General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsApologies if this has been posted already: Judge Rules that Pastafarianism is not a Religion
All I could say is, how dare he?
This may have to open up a debate on what constitutes a "Religion".
http://patch.com/us/across-america/worshipping-flying-spaghetti-monster-not-actual-religion-federal-judge-0?google_editors_picks=true&google_editors_picks=true
Judge rules so-called Pastafarians strain definition of religion, meaning one man can't wear his pirate costume in prison.
Across America, US
By Marc Torrence (Patch National Staff) - April 14, 2016 5:49 pm ET
They want to wear spaghetti strainers in their driver's license photos. They want to post signs advertising church gatherings. They want to wear pirate costumes in jail.
"Pastafarians," who worship the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just want to be recognized as a full-fledged religion.
A federal judge, though, says that's im-pasta-ble.
The decision stems from federal civil lawsuit filed by Pastafarian Stephen Cavanaugh, also known as "convicted attempted-murderer."
Cavanaugh had demanded that Nebraska penitentiary officials accommodate his religious beliefs while behind bars, insisting that he was part of a small but devout group following the divine "Flying Spaghetti Monster."
When the prison dispute came to a boiling point, Cavanaugh filed suit.
But John M. Gerrard, a U.S. district judge in Nebraska, ruled this week that FSMism, as he called the non-religion, is more political statement than deeply held religious belief.
"It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education," Gerrard wrote. "Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argumentbut that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a 'religion.'"
According to the official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, FSMism "came into the mainstream just a few years ago."
Its followers believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth and that pirates were the first followers of the religion.
Either way, I may have to read the whole decision later. Posting this so I can find it once more.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Exactly how shall the government decide what is, or is not, a religion?
Is Scientology? The German government said it isn't. The US says it is.
Branch Davidians? Were they a religion?
Give Pastafarianism a couple of centuries and let's revisit the question of whether it's a religion. I'm sure not many people considered Christianity a real religion when it started either.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)With that in mind, I will have to read the court notes found in the bottom of the page of the link I posted.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)What is a religion and what is not?
How can we find out?
What tests do we apply?
How can we, as an outside-witness, tell religious demands from non-religious demands originating in e.g. plain insanity or bigotry?
I think, the big problem is that religion has two definitions:
- Religion as a set of cultural traditions.
- Religion as an abstract model for the cosmos.
We finally have to learn to tackle them separately:
- Which cultural traditions of old are considered immoral nowadays?
- In which areas does religious cosmology deliver accurate predictions (-> matching with experimental data) and in which areas does it not?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Most people agree that someone claiming to hear from god that they need to kill someone, is delusional.
What about someone who claims to hear from god that they need to open a charity or volunteer?
Or as Sam Harris put it so well back during the Dubya years:
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)I hope it opened up dialogue, too bad it took a person that on the surface of the rap-sheet may not be the figurehead you want for your religion. I know a few people that say they are members...but never seen them dress as such. But like you said does open up the floor for debate, there may have been a few cases in the past on cult vs religion, but I think this one is unique because it would actually mean a definition of religion vs non-religion, not just scales with in religion. I hope it goes to the next court, because maybe in effect this could destroy all dress codes at work. We just make a church or chill, and make the rule to always dress chill to appease the vibe.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Scientologists actually believe the stuff, that is the difference, IMO.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It has elements and beliefs that people obviously enjoy, and that they find meaning in, whether or not the accept the tenets of the religion literally. People like that even have names in other faiths - "secular Jew" or "cultural Catholic." They might not accept the wacky supernatural claims of the religion, but enjoy the ritual and the interaction.
It could be argued that the people who actually run $cientology don't believe it either.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Yet it enjoys legal status.
rug
(82,333 posts)GaYellowDawg
(4,449 posts)Just saying.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's the ridiculous headgear that makes phony religions stick out like a sore thumb.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The old British tradition, of course, for seeking wise answers to difficult questions is to ask a man in a wig and a dress.
Chief Judge Lord Phillips will tolerate none of your ridiculous regalia!
OMG, I so want to wear that and strut around Dupont Circle for kicks and giggles.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)3catwoman3
(24,041 posts)...rejoinder!
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)They, you know, reinforce the whole phallic-paternalistic aspects of these totally believable "faiths" -- i.e. girls are icky. These religions also have 100 percent true, totally NOT hokum for the gullible displays like crackers turning into Jesus meat.
atreides1
(16,093 posts)If the US Supreme Court, is unable to define what a "sincere religious belief" is! How does a district court judge get to define what is and isn't a religion?
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Which is why I am curious about what cases can be used to reference this.
Especially if they start going off on "Sincere Religious Belief"... Will they now be able to say to people who try to limit hormone controlling drugs(a.k.a. Birth Control) citing their religious belief that they are just a jackass?
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... in general, I find any attempt to divine the intent of another individual problematic, ergo I think intent should not be accounted for in law. That's a minority position, I know.
-- Mal
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Good! Because I get so tired of people freaking out every time I walk into a bank wearing a mask and carrying my gun.
Because I value the confidentiality of my banking transactions, and don't wish to be mugged on my way to or from the bank, I always wear a balaclava and carry a gun. I also have my friend keep the car running right out front, because I have a hard time getting across the parking lot.
At my trial, the crooked prosecutor kept going on about my supposed "intent" to rob a bank, just because I walked in wearing my fask mask, carrying a gun, and having my friend wait in a running car right outside!
Harrumph!
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)As I said, a minority position.
-- Mal
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I find any attempt to divine the intent of another individual problematic..."
Hence, you believe assigning qualifiers such as "willful", "premeditated," or "malicious" (all of which being wholly predicated on intent) should not be accounted for in the court system?
"How one is supposed to determine "sincerity" of belief is beyond me..."
I'd imagine through the dialog, examination and cross-examination of relevant individuals.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)As an individual, one does as he pleases, of course, and usually is not consistent in his applications. I don't think cross is always a reliable determinant of intent, since one may easily be confused by a reasonably competent lawyer. In sum, yeah, I have considered both of your points and am still unconvinced about them. It's one reason why I have always refused jury duty. Society will make, and does make, what rules it pleases to regulate conduct, and I will follow such rules insofar as I find them expedient.
-- Mal
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)By being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)You remove the context of the question. He wonders why, if the highest court in the land doesn't feel competent to rule on the question, a lower court does feel competent.
-- Mal
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)I simply think the question was not rhetorical, and hence deserved a serious answer.
-- Mal
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)However, the first law of civil practice is that any question beginning with "Can a federal judge....?" is properly answered "Yes."
Now, this led me to wonder whether a federal judge could, say, travel faster than light. But if one were to say that he or she could, you would do best not to challenge that.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Those who are not may not be aware of the mystical powers of a federal judge. They might even be so foolish as to think that logic or common sense has some part in the law. They need to be exposed gently to reality.
-- Mal
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You can file and argue a brief, or just get yourself one of these babies:
trof
(54,256 posts)And as a devout Pastafarian I am highly offended.
cloudbase
(5,525 posts)Garlic bread and chianti?
Welcome to the Eucharist.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If anyone actually believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, *then* it might be a religion.
In order for something to constitute your religious beliefs, you do actually have to believe it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)any more than one can prove that someone believes in a deity made from pasta?
They're both equally absurd, so why does one get legitimacy while the other doesn't?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)And owns lots and lots of politicians and judges...
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)n/t
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I'm not interested in trying to convince you that there are many people who genuinely believe in Christianity, and no-one who genuinely believes in the Flying Spaghetti monster, because we both know that questioning that is disingenuous.
The standard for "Is this valid science?" is "is there evidence it is true".
But the standard for "is this a religion?" is "Do people genuinely believe it is true, rightly or wrongly?". Absurd or not doesn't enter into it.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)Good intent, but firstly you have to demonstrate that a) no one literally believes in the FSM, b) that belief in a metaphor is inferior to belief in something incredible, and then possibly c) why belief in something incredible, however common, should have any import in law. Note I do say "should have," not "could have," because clearly legislators can and do make any laws they please, and as pointed out elsewhere, federal judges can do anything they please.
A secondary question we may characterize as the Sodom problem: how many true believers are necessary to elevate something to the status of a religion? One? Ten? A million? Explain why one quantity is sufficient, but another not. If your explanation is grounded on utility, or showing that it is in the interests of the State that a small group, or even an individual, be disabled from practicing his belief for the good of the rest, then show how this applies to wearing a pirate hat in prison.
-- Mal
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Two of those are very easy.
"a) no one literally believes in the FSM"
I don't feel any need to demonstrate this; I'm happy to rely on the fact that everyone already knows it's true.
"c) why belief in something incredible, however common, should have any import in law."
I'm not convinced that it should. I am, however, convinced in America at present it *does*.
That just leaves
"b) that belief in a metaphor is inferior to belief in something incredible"
Believing something is a metaphor is a special case of not believing it, not a special case of believing it.
People who believe the Flying Spaghetti monster does not exist and people who believe the Flying Spahetti monster is a metaphor are on the same page - specifically, the latter are a subset of the former. People who believe the Flying Spaghetti monster actually exists would be on a completely different page, if there were any, but there aren't.
And I think the answer to the final question is fairly clearly "one". If someone believes something religiously, it is their religion. If no-one believes something, it is not a religion.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... and who devoutly practice Christian principles are not Christian? Whereas one who truly believes the dogma, but follows none of the practices is a true Christian? And you're "not convinced" that the latter should have influence in law, but are convinced that they do, whereas, presumably, the former neither deserve influence, nor have any. Do I understand you correctly?
-- Mal
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If you practice Christian principles, but don't believe in God, you're an atheist who practices Christian principles, not a Christian.
I'm not sure what concessions, if any, the US government makes to deeply-held non-religious convictions, though. So "have less" may be more accurate than "not have any"; you'd have to research it if you wanted to find out.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Then they can honestly believe the absurdities of pastafarianism.
Who are you to say they can't?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Maybe they are saying what they do because they are afraid, in this society, to say they don't believe. That might be a large number, might be a small one. But there is no way to be 100% sure.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Like walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of the very efficient (Only one week! And no overtime!) creator of the universe, who happens to be the same guy as the guy sitting to his right. Well, kind of.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)And also had to knock up some poor unsuspecting virgin married woman (don't laugh) rather than just *poof* appear in order to have himself killed, so that we could all save ourselves from his eternal wrath if we didn't believe in him...but he loves us. And he needs money.
Sounds legit.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)And yet now it's an essential part of church dogma.
As I understand it, the problem arose when Hebrew was translated into Greek and alma, the Hebrew word for "young woman" became the Greek parthenos, which can mean either "young woman" or "virgin."
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The distinction between "something people believe, rightly or wrongly" and "something true" is a fairly simple one.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)... didn't believe it either, but merely used it as an empire-building tool.
Many religions would not have survived if it weren't for their influential, manipulative non-believers.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)FSogol
(45,526 posts)I just need toasted Barley, Malt, Hops, sugar, gypsum, yeast....
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Do all Christians actually believe in their God?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I know because 7.
The answer is no less silly than the question, I'm afraid.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If someone tells you they are a Christian, and sincerely believe in Christianity, how do you tell if they are for real or just putting you on?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)To a first approximation, the probability they are telling the truth is the number of Christians divided by the number of people who say they are Christians, which is pretty close to 1.
If there is particular evidence that they are lying, you use Bayes' theorem to update your beliefs in light of the evidence.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)That quite a good many of them don't believe it, but are trying to convince themselves they do.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The religious have been used to people politely nodding along with their nonsense. People don't do that on the Internet, and a lot of the believers can't believe the audacity of these "nons." They consistently tell them that they are being rude and should keep their beliefs to themselves. That makes it much easier for them to tamp down their doubts. Of course, telling people that they are destined to burn for all eternity for not accepting the Ancient Judean Zombie as their savior is NOT offensive because that is their deeply held belief. So it's different.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... they tend not to answer the question, and instead simply insist that it is so.
Of course, there are many persons of more-or-less good will who do believe most of their religion's dogma, but are iffy on the "nonbelievers will burn for eternity" shtick. Which raises another question: is it necessary for salvation to believe the whole dogma, or may one just pick and choose like a buffet? Which one might say is of particular relevance for pastafariansim: with meat sauce or meat balls?
-- Mal
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)BTW, I'm a Pastafarian, but I don't eat red meat. Now I'm worried I'll be excommunicated!
haikugal
(6,476 posts)It's like "who's a dem, what's a dem..."
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)Can't wait to see the developments.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Maybe Liberty University Law School can enlighten us...
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)(Antonin Scalia School of Law)
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)This judge will surely be smote by His Noodly Appendage.
Solly Mack
(90,785 posts)Oh, I'm snickering to be sure.
stone space
(6,498 posts)The thread was locked, and I was immediately banned form the group.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Any time a judge twists the decision to say, "this isn't a real religion," that judge is really making the argument against all other religions.
Someday, maybe I will see them all expunged from government like so many blood-sucking fleas from a fumigated dog.
robertgodardfromnj
(67 posts)Though I never expected an actual court ruling about this. LOL.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Only Christianist sects are considered actual religions
On the Road
(20,783 posts)but this was invented as a parody so recently that it's difficult to understand how any one can expect it to be taken seriously in a legal sense.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)rock on!
Orrex
(63,224 posts)A convict certainly loses the right to bear arms, the right to free association, and the freedom of expression. Why is religion given a pass in this regard?
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)If I want to create a religion based on worshipping Xen-Bob, the purple dragon overlord on the moon, it would be equally as fictional as Jesus rising from the dead, Jesus helping a blind person see, and Jesus walking on water.