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.
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!
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. "
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.
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.
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
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
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/
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.