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.
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...
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
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
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.
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.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
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...
And how many of the people in recognized religions actually believe the stuff their religion preaches? I'll tell you what - if more of them did believe, there wouldn't be so many acting like a-holes out there. So "belief" is a pretty hard thing to prove. I doubt that testing belief in religion (of which ALL have to be taken as fiction by the court due to lack of proof for any of them) is something that a court needs to be getting involved in.
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
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
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.
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.
There are a lot of worshippers who don't believe the literal meaning of their literature. For example, many Catholics don't believe in transsubstantiation, i.e. that the host (wafer) turns into the flesh and the wine turns into the blood of Jesus during communion. That reminds me: https://xkcd.com/1152/
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.
So now you're not only dependent on how much of a perv the judge is when it comes to porn, you're also dependent on how much the judge is a religious nutjob when it comes to religious legal problems.
Fucking great. Why the hell have laws altogether? Or even a constitution for that matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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".
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.
A religion is a formal structure incorporating a belief system.
I call Zen Buddhism. Not only does it not have "a formal structure" or "a belief system", it lays great stress on avoiding both.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
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
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.
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.
I think his opinion of Scientology is obvious. His comparison to the fictional religions of two science fiction writers was probably not coincidental.
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.
Apple courts? They'd go well with pork for sure
Xenu love pasta. Judge enemy of the noodle. Judge bad.
In reading the Judges statements ( rulings? ), I can infer, that he wants FSM to keep moving forward, but that FSM to this specific person in jail is not valid. I am rather sure someone is going to try to fight the ruling, it's a fun case and if you win, you are going down in history as the lawyer of FSM
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Labeling something as a religion should not give it special privileges. The First Amendment was written at a time when "religion" was the appropriate word. Nowadays, it should be replaced with "belief".
(||) Nehmo (||)
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.
Hell, 33% of people who call themselves "Christians" don't even believe on God.
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.
What part of the Establishment Clause are you not clear on?
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.
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!
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.
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 Deuteronomic requirement to stone to death anyone wearing cotton/polyester clothing, for example?
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.
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. . . .
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...
Nah. I'm waiting for the movie.
Bark less. Wag more.
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
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.
Well, sure. But what about all those who don't really believe in Jehovah but they do want to to get time off on all high holy days?
Court make determinations about intent and state of mind all the time. They ruled this person didn't believe it because it was satire. Faced with some alternative reality where other people did believe it and acted like it the court would rule differently.
It is not about belief it is about an institution and institutional action. A mere belief never qualified for religious protection.
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.
Their bodies and their minds.
tenants: occupants, lessees
tenets: principles or beliefs
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Exactly.
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.]
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.
Yes, plus 28.396% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
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?
There are a lot of worshippers who don't believe the literal meaning of their literature. For example, many Catholics don't believe in transsubstantiation, i.e. that the host (wafer) turns into the flesh and the wine turns into the blood of Jesus during communion. [...]
There's a difference though, between disagreement about the details (every religion has this), vs. deliberate unbelief in the professed religion. The judge recognises that FSM initiated as a satirical belief, and is basically calling BS on the claim by these individuals that they *actually* believe and care about this satire-as-religion.
I know we're knee-deep in the whole "but who are you to question others' belief" era... but really, all proponents of FSM that I know are merely being anti-religious. I.e., if someone asked them to list the top 5 most important things in their life, FSM wouldn't make the list, I can assure you. Nor would they have even stumbled into FSM without there being a Muslim/Christian/?? group nearby to push and rile against.
On the upside, the judge has now granted these FSM believers a chance to prove themselves as genuinely religious. It seems that religions only fully develop under rejection and oppression by the current system... so the FSM folk should really be thanking this judge and embracing their opportunity!
Rastafarians definitely have beliefs. They believe in satire as a legitimate way to express their belief that religions should not be given special treatment above other beliefs. They believe that satire is a good way to highlight the fact that our definition is ambiguous and subjective. They are not just beliefs, they are meta beliefs (beliefs about beliefs). So while pastafarians do not believe they beliefs to profess. The profession of ridiculous beliefs is part of their actual belief system.
Not breaking from character is an important property of a good pastafarian. I am obviously not a pastafraian in good standing.
Pastafarians absolutely have real beliefs, they are just different than their professed beliefs. Part of pastafarianism is to profess certain ridiculous beliefs even if you don't really believe them (i.e. like Catholics and transubstantiation).
Clearly they believe in "something". Their public belief system is obviously satire, but that doesn't mean there is not an actual belief system that is not publicly shared. Other religions like Scientology and LDS have religious secrets that are not supposed to be publicly available.
Courts don't demand to know what's inside the Mormon temples or what secrets are revealed to an OT8 to validate them as a real religion. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians can simply be inferred.
The thing with laws is that you need to make them objective. Try coming up with a law that defines an objective difference between religious and non-religious belief.
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.
Pastafarians absolutely have real beliefs, they are just different than their professed beliefs. Part of pastafarianism is to profess certain ridiculous beliefs even if you don't really believe them (i.e. like Catholics and transubstantiation).
Oh... unquestionably Pastafarians believe in *something*... but those beliefs have 0 correlation to the demands being made by the prisoners. The demands for outfits and worship (two things FSM openly mocks) make as much sense as your local Buddhist trying to get a religious grant for their Ferrari...
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.
That's not true. One of the core beliefs of Pastafarians is the power of mocking other people. And their traditional way of doing this is through outfits and worship.
Whether the religion itself started as satire is immaterial. What matters is the individual's beliefs and intentions.
Branch Davidianism may have been a freewheeling get-laid-quick trick to Koresh, bit it was truly believed by members.
As much as I'd love to give "I know it when I see it" powers to judges, this one feels more like "walks like a duck". What if I spun up an old school faith based on the anti-hypocrite preachings of Christ, intent on decrying judicial misconduct. Should I expect a fair hearing from a judge?
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.
That's not true. One of the core beliefs of Pastafarians is the power of mocking other people. And their traditional way of doing this is through outfits and worship.
And this is a religious activity? I mean, that sounds like something people do when discussing football, or politics, or work colleagues. In effect, you're proving precisely the judge's point though. It's an arbitrary set of actions, made up by an arbitrary group and branded as religion as a point of satire.
A satire-of-a-religion is *not* a religion, and should not be treated as such. Any attempts reframe it as a *genuine* religion is a blatant troll... because FSM doesn't see itself as anything other than satire.
("But what if the other religions are also satire?"... even if we imagine for a moment that religions somehow started as satire, the majority of them are now genuinely held beliefs. FSM is still openly satire.
And this is a religious activity? I mean, that sounds like something people do when discussing football, or politics, or work colleagues. In effect, you're proving precisely the judge's point though. It's an arbitrary set of actions, made up by an arbitrary group and branded as religion as a point of satire.
One of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians is that religious belief should not get special privileges. One might argue that they believe this "religiously". It is indeed satire, so I think the judge is correct there. I think where the judge is wrong is arbitrarily deciding that any form of satire is necessarily disqualified as a religion.
A satire-of-a-religion is *not* a religion, and should not be treated as such.
The point pastafarians are making is that a satire of a religion is not objectively distinguishable from a "real" religion, and *no* belief should be given the privileged status currently given to religious beliefs.
And I think they are successful in the sense that it is pretty damn hard to come up with a set of objective laws that includes only certain religions. And I believe this is also a usefool argument in showing why the endeavor of granting religions special privileges is not practical nor fair.
Any attempts reframe it as a *genuine* religion is a blatant troll... because FSM doesn't see itself as anything other than satire.
The whole point is that there is no objective way to frame anything as a *genuine* religion. And I disagree that the FSM doesn;t see itself as anything other than satire. They certainly see themselves as satire, but not *only* satire. They certainly believe in the cause they are fighting for. Yes FSM is trolling people. To say that the definition of a religion is a set of beliefs of which none are satirical or troll-like, is arbitrary.
("But what if the other religions are also satire?"... even if we imagine for a moment that religions somehow started as satire, the majority of them are now genuinely held beliefs. FSM is still openly satire.
I never made this argument, but I know others have. I don't doubt that the adherents of other religions have genuine beliefs. It's hard to fly a plane into a building if you don't. I am saying that the FSM has genuine beliefs too. They *also* have satirical non-genuine beliefs in addition to their genuine beliefs.
This is analogous to how members of other religions may not believe in every literal claim their religion makes. Some christians don't even believe that Jesus was anything more than a normal human being with some good ideas.
One of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians is that religious belief should not get special privileges. One might argue that they believe this "religiously". It is indeed satire, so I think the judge is correct there. I think where the judge is wrong is arbitrarily deciding that any form of satire is necessarily disqualified as a religion.
We're in agreement that satire doesn't necessarily disqualify something from being a religion. But, holding an idea "religiously" does not make that idea the basis for a religion.
*In general*, I agree religions are hard to pin down. For concrete instances though, it's less gray than people generally wish to believe as you really can take into account your best understanding of the proponent's intent.
Again, to restate... the question here isn't whether religions are special or deserve any special treatment. The question here is whether FSM and it's proponents are doing anything other than trying to cynically game the system. The judge seems believe that the answer is a resounding no. If it was a different religion, the outcome would also likely have been different too.
This is analogous to how members of other religions may not believe in every literal claim their religion makes. Some christians don't even believe that Jesus was anything more than a normal human being with some good ideas.
I struggle to agree with this, because FSM deliberately and consciously espouses things they ALL don't believe in. This seems blatantly different to the situation where there's internal debate within a religion (e.g., your Jesus example is a good one). Find me a FSM practitioner who actually believes their stories, and I'll happily reconsider :-)
Either way... I've enjoyed the discussion with you!
They don't need to verify what's inside Mormon temples or secrets of Scientology to rule them a religion. There are far more than enough external observable behaviors which are consistent with a religion for such a judgement to be made. The same way that if you tell me that object X has a heart and brain I don't need to see hip bone to verify its an animal and not a plant.
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 regulators, our legal system, have to deal with laws that don't meet that criteria.
The laws governing religious protection in the United States are from a black letter law perspective often explicitly protections for various credobaptists sects that haven't existed in centuries against the institutional Anglican churches of mother England and those congregationalist and Presbyterian churches often favored by our colonial administrators. For example we know as a matter of fact that one of the concerns raised by the people passing the "no trinitarian oaths clause" (specifically designed for deists and Unitarians) in the constitution is that it could come in later times to be applied to Jews and Muslims. The majority of the founding fathers believed these would be one off cases better left to the courts and didn't feel any reason to legislatively address it. Others wanted to restrict it and so the language became the test clause you read today in the constitution.
The laws aren't objective they are very situational and interpreted by a culture in a cultural context that changes with time.
As for your challenge about religion that's pretty easy. A religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices within organizational framework for the purpose of decimating the intergenerational continuity of beliefs in particular mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places and ethics.
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.
Sarcasm is not a required tenant and true believers are plentiful ( http://www.jedichurch.org/ )
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).
Give it a rest. Pastafarians do not believe in jail, so that makes it easy. He is outside of the recognized universe, ergo he doesn't exist. Does that work?
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)
Maybe I misread but I thought the whole wording of the amendment was to bar the govt from considering any individual's beliefs - in legislation at least. Certainly to bar it from officially recognizing one institution or denouncing another as false.
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
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
*In general*, I agree religions are hard to pin down. For concrete instances though, it's less gray than people generally wish to believe as you really can take into account your best understanding of the proponent's intent.
There are certainly black and white instances of religion vs non-religion. Is Christianity a religion? If it's not, then I don't know what a religion is. For sure FSM is in the gray and probably intentionally so. I don't think this absolves the government's responsibility to define religion in an objective way, and subject all self proclaimed religions to the same test. The United States has historically been very lax when it comes to denying religious status to various groups. They allow con-men to have tax exempt status, because the freedom of religion is so sacred that we are willing to tolerate fraud to protect against the possibility of a violation of this freedom.
Again, to restate... the question here isn't whether religions are special or deserve any special treatment. The question here is whether FSM and it's proponents are doing anything other than trying to cynically game the system
That's not the question, because we kind of already know the answer. They are definitely trying to game the system. But so are other religions. They are in my mind actually better than these mega church televangelists douchebags conning money out of desperate people who can't afford it. The point is that in order to legally grant religions special status the government has the burden to objectively define a religion. And as far as I can tell, they have not done that and have no interest in doing that, probably because it's impossible.
I struggle to agree with this, because FSM deliberately and consciously espouses things they ALL don't believe in. This seems blatantly different to the situation where there's internal debate within a religion (e.g., your Jesus example is a good one). Find me a FSM practitioner who actually believes their stories, and I'll happily reconsider :-)
All it would take is for one true FSM believer to make this false. There is lots of crazy people out there. If some local FSM chapter manages to convince a mentally unstable person that it is real, they've basically become mormonism or scientology. Is it really necessary to actually go down that road, or can it be enough just to demonstrate that that road exists?
Furthermore, what if the FSM adjusts their belief system to include some genuine ones (i.e. they stop professing only satricial beliefs)? Then what? What if they start conning seniors out of their social security money? How far do they need to go to meet the qualifications of a religion? You can't just disqualify them for being the FSM. We are a nation of laws, and we are supposed to have equality under the law.
Either way... I've enjoyed the discussion with you!
me too
They might need to see the secrets of scientology to know if the people are acting as if they believe the tennets of their own religion. You can't ascertain this without knowing what their tennets are. The constitution guarantees equality under the law. This means simply saying "scientology is obviously a religion and FSM is obviously not" is not good enough. You need to create an objective test and allow every self professed religion to either pass or fail this test on it's own merit.
The same way that if you tell me that object X has a heart and brain I don't need to see hip bone to verify its an animal and not a plant.
Are you saying that there is no objective way to tell if an object is a plant or an animal? or that it is not important to be objective?
As for your challenge about religion that's pretty easy. A religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices within organizational framework for the purpose of decimating the intergenerational continuity of beliefs in particular mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places and ethics.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the word "decimate" makes sense in this sentence. So even with this definition you presented, does a potential religion need to satisfy one, some, or all of these criteria to meet the overall criterion?
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?
A lot of people actually believe in Scientology though, evidenced by giving them all their money and leaving their lives. No one actually believes in Pastafarianism, everyone knows it's a piss take.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I disagree. If more believed the nonsense we'd see more mass killings, not fewer a-holes. Have you ever read any of those old books?
That depends, take the bible, it would depend if you believe the first half or the second. They're kinda contradictory.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
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.
Spell check. That should have been disseminating but I spelled it with one-"s" and the closest word....
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.
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
So that's fine by me.
Two can play at this game.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Spell check. That should have been disseminating but I spelled it with one-"s" and the closest word....
Never trust a SpellCheck any further than you would trust a used-car salesman named Eddie !! 8-)
That's cool, I'm not one of those people that tries to win arguments by pointing out spelling errors :)
"But what if the other religions are also satire?"
There's a Gael Baudino novel where the source document for a religion was a typography manual for stonecutters, used initially as something of a hoax, that gradually became modified and expanded into a full religion. I don't know what the odds are that it's happened in real life, though.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
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!
I say again: "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.
The Catechism that you mention sounds like the driest of dry bones - the remains of what was once a living, joyous being.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
You want to see FSM martyrs? Fine. I will eat pasta until I die!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Jihadist have an extreme practice!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.