time not in the good direction.
Kopimism (Score:2)
The judge is correct (Score:4, Interesting)
the judge wrote "there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious' simply because a plaintiff labels it as such
The judge is quite right here, unfortunately for him the Constitution expressly forbids Congress - and by extension him - from drawing that line.
Re: (Score:2)
But is there a real objective reason why Pastafarianism can not be considered a religion?
Yes. They have not paid enough money into gummint coffers to qualify as a protected religion.
Re:Courts are now in the business of judging the q (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. this is going to be overturned the lower judge reprimanded fairly quickly