Slashdot Mirror
Worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster Isn't a Real Religion, Court Rules (arstechnica.com)
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.
...of L. Ron Hubbard and claim it as his holy book. Oh. Wait.
In Virginia prisons you must submit to short hair and no beard. Even if it is against your religion to shave or cut forelocks. Those that refuse are kept in segregation. IE the hole. 23 hour lockdown, very limited recreation and privileges. When I was in VA prison we tried to help them. Sneaking items into the hole. There were people with active court cases against this practice that'd had been in segregation for years, even over a decade.
Silence is a state of mime.
This judge will suffer the wrath of doings! He is in deep sauce now.
Clearly, the church of Pastafarianism lacks the spectacular, physics defying mythology necessary for an acknowledged religion.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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?
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.
So does that mean Scientology isn't a real religion also? After all Hubbard started it as a bet and not because he believed it was real. Of course I can't prove that Hubbard started it as a joke/bet but neither can I prove Pastafarianism was started as anything other than a serious religion. Since Scientology has its little alien in a space ship circling Neptune controlling the religion it sounds just about the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Dyslexics Untie!
How can a judge with any level of foresight take a fundamentally subjective human experience, look at another human being and objectively say "Nope, you're not doing it right "??? I wonder if this judge is a religious individual themselves...
"there must be a line beyond which a practice is not 'religious'"
Why does one man get to decide where this line is? If everyone can't be accommodated maybe no one should be.
"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 don't see how any other 'holy' book/text is any different.
The only real difference i see is the size of the following, quantity of buildings and how long ago it was established. But these don't qualify a religion. Is any religious person able to see it this way? I'm agnostic myself so i can look at this very objectively and i get that you must believe against all evidence, since that is what faith is. But is there a real objective reason why Pastafarianism can not be considered a religion?
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, 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.
"A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation" - That's exactly right. The government cannot judge the validity of a religion.
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.
I stole this from an Ars post, but this is going to be appealed and the State will loose. It's already been seen by the Supreme Court in 1985, specifically Wallace v. Jaffree : "The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. "
http://stuff.co.nz/life-style/...
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. Religion is even more difficult to define.
But the whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military, 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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"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.
Because honestly, they all sound equally fake and ridiculous. The difference is that Pastafarians aren't required to believe in their God... I'm sorry, but this needs to be overruled. You can't *safely* define what is and isn't a true religion without trampling the spirit of the first amendment.
Until the devotees of pastafarianism start doing crazy self destructive things in the name of the religion, it's a pretty safe bet that they don't take the faith all that seriously.
Pastafarianism is consciously ridiculous says the judge. Ok. Is a traditional religion less ridiculous because it is taken seriously?
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?
...omphaloskepsis often...
You know, I'd really like to hear mr. Gerrard's opinion on scientology and whether that together with this opinion holds any water. It's one thing to declare there has to be some line, but to arbitrarily put it at "satire", well, why can't you worship through satire? That seems to be more constructive (yes, pun intended) than, oh, psychologically abusive claptrap from a really old book or from a third rate SF writer who all but outright declared he was only in it for the money. And, hm, how about worshipping (through) irony? Nobody made it official yet, but there does seem to be quite a cult out there. So, do justify drawing that line where you did, dear mr. judge sir.
(No, I don't concur that the complainant must be granted tons of money; pastafarianism isn't big on ceremony on purpose so worshipping can and should be done on the cheap. But dismissing the entire thing as not a religion because satire, well, no. Sorry, that just doesn't fly.)
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.
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?
My Stack Overflow user
Now we just need to take this to the logical conclusion that Xianity, jewism, muslimism, sceintology, etc, are not real religions either, and should therefore receive no special treatment from the government.
Scientology?
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 demonstrate that his entire committment to christianity is a complete and utter sham.
in the USA, would a judge even be *permitted* to make any kind of ruling that could criticise the personal thoughts and motivations of a member of an established faith? they'd be utterly vilified if they did!
and so it's the same thing here. the actual religion is utterly irrelevant. it's the motivation and dedication of the individual that's important, regardless of how long that religion has been established, and regardless of what *everyone else* does. this judge is stepping way outside of acceptable ethical bounds. that, and someone else points out (in another post, here) that the supreme court has already ruled on "freedom of conscience to select religious faith or none at all" as being inviolate.
Why stop at scientology ?
Bible ? Coran ? Tora ? Any other ?
Thank you, judge, for stating that all religions are fake.
Totof
You beat me to it, in a more courteously way. I was going to say it was only a religion for rich, stuck up people... AKA nut-jobs. UNARIUS (www.unarius.org/) is more of a religion than that creepshot.
exactly. this is going to be overturned the lower judge reprimanded fairly quickly
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
But worshipping a son of a vergin claming to be the son of god ironically is a religion ???? The first amendement gives you the right to practice you religion no matter how bizarre it might sound (for the rest of us) and regardless of what the goverment thinks as long as you don't break the law. That's the hole point of the amendement (and one of the fundaments of a secular state). Com'on this is the 21st century...
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.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Waitwut? Does that mean that this orthodox judge would also consider scrapping Kopimism (usa, can) as an official religion? So how are the inmates that were thrown in the slammer for downloading a couple of 1960s Beatles songs going to have their religious ceremony of the Holy Copy Party?
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
By officially declaring a system of beliefs NOT a religion, the judge is declaring other religions official. By creating a standard for which collection of OPINIONS don't constitute a religion, he's endorsing all the others, or at least a broad class of them, which is hopefully going to be overturned on appeal.
This is as much a crock-of-shit ruling as "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it."
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
To all Religions he will get the same result if he fails to use the very same standard then he shows preference.
What a tool.
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."
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, 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 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!"
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!"
RABBI B: "Okay, where do we go now? Well, there's that guy everybody brings up as the founder of our people -- Abram."
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 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!"
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
Its all fiction anyway.
Objectively? The Church of Bob is objective. We have more followers. We have meetings on college campuses. We have videos and entertainer-devotees. We have a humanoid martyred leader. We have slack, just what prisons everywhere are truly need. Bob Dobbs keeps it real.
There is a legally recognized "Church of All Worlds", inspired by Heinlein. It's a sizable Neopagan group started by Oberon Zell (who corresponded a fair bit with Heinlein). The judge's apparent ignorance of this fact demonstrates the unsoundness of his ruling.
Pastafarianism is as real as any religion. Questions of religious liberty must be based on the sincere beliefs and actions of the person, not in the origins of the religion. Dude has FSM tats, has undergone some expense and pain in the name of Pastafarianism, so it's not a trivial thing for him.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Yeah, the autist crowd just can't wrap their minds around the concept of "genuine".
Surely if two people display outwards similar physical characteristics, and speak similar words, then they must be treated the same?
Nope, says the judge, we are going to treat people differently based on the thoughts inside their head.
"But you can't see those thoughts, so who are you make claims about what they are?"
"Ah, check out my job title" says the judge.
In thise case, using Ron Hubbard's holy book as an analogy is utterly flawed. The judge uses as an example to read a work of fiction, see a religion described as part of the plot and claim belief in it. The judge hence inherently presumes, and rightfully so, that someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it.
The folks in Nebraska have made an interpetation. If you don't understand, here is an interpretation of their interpretation.
They are telling you to stop going to church, unless you have a highly communicable illness.
You should never mock another man's faith.
It's what all judges do constantly in every country in the world. It's just that Slashdotters are too autistic to get that.
Accused: "Your Honor, I pointed the loaded gun at him and put my finger on the trigger to scare him, but suddenly felt an extreme urge to sneeze and involuntarily jerked and pulled the trigger by accident. I never meant to kill him"
Judge: "No, in your mind you meant to kill him"
Reeks of "no true scotsman" and all that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
of a mass murderer, multiple rapist, paedophile (who married a nine year old girl when he was fifty four) called MUHAMMAD too...
Nothing to say, stupid Slashdotters? Mustn't question Islam, must we...
What about the Talmud? Do you know what's in that too?
www.prophetofdoom.net
The rule says: those who believe in a religion are entitled to be treated in certain ways.
Slashdotters react: "Ah, this means that if I imitate the religious believers, I must also be treated in that way. I will decide on a figure and say that I worship this, like they say they are worshipping God, I will find a piece of text and say that I feel this is holy to me, like they are claiming the Bible is holy. By acting as they do, the rule means I must be treated as they do!"
The judge goes: "Actually, you are not genuinely believing"
Slashdotters sputter: "But firstly, I perform all the outward acts of someone who is believing, so I am entitled to be treated the same way as them! And secondly, who are you to make claims about what thoughts are inside my head? What apparatus or device do you use to objectively detect my thoughts? I could be worshipping the carpet right now and you cannot disprove that!"
What they are incapable of getting is that the judge actually judges what your thoughts are - whether putting a hundred dollar bill on someone's desk was an attempt to bribe them or just a random act of fancy. And this is done not objectively, but probabilistically. The judge literally judges whether you actually believe, to a standard of evidence. Shocking.
The judge hence inherently presumes, and rightfully so, that someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it.
Have you read the bible? It's all stories. The whole point of the book is that it's a set of cultural narratives that speak to the idea of "truth" rather than facts. Viewing the bible as a book of facts, AKA religious fundamentalism, which is only around 200 years old, is what's created this stupid legal mess in the first place. Theological arguments have no place in government institutions, prisons, or courts of law. We don't live in a theocracy. It's not up to a judge to decide whether he thinks a he's a theologian or religious philosopher and therefore entitled to decide which religions are legitimate or not. That's not his job and it's not the government's place to impose their beliefs on others. The reason for secularism is so that we don't have repeats of things like the Catholic church's persecution of other beliefs and religions. It's one of the most important developments of modern culture: The right to freedom from religious persecution for one's beliefs.
Under the same argument, all this privileging one group of people over another over their particular religion also goes away. Everyone should be treated equally under the eyes of the law, whatever their religion. So if someone decides that they're Pastifarian or followers of Brian, "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" They should be afforded equal opportunity to do so.
Many view religious texts as composed mainly of allegorical stories. Satire is highly allegorical, and well suited to teaching precepts. The judge seems to be making the rather unsupportable contention that religion must be "serious".
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"?
If judging was easy, anyone could be a judge. It's difficult, so we have specialists who are qualified to do it. That's what this judge did. He judged.
Except that the original printings of Scientology had a preface from L. Ron Hubbard himself declaring it a work of fiction and that it was not and would not be allowed to be used as a real religion as long as he lived.... Oh. Wait.
The Buybull Thumping Jesus Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement, and thus not a "real" religion.
I see a big difference between the older communities you have listed, which are mainly made up of Greatest Generationers, Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, and the newer JavaScript and Rust communities which are mostly made up of Millennials.
When arguing with a supporter of Linux, or vi, or EMACS, the worst they'll typically do is tell you to fuck off, and leave it at that.
Yet whenever JavaScript or Rust comes up at places like HN or Reddit, and somebody isn't totally supportive of it, we see passive-aggressive attacks. The Rust supporters, for example, typically don't resort to insults or name-calling, because their code of conduct supposedly forbids that. Instead, they launch silent, but far more harmful attacks involving censorship (comment downvoting and/or deletion). I sometimes get the impression that they'd even be willing to impart physical violence against their targets, were that a viable option.
So I'd say that Linux, vi and EMACS aren't religions. They have their supporters, but these supporters are rarely fanatical.
JavaScript and Rust supporters, on the other hand, have shown that they'll blow even totally minor situations out of control and they'll escalate with unjustifiable attacks that we wouldn't see out of Linux, vi and EMACS supporters. In fact, most Linux, vi and EMACS supporters would be disgusted with the idea of suppressing the ability of their opponents to express themselves openly.
Rust and JavaScript come off more like religions to me because of that.
I have not said that the Bible isn't "all stories", or that it isn't "cultural narratives". This is irrelevant to what I said: someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it. 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.
Your post is otherwise a giant mess of unsourced, dubious descriptives and normative claims.
As long as the law says that religious belief should lead to a certain treatment, then it becomes necessary to distinguish between what is religious belief and what isn't. You normatively assert that this should not be the case. Based on the actual judgement, it is the case.
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.
Yeah, the autist crowd just can't wrap their minds around the concept of "genuine".
So the judge has set the precedent that one has to be a practitioner of a "genuine" religion to merit constitutional protections. Does this mean you also have to be a "genuine" practitioner? If you go to church every Sunday, but don't really believe in the immaculate conception, or don't really believe that that the priest turns wine into human blood during communion, are you really practicing Christianity? Somewhere, there's a Federal judge who's confident that he can tell True Believers, and he's ready to make sure that only True Believers receive State protection.
I wonder how many televangelists will still qualify for tax-free status?
Does this threaten my ordainment as a priest in the Church of Latter-Day Dudes? Complete religious freedom and limiting what is and what isn't is a slippery slope in either direction.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Satirical religions not recognized, just farcical ones.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only deity!
... because of what you claim you believe has more importance than what you are doing yourself to advocate what you say you believe, then either you don't really believe in that religion, or else that religion is not worth anyone believing in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.]
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Pastafarians rise up and destroy the non believers!!!
I declare jihad on all those who have long oppressed the true believers! We must overthrow the oppressors so we can live under Pastaria Law.
I believe that the only religion the state will support is the worship of itself. Sure they will give token respect to Christianity and Judaism, but the real object of worship is the government. The government controls all aspects of our life everyday, all day. The God of Abraham only gets worshipped for two hours a day on the Sabboth. This judge has convinced me to put new faith and validity into worshipping the Great Spaghetti Monster. No longer is the church of the Spaghetti monster a fake religion. The judge has just given it validity. Just as the Romans were not able to quash Chrisianity with the threat of being eaten by lions, this judge will not be able to quash my love of the spagetti monster with his arbitrary and capricious legal code.
I will no longer give my money to the state that feeds this judge who has determined what and who I can worship. Instead I will invest my money in spaghetti.
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 they were "truth," sometimes even expressed in a first-person narration as if a diary of a real person. So, how exactly do you apply your standard that a religious text should be "professing the gospel.. as truth"?
What it really comes down to is a distinction in what people *DO* with the text, not what the text *IS*. There are plenty of examples throughout history where texts have subsequently acquired meanings and associations that were never intended by the author... but culturally their meaning is now fundamentally connected with these new ideas.
As long as the law says that religious belief should lead to a certain treatment, then it becomes necessary to distinguish between what is religious belief and what isn't.
This is the problem -- "religion" should not have any special status under the law, at least not more so than any sincerely held belief. An example would be "conscientious objector" status in a number of countries, where pacifism could be due to religious beliefs or due to a more general philosophical objection (which is not necessarily religious in nature).
(And yes, there is vagueness in sorting out whether something is a "sincerely held belief" too. But it's at least a somewhat more consistent -- if vague -- standard than granting special status to religions only, whether they are.)
You normatively assert that this should not be the case. Based on the actual judgement, it is the case.
You forgot to add: ...until that judgment is appealed and perhaps clarified (or even overturned). I highly suspect that even if this judgment is upheld by higher courts, the reasoning will be clarified.
When the law gives protection to people based on religious belief, then the job of the judge is to decide who has religious belief.
You seem from your comment to believe that the judge is determining that certain religious beliefs are genuine and other religious beliefs aren't genuine. You give this impression by asking, for example, whether someone who don't believe in the particular element of wine turning into the blood of Jesus would be recognised under the same terms.
This is an erroneous belief. The judge isn't determining that certain religious beliefs are genuine and other religious beliefs aren't. The judge is determining that someone holds religious beliefs and someone else doesn't.
Common sense wins. If a pastafarian denies his satire, he loses the intent of pastafarianism.
The mistake was challenging the sincerity of belief, which by nature cannot be proven or disproven in terms of lawful evidence, rather than whether or not accommodating a certain belief is reasonable. People lose rights when they are put in prison - that's the whole point of a prison sentence.
Accommodating any ridiculous whim of someone just because they shout the word 'religion' was a horrible mistake, and there needs to be some rational push back. But this decision didn't achieve that, and an appeal court is likely to make the situation worse rather than better.
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.
For autists, perhaps. FSM is obviously satire, and has been since its inception.
That's why we have appellate courts.
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"?
You're right, we can't be sure. The difference from this to the FSM cult, however (and what probably influenced the judge's ruling), is historical context - yes, we can't be sure the biblical accounts were derived as a political statement or satire, and what little historical context we have don't seem to point this way, so there's plenty of room for interpretation either by religious people or atheists.
The historical context for the FSM cult, however, is well-known, as is known that it is a political statement and satire.
This heathen judge shall boil for all eternity in the stock pot of brackish water! Never will his sins be washed from his soul by the great colander of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Never will he be touched by His noodly appendage. To hell with this judge and all others who impugn the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pecorino Romano be upon Him.
Apple courts? They'd go well with pork for sure
Xenu love pasta. Judge enemy of the noodle. Judge bad.
How completely silly does a religion have to be, before it's not real?
Lemme see: talking snakes, talking donkeys, leviathans, dragons, unicorns, giants, witches, wizards, sticks that turn into snakes, bringing dead back to life, ascending into heaven, walking on water, entire world under water, earth only six thousand years old - what am I forgetting? And all with zero evidence.
Sure all that is entirely sensible, you would be an idiot to think otherwise. But a flying spaghetti monster? come on now, don't be ridiculous.
Since the Book of Mormon was based on a work of fiction called "The Manuscript Story" by Solomon Spaulding, that means Mormonism isn't a real religion either, right? The Bible says the sun stopped in the sky for several hours... that's clearly fiction. Sounds like a "true Scotsman" argument to me... how to you tell a "reall" religion?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
hard to find these days
"life is a joke, and someone is laughing at me"
It's not all stories. Don't forget the psalms (the least entertaining part of the Bible), plus some history, letters, and even some prophecies. The stories have a surprising amount of sex, violence, action, and intrigue, which I think is what makes them so memorable.
I agree that one of the worst thing that happened to Christianity was that someone decided that many of those allegorical stories were meant to be interpreted as literal, factual events - except for the ones obviously told as parables, I suppose. I think Christianity does much better when viewed as a prescription for a way of life, in which its tenants are generally quite positive: be charitable, be kind to others as you'd like to be treated (golden rule), forgive those who have wronged you, etc. I just wish more Christians practiced the philosophy instead of adhering to the dogma.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Because this is how you get suicide bombers.
Almost as if the state is deciding which religion is the correct religion for you to worship.
So, claiming membership in the Native American Church gives prisoners the right to take peyote, but claiming membership in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't give one the right to get together once a week and talk about pasta?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Religion is the manifestation of a genetic flaw in humans that causes a cancerous cognitive disease of the human psyche and I'd just as soon that it be 'fixed' in the human genome so that no one falls prey to it ever again, and I'd also just as soon that all religions were legally declared 'not real' either as a starting step towards fixing the problem. It's a serious problem in humans that causes crimes against humanity, war, damage to the Earth's environment, and just trouble in general and it need to be cured.
Of course that's an absolute fantasy. As things stand any attempt by anyone to 'fix' this on a global scale would at best cause the War That Ends The World, ironically bringing about the Apocalypse that so many of these 'religions' prophecize is supposed to happen. Sadly, humans will either eventually evolve out of the need for 'gods' and other irrational things of that sort, or they'll extinguish themselves over it. I'm hoping for the former.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The courts ability to decide what a religion is or not has always been fascinating to me. Visit www.Speedingticketkc.com
You're not questioning Islam, you are making a claim that the questionable tenets of Islam are directly responsible for militant extremism. Nothing to do with the geopolitical history of the middle east, no of course not, it must be some words in a book that made those people behave that way. It is your failure to grasp this distinction that makes everybody (correctly) think you are a bigoted moron, not your questioning of scripture.
Maybe he should convert to a "real" religion, one with more history. Bob for President. Connie would look great ate the inauguration balls.
Sad that a government judge can be an authority on what religion is and is not. Does the constitution tell us what we can believe and be recognized as a religion? I do not claim to be of any particular religion but I am very offended by this ruling. In my understanding, the judge went beyond his authority. I would demand a higher court look at this. I dont think it is in the best interest of our country that a judge could have the authority to legitimize one reigion over another. Even and especially a prisoner cannot have his right to religon be removed, especially if it does not infringe on the rights and safety of others. The law cannot protect those that would take away an individuals right to peaceful belief and worship - it is a slippery slope to do so.
That dialog was just fabulous! +1 for comic genius on your part.
...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.
The court determined what is a "real" religion. Thankfully we have brilliant judges like this in the world
Ahh, Spaceship Ruthie. I miss the late-night broadcasts on the local cable system. She was always so ridiculously sincere...
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has held their first officially approved wedding in New Zealand.
Obvious and plainly seems to have different interpretations depending on your location.
I'll make a rare exception: Way to go New Zealand and Pastafarians!
For EXACTLY this reason Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment.
Government, by its nature, cannot tell one lie from another, and to give credence and legal power to one, while banning another, is an obvious violation of equal rights, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
Government can NOT give any rights based on belief without violating this Supreme Law of The Land.
Well at least in New Zealand the Department of Internal Affairs recognises that you can marry under the wedding
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/weddings/78999756/counting-down-to-worlds-first-legal-pastafarian-wedding
No one worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you just bathe in his noodly appendages
I don't know the Judge who issued this ruling, but I would question his intent in this ruling. All case law that I could find of comparable value avoid (because of 1st and 14th amendment considerations any question of Belief) Actually the US Supreme Court has never issued a ruling about what constitutes a religion.
There are numerous rulings about Practices centered around religion. Basically saying that you can Believe what you want, but Practices that would be otherwise illegal can be addressed in statute or judicially. Like defying a court order, or discrimination by practice because of your "firmly held beliefs". There is a couple hundred years of case law and constitutional interpretations that unequivocally support Belief (almost without condition) and at the same time a growing volume of decisions that skewer Practices in deference to that same 14th amendment. You've got to love "equal protection under the law"
Fascinating reading on the Subject, (it's a rainy day here at the beach)
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, 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 - or "simultaneously", as another /.er prefers - a judge noted "God's omniscience ... Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit." But he/she *still* won't show up for court. Seems really sketchy to me.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Maybe that should be the standard by which to define a religion: a belief system with the potential of /ruining/ lives.
I am sorry to tell the obvious but among the "lower" level of dianetic or whatever it is called, they are trully believer. But at no level whatsoever people believe the FSM which is supposed to be an ironic point, not a religion. If people trully believed in the FSM it would be different. But they aren't and that is the point.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
Arbitrary is the first word that came to mind when i read the summary, and I think your paragraph here nicely sums it up. Sometimes the method is more important than the result, this is a judge after all... also i enjoyed your satire of the big book of satire :P
The Deuteronomic requirement to stone to death anyone wearing cotton/polyester clothing, for example?
Actually a somewhat thoughtful opinion, despite the fact that religion is absurd as a concept.
https://arstechnica.com/wp-con...
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Oops...
Don't tell us what we can believe; is this judge now going to tell the Christians that their bronze-age myths don't count? Can't wait...
It both saddens and amuses me that the very judgement handed down by this court could be equally applied to ALL religions. Is something not real because you don't believe in it? Conversely, is something real just because you believe in it? NO to both questions.
If we as a society are going to put limits on religion in these kinds of contexts - then they need to be applied equally to all religions in that environment.
The reason the framers of the Constitution made separation of church and state a key component is clearly illustrated here. We can not allow government bodies to give preferential treatment based on identification with 'acceptable' religions, at the expense of any other way of life. The tyranny of religious bigotry is no less dangerous than any tyranny that threatens freedom to choose.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
If people would focus on their own life and actions, and treated everyone else with respect and tolerance rather than trying to insert their beliefs into someone else's life - maybe the rest of us who just want to be left to pursue happiness in our own way, wouldn't have to waste time calling BS every other day of the week.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
For some, Christianity is plainly the work of God. For many others, the bible, the Koran, etc. and everything they say about the supernatural are all plainly -- VERY plainly -- works of fiction.
None of which gives any government actor, of any kind, at any level, authorization to say jack shit about it, validation-wise. Period. Doesn't matter what the religion is about, doesn't matter what anyone's opinion of it is, doesn't matter if it's true or not true, doesn't matter how new or old it is, none of it matters. If a belief system formally construes itself as a religion, the US government is specifically forbidden from showing favor or disfavor of one vs another. This judge just ranked Christianity and Scientology and Mormonism above Pastafarianism. He is 100%, absolutely wrong, and furthermore, he is in violation of his oath of office, and should be summarily removed.
--fyngyrz
anon due to mod points
I'm pretty sure there *are* people doing 'self destructive' things, but merely because other people react in ways which are destructive to them rather than with the intent to be self destructive. Though one can foresee that and still choose to do it for political reasons or belief.
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"?
If judging was easy, anyone could be a judge. It's difficult, so we have specialists who are qualified to do it. That's what this judge did. He judged.
Thinking is hard. Not just anyone can do it. This is why we have power elite, to do our thinking for us and tell us how to live.
They were all invented by mortal humans for one purpose or other mostly to exert control over others. Scientology's creator famously said "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"
Or Joe's golden plates conveniently carried away by angels.
All of the worlds major religions were started by goat herders from antiquity spewing unintelligible crap very much in keeping with the warped sensibilities of the time.
If you are able to show one who claims to be a Pastafarian is in fact a nonbeliever in disguise to weasel out of something by for example catching them on tape admitting it this would be different story. Simply asserting a religion invalid because you personally judge it to be ridiculous is tyrannical nonsense.
Just because someone SAYS they believe something doesn't mean it's what they really believe. And how many people obey ALL the requirements of their *espoused* religion? Fuck all.
Therefore all religions are not real religions.
You look a little silly with that hook dangling out of your mouth and piercing your lip. ;-) Otherwise, good show ol' chap, jolly good show.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Vi is a modal editor. It has two modes: "Beep repeatedly" and "Break everything".
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It's not precedent. This is not the first time. People have used the guise of religion for all sorts of things. There are officially recognized religions. This is not one of them. This is hardly precedent - I was hearing similar stories when I was a wee lad. I imagine that they go back even further.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But saying 'Your honour' to some crossdressing psychopath in a black dress waiving about a little wooden hammer - now that's some proper fuckin' religiion...
Am I to understand that every prisoner who claims a "real" religion gets $5 million or privileges?
> $5 million or privileges to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, nor meet for weekly worship services and classes and receive communion
Do pastafarians typically spend that sort of money on their clothing and pendants?
Why not just require that prisoners (or their loved ones) pay for their own clothing, or pendants?
In fact, why not just decide that, while you are in prison, you were prison clothes, and no religious clothes or pendants? Don't like it? Should have thought of that before you committed your crime, you brought it on yourself.
If prisons really pay $5 million per religious, it would sure save taxpayers a lot of money.
He's a specialist in LAW, not history, philosophy, psychology or religion.
Given most religions deny that other religions are real, I think then that he should excuse himself, and a non-religious judge would have to be found.
I have more faith in the power of satire than in religion.
In New Zealand, a Pastafarian wedding has been recognized as valid:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36062126
Their bodies and their minds.
tenants: occupants, lessees
tenets: principles or beliefs
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Exactly.
Because any civil ceremony is valid. Fuck we let two dudes marry each other now. A mom is marrying her biological son in England. No religion would allow that.
Aaaand thanks for the sig.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Until the devotees of pastafarianism start doing crazy self destructive things in the name of the religion, it's a pretty safe bet that they don't take the faith all that seriously.
But... isn't the point of Pastafarianism to poke fun at the stupidity of magical-thinking-based religions? They keep this up, one of these days, people are going to start actually taking it seriously, like what happened with Scientology. Or at least, I think that's what happened with them. It's all a little murky for some reason.
ALL Religions are IN FACT made up in the mind of Humans and thus are COMPLETE and UTTER BULLSHIT.
That said... this will go straight to the Supremes and he'll be wearing FSM tees in no time.
I mean, c'mon -- the judiciary in general isn't going to touch anything that starts (de)legitimizing some religions and not others.
It's as real as those blasphemous jokes Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Why stop at scientology ?
Bible ? Coran ? Tora ? Any other ?
Thank you, judge, for stating that all religions are fake.
Arguably they are not works or satire.
FSM definitely is a work of satire. Deliberately so.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
So how does he know the Bible isn't a work of satire?
Tell me more about these "nickel whores"...s
The FSM certainly contains satire, but it also contains genuine beliefs that are not satire, one of which is the belief that satire is a good tool for their goal of "belief equality" (e.g. that certain religious beliefs should not have special privileges).
And not anyone can be a judge. You need to be qualified to raise enough money to win the judge election in your area.
The FSM certainly contains satire, but it also contains genuine beliefs that are not satire, one of which is the belief that satire is a good tool for their goal of "belief equality" (e.g. that certain religious beliefs should not have special privileges).
Its arguable whether this individual even believes this.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
In the United States anybody can be a judge, there are no qualifications. There may be certain requirements at state level, but none exist for the federal judiciary, including age. Although federal judges tend to be licensed lawyers, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution, federal statute, or judicial rules requiring such. In fact, judges don't even need any litigation experience.
It is indeed. But even if the individual does not actually believe in any of this, we should have the same standard for everyone. If we are going to doubt this person's belief, we should also doubt the beliefs of self professed christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. Maybe they should have to pass a religious test supplied by their church in order to claim membership.
All it should take is for someone under oath to say they believe. That should be enough. No digging no investigation. The problem is that most so-called FSM adherents are in fact atheists who, if they are logical, could not under oath claim they believe in FSM. If they claimed under oath to believe they would be anathema to FSM adherents.
Thought I'd throw a little religion in there.
It's true, I love garlic bread and spaghetti is just an excuse to make some! It kinda is a monster.
From the ACLU
What qualifies as a “sincerely held belief”?
In addition to proving that something is a religion, you must also convince prison administrators or a court that your beliefs are sincerely held. In other words, you must really believe it. In deciding whether a belief is sincere, courts sometimes look to how long a person has believed something and how consistently he or she has followed those beliefs. See Sourbeer v. Robinson, 791 F.2d 1094, 1102 (3d Cir. 1986) (upholding a finding of insincerity where prisoner only went to religious service 5 times in one year and did not designate a spiritual adviser to visit him); Vaughn v. Garrison, 534 F. Supp. 90, 92 (E.D.N.C. 1981) (upholding a prison’s requirement that an inmate request a pork free diet before qualifying him as a member of the Islamic faith and allowing him to order a Muslim prayer rug). Just because you have not believed something your entire life, or because you have violated your beliefs in the past, does not automatically mean that a court will find that you are insincere.
From the Church or the New Song court appeal (620 F.2d 648):
"Olaintiffs object to the district court's dismissal of their First Amendment suit, arguing that the court impermissibly relied on the doctrine of res judicata. We find the dismissal proper and affirm the judgment below."
(http://openjurist.org/620/f2d/648/church-v-establishment)
There is a lot more caselaw involved in the prisoners right movement and the invention of new religion in prisons. The courts have traditionally been very tough on unrecognized religions from prisoners.
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 of illogical belief.
There are two issues here:
1. Whether the FSM is a real religion.
2. Whether the prisoner believes in the FSM
Note that these question are independent. For example a prisoner can pretend to believe in Judaism (assuming ad argumentem that God exists) to get a special meal or a prisoner can actually believe that they have a big friend in the sky.
The court does not need to rule on whether the FSM religion is real. It can simply rule that the prisoner does not actually believe in it. Ruling that a prisoner does not hold "sincerely held beliefs" but is trying to get special treatment is *very* common.
E.g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 US 709, 733, n. 13 (2005) states:
"Further, prison officials may appropriately question whether a prisoner's religiosity, asserted as the basis for a requested accommodation, is authentic. Although RLUIPA bars inquiry into whether a particular belief or practice is "central" to a prisoner's religion, the Act does not preclude inquiry into the sincerity of a prisoner's professed religiosity."
Prisons are different that most other cases and this will be upheld.
Sarcasm is not a required tenant and true believers are plentiful ( http://www.jedichurch.org/ )
Actually fundamentalism is just over 100 years old, not 200. It began as a response to modernity, derived from a series of meetings at Niagara on the lake and was formalized by the publishing of "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" in 1910.
of a mass murderer, multiple rapist, paedophile (who married a nine year old girl when he was fifty four) called MUHAMMAD too...
If she was 9 when she married then she was 2 when she converted to Islam and by her eloquence at the time also converted her parents. The date for these if a matter of history. The younger age (by 6 years) is one that woman claimed as an old lady. If she was 8 when she converted herself and by her eloquence her parents as well then she was 15 when she married. Which is more likely an eloquent 2 year old changing religions and converting her parents as well or an 8 year old?
Myself I'm agnostic, I just get annoyed with various lies like this one being told. Just like the "Lady Hope and Darwin" bullshit story. Use the truth or make yourself and your religion look like so many fallen evangelists who could not use truth (Ted Haggard and so on).
Anyone can be a judge though. Some are simply elected positions other are appointments, no legal professional degrees required.
I agree with the judge; To be a REAL religion, the Western kind that counts, people need to KILL and DIE for it. We have not seen that from these so-called Pastafarians, so OBVIOUSLY they're just fooling around. ...and no, ptomaine poisoning from bad pasta doesn't count.
Sure, now.
But check back in 70 years, or 5 millennia, and see if it still is.
If those cryptic little ads in the back of old magazines are right, Jesus was made up, too. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=josep...
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Here's a parallel ... Is ""that man" (Jesus) is being boiled in hell in hiis own feces" satire, or a real belief? If pressed to defend the indefensible, an orthodox Jew would insist it's "plainly just satire".. but the rest of us who read it from the most holy book in judaism after the Torah, would say they're dead serious...
Why stop at scientology ?
Bible ? Coran ? Tora ? Any other ?
Thank you, judge, for stating that all religions are fake.
Mormonism. Why on earth a church invented by a con man as a con game should be a church is beyond me. The only reason I accepted them was that I accepted the idea that a person's beliefs are what they believe, not a government or judicial test. A judge has just made a judicial test a requirement to be classified as a religion.
This changes everything. I declare that mormonism is not and will never be a religion.
I am as non religious a person as exists. I do however understand that there are people who are. They really need to appeal and get this judgement reversed. A religious person doesn't want ot see where this one ends up.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Why stop at scientology ?
Bible ? Coran ? Tora ? Any other ?
Thank you, judge, for stating that all religions are fake.
Arguably they are not works or satire.
FSM definitely is a work of satire. Deliberately so.
However, how dare you claim that even satire is not allowed to be believed in?
Altogether too many people of the Christian faith believe that God is some sort of serious ill humored bastard, just wating to send people to hell if they waver. Kinda like a male god version of overly attached girlfriend that tortures you forever and ever if you don't do as she demands. And the Calvinism runs strongly in them and even non christian Americans.
Such a group of people would probably hate a deity like Ganesha, who is all about celebration to attempt to put it into one word. If I was into a religion thing, Ganesha would be da shitz. You deny that a person who believes in Ganesha should be considered as practicing a religion?
Even more than the issue of the Pastafarians being a group that utilizes satire, it remains undeniably true that this is a successful religous test made by the judicial system. Mormons and Moonies and other religions really should take notice, and oppose this ruling.
May his noodly appendage toch you and bring you to the truth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The FSM certainly contains satire, but it also contains genuine beliefs that are not satire, one of which is the belief that satire is a good tool for their goal of "belief equality" (e.g. that certain religious beliefs should not have special privileges).
Its arguable whether this individual even believes this.
Of course. Anything is arguable. I'd argue that Mormonism isn't a religion because it was started by a con man, and it's premises are ridiculous. I'd argue that the Church of scientology is about making money. Id argue that th eCatholic Churceh is a safe haven for peophiles.
But aside from the necessary prosecution of pedophiles, there are people who believe in each of these churches.
One of the mysteries of the universe is that anti-religious people such as myself tend to support freedom of religion much more than religious people do.
Then again, I might just understand why religion causes people to try to eliminate other religions. But everyone has the right to their own beliefs as long as they aren't slicing off women's private bits or flying airplanes into buildings. Then I get mad, just like Mr Bigglesworth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
....is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
....can someone explain why this is not the case for all religions? They were created along time ago and the people did not share their motivations only books
Brilliant!
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
The historical context of Mormonism, "Christian Science", and Scientology are well known and documented in detail. If well known fraud and idiocy aren't sufficient to deny them legal status, Pastafarianism ought to be on firm ground.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The judge uses as an example to read a work of fiction, see a religion described as part of the plot and claim belief in it. The judge hence inherently presumes, and rightfully so, that someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it.
And yet Evangelical Christians frequently hold that reading Christian fiction can inspire genuine belief.
I guess they must be mistaken. Someone should tell them.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
The guy doesn't deserve 5 million because not only is the "religion" a satire, but he was never blocked form practicing it. he can do whatever he needs to on his time in his cell or whatever. There is no reason to give him a shitload of money for being dumb.
Then again, I might just understand why religion causes people to try to eliminate other religions. But everyone has the right to their own beliefs as long as they aren't slicing off women's private bits or flying airplanes into buildings. Then I get mad, just like Mr Bigglesworth.
But I don't think this specific case really is about someone elses religion; it seems this guy really doesn't believe and really is just using the 'religion' as a tool.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Why stop at scientology ?
Bible ? Coran ? Tora ? Any other ?
Thank you, judge, for stating that all religions are fake.
Arguably they are not works or satire.
FSM definitely is a work of satire. Deliberately so.
However, how dare you claim that even satire is not allowed to be believed in?
Yes because its being used as a dialectic device, not as an article of faith.
Its just like a debating club trick.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It is indeed. But even if the individual does not actually believe in any of this, we should have the same standard for everyone. If we are going to doubt this person's belief, we should also doubt the beliefs of self professed christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. Maybe they should have to pass a religious test supplied by their church in order to claim membership.
Thats a very cool idea.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Then again, I might just understand why religion causes people to try to eliminate other religions. But everyone has the right to their own beliefs as long as they aren't slicing off women's private bits or flying airplanes into buildings. Then I get mad, just like Mr Bigglesworth.
But I don't think this specific case really is about someone elses religion; it seems this guy really doesn't believe and really is just using the 'religion' as a tool.
And isn't that the trap of religion? It's been used as a tool by many who are using it to make a lot of money, control, or other things.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Then again, I might just understand why religion causes people to try to eliminate other religions. But everyone has the right to their own beliefs as long as they aren't slicing off women's private bits or flying airplanes into buildings. Then I get mad, just like Mr Bigglesworth.
But I don't think this specific case really is about someone elses religion; it seems this guy really doesn't believe and really is just using the 'religion' as a tool.
And isn't that the trap of religion? It's been used as a tool by many who are using it to make a lot of money, control, or other things.
I think when its as open as this, it needs to be called out.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Religions are ~2000 years old;
But Humans are ~200,000 years old;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_history
Religion was born when first con-man met the first fool;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Casteism
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 some sort lawyer just to live.
They can't do that, they would lose most of their members. Or the test would be really easy, so that anyone could pass (Q1. Do you believe in Jesus - A1. Yes/No, Q2. Did you lie answering the previous question? - A2. Yes/No).
The relevant questions isn't where did the FSM come from. The key question is: does the person who claims it's a religion honestly and truly believe it's a religion? Otherwise we're merely saying that something has to be old enough that we've either forgotten it's origins or enough people believe it. In this case the judge is substituting his belief for that of someone else and when it comes to religion that's a slippery slope. The power to judge what is a religion is the power to eliminate religions and I don't think we want that. For instance, were I a judge I remark that they all appear to be satire to me and thus there are no religions. Would scientology not be a religion cause it's not old enough? How about mormonism? Islam? Christianity? Judaism.
Wait a second... there are places where judges are elected? How on Earth can one have have fair and impartial justice under such circumstances?
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 some sort lawyer just to live.
It's an inevitable result of the common law legal system as opposed to the more codified European systems. You can't just turn to page 6942 of the Bumper Book of Laws and find your answer written down for you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The historical context for the Scientology cult is also well-known, and it is known that it is a organization dedicated to extracting money from vulnerable people. Yet in many locations it is considered a valid religion.
This is a US District Judge, they're not elected
For instance, were I a judge I remark that they all appear to be satire to me and thus there are no religions. Would scientology not be a religion cause it's not old enough? How about mormonism? Islam? Christianity? Judaism.
The church of FSM is criticizing and claiming religions are stupid as satire. I don't think you can say the same of most other religions so what stupidity are they criticizing to qualify their existence as satire?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
One of the mysteries of the universe is that anti-religious people such as myself tend to support freedom of religion much more than religious people do.
The answers to that question can probably be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
TL;DR: "Religious people" are to too stupid to understand a different viewpoint.
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
What's the difference between a cult and a religion?
100 years.
So that's fine by me.
Two can play at this game.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
There's a hidden message in the genealogies of genesis. If you take the root meaning of each of the names, here's what it says:
You're going to have a hard time convincing me that bunch of Hebrew scribes made all that up.
Source: https://evidencetobelieve.net/design-in-genesis-5/
The judge hence inherently presumes, and rightfully so, that someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it.
I know someone who says in his childhood his religion was based entirely on the precepts given in Ultima IV. Admittedly that's interactive fiction rather than a novel, and the game likes to pretend you, the player, are the Avatar, but it's not far removed. Probably a very rare exception.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
The answers to that question can probably be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
That pretty much sums it up.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This is Poe's Law, right?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/P...
But no-one would pass and the whole charade would be exposed.
So I assume the judge will go after Scientology next? Can't wait to see that!
Unless you're willing to kill a lot of people for it, you plainly don't really believe it. There needs to be genocidal food fights, people walking into courtrooms with meatballs strapped to their chests, death threats for anyone who follows the holy recipe. Then we'll be taken seriously. The martyrs will be rewarded in heaven with 72 L of extra virgin olive oil.
While they may not be satire, they are still fiction.
I guess the difference is that the "Pastafarian Church" is not officially recognized as a 503(c) tax exempt entity. Maybe if someone does register this "church" in the same way that John Oliver did on Last Week Tonight, they would likely have no choice other than to overturn that ruling.
Not that I would necessarily advocate it because the whole idea of religion doesn't sit well with me.
Is 'freedom of religion' NOT for inmates? Islamist are allowed to pray in prison (most prisons). Now, I get the apparent tongue-in-cheekyness of Pastafarianism being judged as not a real religion, yet what about those other religions that have, of the times being exposed and having invalid doctrine, like the Catholic religion scorning Galileo for putting the Sun at the center of the (universe). Today, we realize the errors of that. And there have been many other errors uncovered, not to mention the unsubstantiated other parts of many religions. It sure seems to me that theosophist - with a pension for the absolutr real truth - need to bring ancient religions into this technological age. And they need to start by de-mystifying things like 'miracles'. And, they need to include scientific fact, and the weirdness of quantum physics. Meanwhile, they also need to start paying TAXES!!!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.