Apologies if this has been posted already: Judge Rules that Pastafarianism is not a Religion

[Xyzse]

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

Worship Of 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Not Actual Religion: Federal Judge

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 argument—but 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]

1. It opens up an interesting can of worms.

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]

4. I agree. I am mostly curious as to who gets to decide what a religion is and is not.

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]

24. I hope this will finally kick off a real and honest debate on religion.

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]

39. Good point - those are questions that have long needed answers.

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:

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

[northernsouthern]

52. Agree 10000%

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]

69. Pastafarianism is a joke meant to make fun of religious exemptions from regulations and laws.

Scientologists actually believe the stuff, that is the difference, IMO.

[trotsky]

74. Does it really matter if it was started as a joke?

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]

79. Scientology was started as a barroom bet.

Yet it enjoys legal status.

[rug]

73. No it doesn't. The Callahan test is 35 years old.

http://openjurist.org/658/f2d/679/callahan-v-woods

[GaYellowDawg]

81. You mean vermicelli?

Just saying.

[jberryhill]

2. "the trappings of the satire"

It's the ridiculous headgear that makes phony religions stick out like a sore thumb.

[Xyzse]

5. I agree, though the idea of who gets to decide what a religion is an interesting premise.

[jberryhill]

8. I would let the person with the most ostentatious headgear decide

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!

[Xyzse]

11. WOW!!!!!

OMG, I so want to wear that and strut around Dupont Circle for kicks and giggles.

[annabanana]

76. or:

[3catwoman3]

83. Touche' - the perfect...

...rejoinder!

[malthaussen]

7. You forgot to link to a pic of a mitre. n/t

[cleanhippie]

25. Apparently parody isn't religion, but wildly absurd beliefs are.

[Arugula Latte]

38. Right. True religions have headgear like giant penis hats.

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]

3. Strange

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]

6. That, I do not know.

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]

10. How one is supposed to determine "sincerity" of belief is beyond me...

... 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]

13. Agreed. Which is why I am quite gleefully curious about this whole thing.

[jberryhill]

18. "I think intent should not be accounted for in law"

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]

20. Did you rob the bank? That's all I care about.

As I said, a minority position.

-- Mal

[LanternWaste]

22. Hence, you believe assigning qualifiers such as "willful" or "malicious"

"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]

49. Legally, yeah.

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]

9. "How does a district court judge get to define what is and isn't a religion?"

By being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

[malthaussen]

12. Disingenuous answer.

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]

14. Oh my, someone had their Wheaties pissed in this morning

[malthaussen]

15. Nah, I don't eat Wheaties these days.

I simply think the question was not rhetorical, and hence deserved a serious answer.

-- Mal

[jberryhill]

16. Well, golly, give it one

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]

19. Sure, but you're a civil practicioner, nyet?

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]

21. I find that rock-paper-scissors is a better alternative to litigation in most instances

You can file and argue a brief, or just get yourself one of these babies:

[trof]

17. I'm witchew!

And as a devout Pastafarian I am highly offended.

[cloudbase]

68. Soooooo, what do you guys do for communion?

Garlic bread and chianti?

[trof]

71. Brother!

Welcome to the Eucharist.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. A religion has to be something that people believe, surely?

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]

26. How can one prove anyone actually believes a person literally came back from the dead

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]

27. Because one has a book and lots and lots of money?

And owns lots and lots of politicians and judges...

[cleanhippie]

30. Exactly. And they don't like it when the competition opens up shop next door.

[truebrit71]

36. Indeed.

n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. Because people genuinely believe one and not the other.

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]

51. Doesn't fly.

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]

55. To go through those, not in order:

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]

59. Therefore, those who believe in the Christian god as a metaphor...

... 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]

65. Yes, pretty much.

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]

56. If people can honestly believe the absurdities of mainstream religion

Then they can honestly believe the absurdities of pastafarianism.
Who are you to say they can't?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. I'm saying that they *don't*. N.T.

[awoke_in_2003]

72. How do I know xtians genuinely believe what they say?

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]

28. Yes, it's got to be something plausible

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]

33. Who created everything on the planet and in the universe, but needed a rib from Adam to make Eve...

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]

57. The Bible's "authors" may not even have believed Mary was a virgin

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]

40. No.

The distinction between "something people believe, rightly or wrongly" and "something true" is a fairly simple one.

[RufusTFirefly]

47. There's an excellent chance that people who popularized a certain world religion...

... 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]

43. Christianity needs the Facebook relationship descriptor for the trinity: "It's Complicated."

[FSogol]

50. I can turn water into tasty Ale. Does that count?

I just need toasted Barley, Malt, Hops, sugar, gypsum, yeast....

[RufusTFirefly]

53. Hire a good publicist and recruit some adherents, and it might! n/t

[jberryhill]

31. How do you know Pastafarians don't believe it?

Do all Christians actually believe in their God?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Because 7.

I know because 7.

The answer is no less silly than the question, I'm afraid.

[jberryhill]

42. Okay, so....

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]

46. You apply Bayes' theorem, same as the way you should decide anything else.

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]

48. My particular experience has been...

That quite a good many of them don't believe it, but are trying to convince themselves they do.

[Arugula Latte]

54. Thus all the "shushing" of atheists on social media.

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]

61. And when they are asked why this should be so...

... 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]

62. Good questions.

BTW, I'm a Pastafarian, but I don't eat red meat. Now I'm worried I'll be excommunicated!

[haikugal]

29. It's as much a religion as any other religion....damn!

It's like "who's a dem, what's a dem..."

[Xyzse]

35. Yep... Which is why I feel like this will open up a whole can of worms.

Can't wait to see the developments.

[haikugal]

37. I'll make the popcorn...

Maybe Liberty University Law School can enlighten us...

[Xyzse]

44. Nah... ASSOL will...

(Antonin Scalia School of Law)

[Arugula Latte]

32. Pastafarianism makes as much sense as Christianity, Islam, Scientology or any other cult.

This judge will surely be smote by His Noodly Appendage.

[Solly Mack]

34. I hope there is an appeal.

Oh, I'm snickering to be sure.

[stone space]

58. I asked a serious religious question of the Pastafarians here on DU once.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1282505

The thread was locked, and I was immediately banned form the group.

[sofa king]

60. Love it.

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]

64. This is just hilarious stuff

Though I never expected an actual court ruling about this. LOL.

[SwankyXomb]

66. Sorry, this is Amurrika

Only Christianist sects are considered actual religions

[On the Road]

67. I Know Myths Become Real Over Time,

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]

70. No shit, it's quite clearly a joke and not an actual religion.

[Orrex]

78. A nice complement to many actual religions that are also clearly a joke.

[annabanana]

75. If this discussion ultimately leads to the taxation of "Houses of Worship" as private clubs..

rock on!

[Orrex]

77. Why must religious liberty be allowed in prisons?

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]

80. now if he had rules against scientology........

[Oneironaut]

82. All religions are equally false and ridiculous. Therefore, anything can be a religion.

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.