A Nebraska inmate who has professed his allegiance to the divine Flying Spaghetti Monster lost his bid demanding that prison officials accommodate his Pastafarianism faith.
A federal judge dismissed the suit (PDF) Tuesday brought by Stephen Cavanaugh, who is serving a 4- to 8-year term on assault and weapons charges at the Nebraska State Penitentiary. US District Judge John Gerrard ruled that "FSMism" isn't a religion like the ones protected under the Constitution.
"The Court finds that FSMism is not a 'religion' within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. 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,'" the judge ruled. (PDF)
For the uninitiated, Judge Gerrard gives some explanatory background on Pastafarianism:
FSMism is a riposte to intelligent design that began with a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education when it was considering intelligent design. See, Bobby Henderson, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 111-13 (2006) (FSM Gospel). The primary criticism of intelligent design—and the basis for excluding it from school science classes—is that although it purports to be "scientific," it is actually "an interesting theological argument" but "not science." Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d at 745-46. The conceit of FSMism is that, because intelligent design does not identify the designer, its "master intellect" could just as easily be a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as any Judeo-Christian deity—and, in fact, that there is as much scientific evidence for a Flying Spaghetti Monster as any other creator. See FSM Gospel at 3-4. 1 As the FSM Gospel explains, "[w]e are entering into an exciting time, when no longer will science be limited to natural explanations. . . . Propelled by popular opinion and local government, science is quickly becoming receptive to all logical theories, natural and supernatural alike."
In his lawsuit, the inmate sought $5 million and claimed he has "several tattoos proclaiming his faith" and demanded that prison officials afford his "faith" the "ability to order and wear religious clothing and pendants, the right to meet for weekly worship services and classes and the right to receive communion." Corrections officials determined FSMism was a parody religion and rejected his requests. (The religious clothing at issue is "a pirate costume," the judge notes.)
According to the ruling:
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. 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. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line
.
Nebraska, in seeking to have the case dismissed, told the judge that there was no constitutional violation. "The essence of this action," the state wrote, "is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created 'a mountain, trees, and a midget.'"
Well, it isn't a religion, so the court made a right decision.
Otherwise anyone could make up a movement with ridiculous ideas and get protection as a religion. This status should be restricted to movements with (ridiculous) ideas people actually believe in.
That judge showed an amazingly thorough understanding of pastafarianism.
Right call was definitely made I feel. The judge does a good job explaining his decision and it's mainly based on the fact that the guy who created the flying spaghetti monster in the first place never intended it to be a religion, but a parody to use as the basis of his argument.
Im sure someone will be upset about this, but it's pretty clear the inmate was using it purely to mess with the system.
It seems like it opens the gates to challenge a lot of rulings regarding "legitimate" religions.
The wording used in more recent rulings, and in legislation, has been "sincerely held religious beliefs". Which seems like it could imply that it is less about the factual existence of a "religion", and more about wether someone "beliefs" that their particular religion is real.
Could this ruling lay the foundation of requiring that religions have to prove that they are real, or requiring that people prove that their belief is real?
The U.S. standard is sincere belief, so things like the creator saying this is a parody pretty much kill it.
The most obvious one to be challenged is Scientology, but so long as people are willing to claim sincere belief, and practice a faith even in the face of public scorn it's hard to 'de-certify' or whatever the religion.
Overall the US is amazingly lenient but even we're not going to give tax excempt status to Pastafaianism, Jedism or the First Church of Kid Kyoto Don't Wanna Pay Taxes.
Does it depend on the belief of whoever created it, or does it depend on the belief of the individual practicing it? It seems like this could be the problematic impact of the ruling.
Now that I can copy the text, here is my main concern:
Nebraska, in seeking to have the case dismissed, told the judge that there was no constitutional violation. "The essence of this action," the state wrote, "is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created 'a mountain, trees, and a midget.'"
What keeps a court from deciding that someone doesn't sincerely believe in any other deity?
Rather than trying to work out who really believes 'sincerely' in their beliefs, the better thing would be to just not give preferential treatment and rights to religion because frankly it's all made up anyway. Some people believe passionately in UFOs and conspiracy theories, but those shouldn't be accommodated more than any other beliefs just because they're strongly held.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Rather than trying to work out who really believes 'sincerely' in their beliefs, the better thing would be to just not give preferential treatment and rights to religion
It's widely known that Pastafarianism is a satire of religion. I'm just glad that someone official finally put his foot down on the "political correctness of not stepping on toes". Hope those toes are black and blue.
timetowaste85 wrote: It's widely known that Pastafarianism is a satire of religion. I'm just glad that someone official finally put his foot down on the "political correctness of not stepping on toes". Hope those toes are black and blue.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Rather than trying to work out who really believes 'sincerely' in their beliefs, the better thing would be to just not give preferential treatment and rights to religion
timetowaste85 wrote: It's widely known that Pastafarianism is a satire of religion. I'm just glad that someone official finally put his foot down on the "political correctness of not stepping on toes". Hope those toes are black and blue.
And you know that the FSM didn't inspire his prophet to create pastafarianism... how?
It is exactly as valid as any other religion.
I wonder what exactly one needs for their "divine inspiration" to be considered a religion by the law?
It is indeed well known that Pastafarianism is a parody of religion.
It's equally well known that Scientology is a kind of confidence scheme invented by an SF author, but that has been granted status as a valid religion in the USA.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is indeed well known that Pastafarianism is a parody of religion.
It's equally well known that Scientology is a kind of confidence scheme invented by an SF author, but that has been granted status as a valid religion in the USA
And yet both are equally as valid as any other religion... can one prove that they are not divinely inspired, regardless of any purely earthly considerations?
timetowaste85 wrote: It's widely known that Pastafarianism is a satire of religion. I'm just glad that someone official finally put his foot down on the "political correctness of not stepping on toes". Hope those toes are black and blue.
And you know that the FSM didn't inspire his prophet to create pastafarianism... how?
It is exactly as valid as any other religion.
I wonder what exactly one needs for their "divine inspiration" to be considered a religion by the law?
It's pretty open. I mean, Unitarian Univeraslism is considered a religion, and we don't have any actual central beliefs.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is indeed well known that Pastafarianism is a parody of religion.
It's equally well known that Scientology is a kind of confidence scheme invented by an SF author, but that has been granted status as a valid religion in the USA
And yet both are equally as valid as any other religion... can one prove that they are not divinely inspired, regardless of any purely earthly considerations?
If one accepts or perhaps refuses to exclude the possibility of divine inspiration, there no reason why the inventors of any religion might not be divinely inspired. Mohammed certainly is a single original inventor and thought to be divinely inspired, as was the bloke who thought up or revealed Mormonism. There isn't any evidence to disprove the theory (though, disproof of a negative, etc....)
That said, it's easily provable that Pastafarianism and Scientology both are wholly the invention of single minds. There is clear evidence that they were not divinely inspired but were invented for mundane purposes.
The inspirations for many older religions, including Judaism or Christianity, are shrouded in the mists of time and not amenable to examination of evidence. Quakerism, a relatively recent sect of Christianity, could easily be divinely inspired.
Jediism will be next on the chopping block, no doubt.
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, it's easily provable that Pastafarianism and Scientology both are wholly the invention of single minds. There is clear evidence that they were not divinely inspired but were invented for mundane purposes.
The great and powerful FSM works in mysterious ways. It knew that the best publicity for its truth to be spread was to hide in the guise of parody. The true believers know the sauce from the condiments.
What is the legal requirement for recognition as a religion? Why are Pastafarians, the Jedis, etc shunned in this regard when other beliefs with exactly as little proof of them being true are given special protections and rights?
Kilkrazy wrote: That said, it's easily provable that Pastafarianism and Scientology both are wholly the invention of single minds. There is clear evidence that they were not divinely inspired but were invented for mundane purposes.
The great and powerful FSM works in mysterious ways. It knew that the best publicity for its truth to be spread was to hide in the guise of parody. The true believers know the sauce from the condiments.
What is the legal requirement for recognition as a religion? Why are Pastafarians, the Jedis, etc shunned in this regard when other beliefs with exactly as little proof of them being true are given special protections and rights?
Inertia of longevity and a critical mass of believers.
SilverMK2 wrote: The great and powerful FSM works in mysterious ways. It knew that the best publicity for its truth to be spread was to hide in the guise of parody. The true believers know the sauce from the condiments.
What is the legal requirement for recognition as a religion? Why are Pastafarians, the Jedis, etc shunned in this regard when other beliefs with exactly as little proof of them being true are given special protections and rights?
Some things have openly stated they are mocks of religion. I find many of those things make good points about religion, and especially when it comes to how government treats religion. However getting in a hissy when something that openly states it is a mock of religion is recognized as a mock and not treated as a real religion seems to defeat the purpose of the intellectual pursuit that mock was born of.
SilverMK2 wrote: The great and powerful FSM works in mysterious ways. It knew that the best publicity for its truth to be spread was to hide in the guise of parody. The true believers know the sauce from the condiments.
What is the legal requirement for recognition as a religion? Why are Pastafarians, the Jedis, etc shunned in this regard when other beliefs with exactly as little proof of them being true are given special protections and rights?
Some things have openly stated they are mocks of religion. I find many of those things make good points about religion, and especially when it comes to how government treats religion. However getting in a hissy when something that openly states it is a mock of religion is recognized as a mock and not treated as a real religion seems to defeat the purpose of the intellectual pursuit that mock was born of.
No, it is a further illustration of the double standards attached to religions which apply to nothing else. Again, why do "real" religions get to be recognised under the law? What actually distinguises them from any other spiritual claim, genuinely meant or otherwise? How exactly does one gain "religious" status, while other beliefs and their believers have to make their way in the world without added rights and protections?
feeder wrote: Inertia of longevity and a critical mass of believers.
I see. So majority religions are considered "legitimate", while minority religions aren't? This is exactly the kind of thing that guaranteeing freedom of religion was intended to prevent!
SilverMK2 wrote: No, it is a further illustration of the double standards attached to religions which apply to nothing else.
What double standard? Something being treated as a mock of something and not the "real" thing itself is only a double standard if you want to ignore all logic and reason, which... Really?
Again, why do "real" religions get to be recognised under the law?
A good question.
What actually distinguises them from any other spiritual claim, genuinely meant or otherwise?
You've answered your own question.
How exactly does one gain "religious" status, while other beliefs and their believers have to make their way in the world without added rights and protections?
Propping up a fake religion just to be able to complain about how the fake isn't treated as real would seem to be less about pointing out the difficulty of defining "belief" and more about finding a reason to complain that beliefs exist.
The standard isn't "what religion is real" though, the standard is "does that person have a sincere belief".
There are plenty of former Christians, even pastors and other religious leaders, who have publicly denounced their faith and declared Christianity as fake and announced that it is used as a way for pastors to make money and fame. Does this mean that it is no longer real?
If people have a sincerely held belief that the FSM is real and their deity, then shouldn't that sincerely held belief be the deciding factor and not the outward declaration of anybody else?
Should a Christian claiming protection under the NC bill when refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding be required to submit proof that his belief is sincerely held? Should the state be able to submit documentation to the court showing "the baker only tithes 3%, only attends 20% of services, and committed adultery last week, therefore his Christian belief isn't sincere" and get that protection thrown out?
My concern is not that Pastafarianism got declared to be a sham. My concern is that it opens up a Pandora's Box of challenges to "real" religions by requiring an added burden of proof that a belief is sincerely held.
The original article included links to both the plaintiffs pleadings, and to the dismissal by the court. I read the court's order, and I think it did a very good job of showing why FSMism isn't a religion, or at least not one entitled to protection.
the court cited an earlier standard:
"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."
the court explicitly stated that you needed to look for religious signs, and not look for mainly secular concerns. "Because RLUIPA is a guarantor of sincerely held religious beliefs, it may not be invoked simply to protect any 'way of life, however virtuous and admirable, if it is based on purely secular considerations.'"
I read the full order, and I think the Judge did an amazing job of seriously handling a ridiculous issue, while leaving plenty of room for minority creeds.
I wouldn't worry about it. Going past the OP, the plantiff's request was denied for more than just Pastaarianism being a self admitted parody, but on other grounds as well;
Cavanaugh's contention seems to be that denying him a pirate outfit prevents him from evangelizing about FSMism.7 But it is not clear to the Court how such a limitation significantly burdens Cavanaugh's practice of his "religion," as opposed to constraining his ability to preach to others. Cavanaugh does not specifically identify the other "religious" practices he seeks; they would presumably include such things as grog, a parrot, a seaworthy vessel, a "Colander of Goodness," and to take off every Friday as a "religious holiday." See id. at 67-68, 74, 110, 124-25, 170. But even if denying those accommodations would make it more difficult for Cavanaugh to practice FSMism, it would not make him effectively unable to do so, or coerce him into acting contrary to his beliefs.
Because Cavanaugh has alleged neither a "religious" exercise, nor a
"substantial burden" upon it, his RLUIPA claim will be dismissed.
It seems to me that the judge went way out of their way not just to dismiss the plaintiff on the grounds that "your religion isn't real" but by going through the numbers of how the plaintiff's claims didn't meet any of the criteria developed by the courts for this kind of claim.
d-usa wrote: My concern is not that Pastafarianism got declared to be a sham. My concern is that it opens up a Pandora's Box of challenges to "real" religions by requiring an added burden of proof that a belief is sincerely held.
If you read the order carefully, the concern isn't that it's a parody. Sure, they note that, but mostly in the context of explaining how difficult their analysis is. The crux of the case is if the plaintiff claimed to belong to a religion, or to a group that had a strong ideological view. The court found the latter, and I think we'd all agree.
Now, that this is a Pro Se prisoner case didn't help either.
That makes some more sense. I'm really not that upset at Pastafarianism being called out, my only concern was what impact this ruling might have down the line on other religions.
Alternatively, until further cases are raised, this judge's set out the guidelines for the creation of compliant fake religions. Though the easier thing to do would just create yet another branch of Christianity.
Anyone have an outline of what is and what isn't a tax free organization in the US? Religion's been put across like its a public service, so are schools/ hospitals/ etc also tax free?
feeder wrote: Inertia of longevity and a critical mass of believers.
I see. So majority religions are considered "legitimate", while minority religions aren't? This is exactly the kind of thing that guaranteeing freedom of religion was intended to prevent!
It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
Also, the adherent who wanted to have his religious artifacts such as a colander in prison with him turned out to know less about Pastafarianism than the judge.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
So, if it was uncovered that christianity (or, let's be less broad, some sect of it) was made on a bet, it shouldn't count even if people believe in it?
Polonius wrote: the court cited an earlier standard:
"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."
And I have to disagree with this. Pastafarianism meets all three of those requirements.
1) Among other things Pastafarianism provides an explanation for the creation of the universe and one's eternal fate after death. Those are clearly "deep and imponderable matters" that religion traditionally addresses.
2) Pastafarianism is comprehensive, as long as you don't use an over-literal definition like "covers every possible question", which would likely exclude religions that are generally recognized as legitimate. It is far more than just a single isolated teaching ("my sports team is the best, now give me a tv to worship them!").
3) Pastafarianism clearly has these. In fact, the plaintiff even explicitly mentioned some of them in his request. Of course this is also a rather questionable standard in the first place, since it seems to be demanding that a religion be similar to Christianity to be considered legitimate. External displays of religion are not inherently part of legitimate religious belief. For example, even Christianity has some (usually ignored) things to say about making displays of one's faith.
Wyrmalla wrote: Anyone have an outline of what is and what isn't a tax free organization in the US? Religion's been put across like its a public service, so are schools/ hospitals/ etc also tax free?
The requirements for being a tax-free organization are actually fairly broad, and primarily have to do with whether or not the organization makes a profit. For example, a gaming club could be a tax-free organization as long as all of the money collected goes to fund club activities and nobody is making any money from it. Meanwhile a school might not be a tax-free organization because it is run as a for-profit business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
The origins are irrelevant. A person could discover Pastafarianism, without knowing about the parody origins, and decide that it is a compelling belief system and explanation for the world. After all, it's no more or less reasonable a belief system than Christianity, taken on its own merits. The only difference is that Christianity is old enough that its origins have been lost to history, and any "it was all a scam" argument would be impossible to prove.
Also, let's not forget that Scientology is treated as a legitimate religion despite strong evidence that its founder just made a bunch of stuff up on a bet (or as a deliberate scam).
Howard A Treesong wrote: Rather than trying to work out who really believes 'sincerely' in their beliefs, the better thing would be to just not give preferential treatment and rights to religion
Of course it's made up, religions are made of stories written by human people. Don't tell me, you think one religion is correct and different to all the other religions, myths and legends thoughtout the history of man.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Don't tell me, you think one religion is correct and different to all the other religions, myths and legends thoughtout the history of man.
As an atheist, 100% with you. As an atheist, who's had a lot of religious people take for granted something other than I believe, what you take for granted isn't necessarily what someone else does.
You're forum name has never been so appropriate, Howard A Treesong. I demand a Satanic funeral!
Seriously, declaring a religion invalid just because it was begun by a satirical article is not a good precedent. Our government should not define what is and isn't a religion.
Now it can certainly limit practices- I can see how wearing a metal collander on one's head would be a practice that cannot be continued in prison, and may need to be substituted with a plastic collander. And full pirate regalia may be contraindicated- but it is equally unlikely he's teaching about his faith in prison. Pastafarians are not known for proselytizing.
And I have to disagree with this. Pastafarianism meets all three of those requirements.
And you are free to file an amicus brief if the plaintiff appeals.
The origins are irrelevant. A person could discover Pastafarianism, without knowing about the parody origins, and decide that it is a compelling belief system and explanation for the world. After all, it's no more or less reasonable a belief system than Christianity, taken on its own merits. The only difference is that Christianity is old enough that its origins have been lost to history, and any "it was all a scam" argument would be impossible to prove.
They aren't though. Evidence that the beliefs have persisted over time is fantastic evidence that a belief is a religion. And the gospels, probably the most analyzed texts in human history, are pretty clearly not a parody aimed at an education reform in galilee.
Also, let's not forget that Scientology is treated as a legitimate religion despite strong evidence that its founder just made a bunch of stuff up on a bet (or as a deliberate scam).
Last I saw, the IRS did not accept that Scientology was a religion, but granted them tax protected status anyway.
To be fair, I'm basing my understanding on classes in the first amendment and taxation I took eight years ago.
Polonius wrote: And you are free to file an amicus brief if the plaintiff appeals.
This contributes nothing to the discussion. Would you like to address the substance of what I said instead of just dismissing it with a zero-content "lol tell that to the court"?
They aren't though. Evidence that the beliefs have persisted over time is fantastic evidence that a belief is a religion.
Which creates a situation where a new religion doesn't get legal recognition simply because it is new (unless of course it's a new interpretation of Christianity, in which case it is legitimate because Jesus). I think the problem here is pretty obvious.
And the gospels, probably the most analyzed texts in human history, are pretty clearly not a parody aimed at an education reform in galilee.
It's clearly not a parody aimed at education reform, but I never said that it was. We know beyond any reasonable doubt that the texts in question are not accurate historical accounts of events that really happened, but beyond their lack of truth we know very little. Were they statements of sincere, but incorrect, belief? Were they an attempt by a particular religious leader to put himself into a position of power and gain followers (along with their donations)? We'll probably never know.
Last I saw, the IRS did not accept that Scientology was a religion, but granted them tax protected status anyway.
To be fair, I'm basing my understanding on classes in the first amendment and taxation I took eight years ago.
A quick google search disputes this. As of 1993 Scientology seems to be treated like any other religion for tax purposes, though there are various campaigns to revoke its tax-exempt status because it does not follow the rules for non-profit organizations. This dispute has nothing to do with whether or not Scientology is a "legitimate religion", merely how it uses its money.
For very good reasons. Scientology is really not any better or worse than other religions, Christianity included. The only difference is that Scientology is a minority religion and we seem to consider it an acceptable target for mocking, while more "mainstream" religions benefit from an obligation to be polite and respectful.
Dreadwinter wrote: Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.
For some reason.
Probably because it's sacred texts don't open with an admission that it isn't a real religion, and that everything about it isn't basically a parody of the idea of religious provisions rather than religious provisions themselves.
I'm not really a fan of Scientology, and of course I find that whole "golden tablets" thing in Mormonism kind of fishy, but the government doesn't exist so that the religions I don't think are real can be declared fake and my own religion validated as true.
How exactly are we on page 2, and still having to explain how a self admitted satire of religion is not religion, and that the case fell through not on the sole grounds that Pastafarianism was a self admitted satire, but on the grounds that the defendant couldn't put forth a valid argument that his "religious" freedoms were being put under an undue burden?
and that the case fell through not on the sole grounds that Pastafarianism was a self admitted satire, but on the grounds that the defendant couldn't put forth a valid argument that his "religious" freedoms were being put under an undue burden?
Because that has nothing to do with the larger debate over how the government should determine what qualifies as a religion, and that debate is far more interesting than the precise details of the case.
Not even remotely what that concept is about. Death of the Author is just a short hand for arguing the text should speak for itself and a text that screams "I am a parody" is going to be a parody with or without it.
Because that has nothing to do with the larger debate over how the government should determine what qualifies as a religion, and that debate is far more interesting than the precise details of the case.
Then you're just ranting? Scientology, Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai, Shinto, Sikhism, Judaism, and hell even Satanism has been getting recognition. The US government hasn't blocked anyone from practicing them and even has accommodations for some of them when appropriate (Like this poster from the Department of Justice explaining Sikh hats, which I most certainly approve of ). Some of them are very new. The government's only criteria is "sincere belief" which is most certainly a dubious criteria, and I most certainly think an argument can be made the US government (local, state, and federal) shows favoritism towards Christians but the former doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and the later seems a different discussion.
It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
The only reason there is no such evidence is because of how old the religion is.
"Fake" religion, LOL. Interesting.
One thing about religion being "tax exempt". That is false. The individual institutions can apply for tax exempt status as a not for profit under the "religion" portion of tax exempt not for profit tax law. There is actually an IRS process for this. It's not automatic, I don't think.
As a member of a minority religion, I'm concerned about the ramifications of any religion being declared 'not real' by a court. Granted, the gods I worship predate Christianity so it is less likely that it would be declared not real...I do consider more modern things as worship that may get things declared as 'not sincere' even though they are.
The whole point of the FSM is that, Legally speaking, it should be on the same footing as Christianity.
If something is used as a parody of religion wouldn't becoming a religion undercut its potency as such? It seems like it was meant to show how ludicrous religion can be, not to become the thing it was mocking.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
So, if it was uncovered that christianity (or, let's be less broad, some sect of it) was made on a bet, it shouldn't count even if people believe in it?
Inmates use a religion has just another means to game the system. Regardless of parody or lack thereof, this was a frivolous lawsuit to begin with. But that's just the way the system rolls.
SilverMK2 wrote: No, it is a further illustration of the double standards attached to religions which apply to nothing else. Again, why do "real" religions get to be recognised under the law? What actually distinguises them from any other spiritual claim, genuinely meant or otherwise? How exactly does one gain "religious" status, while other beliefs and their believers have to make their way in the world without added rights and protections?
Just read this actual case. It's about a guy in prison. When in prison the state decides what you eat, when you work out, all those things. Because we as a society are not complete dicks we are not going to force people to act in ways that are against their religion, even when they're in prison. So we will provide kosher meals, for instance.
So that leaves us having to make a call on what religion to recognise or not. The simple answer to recognise no religion means making people eat foods that are against their religion, work on days they are required to be at rest etc. The second most simple answer to recognise everything is obviously silly and open to incredible abuse. So the only answer left is that the courts must make a decision.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
So, if it was uncovered that christianity (or, let's be less broad, some sect of it) was made on a bet, it shouldn't count even if people believe in it?
sebster wrote: Just read this actual case. It's about a guy in prison. When in prison the state decides what you eat, when you work out, all those things. Because we as a society are not complete dicks we are not going to force people to act in ways that are against their religion, even when they're in prison. So we will provide kosher meals, for instance.
So that leaves us having to make a call on what religion to recognise or not. The simple answer to recognise no religion means making people eat foods that are against their religion, work on days they are required to be at rest etc. The second most simple answer to recognise everything is obviously silly and open to incredible abuse. So the only answer left is that the courts must make a decision.
But there's a third option: ignore the question of recognizing the legitimacy of the religion itself, and rule based on the reasonableness of the request. Each inmate gets X amount of reading material, which may include religious texts if they wish. Each inmate gets Y amount of free time per week, which can be used for religious purposes if they wish. Etc. Under this kind of policy the Pastafarian guy's request for his ceremonial hat is probably within the scope of what can be granted, but demanding a pirate ship and a parrot is not.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's because the evidence exists that Pastafarianism is a parody religion thought up by the founder for a joke. There is no such evidence for Christianity, to take, one example.
So, if it was uncovered that christianity (or, let's be less broad, some sect of it) was made on a bet, it shouldn't count even if people believe in it?
Just sayin'.
What mattered to the judge was that the guy claiming it as his religion clearly did not believe in it.
We can only speculate about the judge's possible views on Christianity.
LordofHats wrote: Not even remotely what that concept is about. Death of the Author is just a short hand for arguing the text should speak for itself and a text that screams "I am a parody" is going to be a parody with or without it.
Except the text itself doesn't scream "I am a parody", any more than other religions do. Sure, its creation myth is obviously absurd, but so is Christianity's creation myth. The only reason one is seen as "reasonable" while you are able to call the other "obvious parody" is the fact that Christianity is the majority religion in the US and we're used to accepting its claims as normal, no matter how implausible they would seem to an outside observer.
Then you're just ranting? Scientology, Wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai, Shinto, Sikhism, Judaism, and hell even Satanism has been getting recognition. The US government hasn't blocked anyone from practicing them and even has accommodations for some of them when appropriate (Like this poster from the Department of Justice explaining Sikh hats, which I most certainly approve of ). Some of them are very new. The government's only criteria is "sincere belief" which is most certainly a dubious criteria, and I most certainly think an argument can be made the US government (local, state, and federal) shows favoritism towards Christians but the former doesn't seem to be what you're talking about and the later seems a different discussion.
And those are good things. But you can hardly dismiss what I'm saying as "just ranting" when there are other people in this thread having a broader debate on the role of government in recognizing religion. The discussion has clearly moved beyond the merits of one poorly-argued case filed by an amateur lawyer with nothing better to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: What mattered to the judge was that the guy claiming it as his religion clearly did not believe in it.
Actually, it did not. From the opinion:
Although the Court does not ultimately address whether Cavanaugh's beliefs are sincere,
it bears noting that his pleading strategy is not entirely consistent with authentic religious
convictions.
So, the judge noted his skepticism, but it was not part of the legal decision.
sebster wrote: Just read this actual case. It's about a guy in prison. When in prison the state decides what you eat, when you work out, all those things. Because we as a society are not complete dicks we are not going to force people to act in ways that are against their religion, even when they're in prison. So we will provide kosher meals, for instance.
So that leaves us having to make a call on what religion to recognise or not. The simple answer to recognise no religion means making people eat foods that are against their religion, work on days they are required to be at rest etc. The second most simple answer to recognise everything is obviously silly and open to incredible abuse. So the only answer left is that the courts must make a decision.
But there's a third option: ignore the question of recognizing the legitimacy of the religion itself, and rule based on the reasonableness of the request. Each inmate gets X amount of reading material, which may include religious texts if they wish. Each inmate gets Y amount of free time per week, which can be used for religious purposes if they wish. Etc. Under this kind of policy the Pastafarian guy's request for his ceremonial hat is probably within the scope of what can be granted, but demanding a pirate ship and a parrot is not.
ya the pirate ship was taking it to far, I would have went with 'I hereby declare we have spaghetti Tuesdays every Wednesday.'
What I find amuzing about all this is how often atheism gets declared a religion by christians. Surely if having no opinions about a god is enough evidence for some people to declare it a religion, than the FSM should be a recognized religion. It's merely a offshoot religion from atheism, think of them as the mormons of atheism
Sure, its creation myth is obviously absurd, but so is Christianity's creation myth.
And that's something Pastafarianism has been able to make very clear to those willing to actually look at it. It's a fascinating tool for understanding the difference between religion and science, and a great tool for introspective thought
Unfortunately, anyone who has taken a class on critical reading (which judges probably generally have) is going to be able to spot parody and can tell the difference between religion and a parody of religion so expecting it to end up with religious protections under the law is not only expecting too much, but asking for something extremely bizarre given what Pastafarianism/FSMism is.
So if you're sole basis for arguing unfair treatment of religion is that a parody has been denied religious status, hate to tell you but there isn't really much argument there unless we're expected to turn off our brains and stop thinking (again, a bizarre thing given what Pastafarianism is about). In general, the US government and the courts have walked an extremely forgiving, and for the best in my opinion, line on what is and is not religion. Pretty much anyone not advocating human sacrifice or blatantly satirical is going to get recognition, such as the Church of Body Modification.
Yes, the text was clearly intended to be a parody. However, the intent of the author is irrelevant here. What matters is whether a person believes in Pastafarianism. Imagine a situation where someone is unfamiliar with the origins of Pastafarianism, reads its creation myth, claims about what happens after we die, etc, and decides "this sounds right, I believe it!". And from that point on the person sincerely attempts to live by Pastafarianism, discarding any previous religious beliefs they might have had. Pastafarianism is now legitimately that person's religion, regardless of how some other person treats the same text. But what you are saying is that, no matter how sincere their belief that the FSM created the universe may be, that belief does not deserve the same protection as other religions because it was once used as a parody.
And I'll concede that this does not appear to be the situation in this particular case. As the judge pointed out, the plaintiff wasn't even able to coherently state what his beliefs were and how the state was preventing him from exercising those beliefs. It's pretty obviously a troll lawsuit just like every other troll lawsuit filed by prisoners with nothing better to do. But it's a ruling that establishes a precedent that could be used in the future against people who do hold sincere but unconventional religious beliefs.
Dreadwinter wrote: Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.
For some reason.
Because stupid people exist. That's really the answer for Scientology, and FSM was created as a joke. The whole Jedi thing even started as kind of a light tongue-in-cheek idea (in the real world, not SW), but with the exception of moving things with the mind or controlling others, the belief structure is almost the same as Christianity; so it moved past its good-humored origins. Scientology and FSM have not moved past their origins.
What next? We find out that Xenu and FSM are the parents of Cthulhu. Give me a break.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, the text was clearly intended to be a parody. However, the intent of the author is irrelevant here.
It's not, both because even Death of the Author doesn't advocate that the authors intent doesn't matter but because Bobby Henderson isn't dead, and is the owner and operator of FSM's website and the leader of the entire thing.
no matter how sincere their belief that the FSM created the universe may be, that belief does not deserve the same protection as other religions because it was once used as a parody.
Ridiculousness like nuclear materials has a critical mass. You and I might talk about the absurdity in raw logic of a god in three persons, but to a typical everyday person a story about a god sending his son to die for our sins is a lot less absurd than a religion advocating all human beings evolved from pirates if only because the later's absurdity is more apparent.
And frankly, I don't see the Bible disappearing from human memory any time soon, and when the Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Second Announcement is obviously based on the Nicene Creed I don't think anyone will ever be so dense but then I'm an optimist.
But it's a ruling that establishes a precedent that could be used in the future against people who do hold sincere but unconventional religious beliefs.
That precedent isn't there. The ruling goes through the various means by which the court tries to determine belief, and however faulty that very idea is, I don't think this case presents a risk that a similar fate will befall "true" believers.
Peregrine wrote: But there's a third option: ignore the question of recognizing the legitimacy of the religion itself, and rule based on the reasonableness of the request. Each inmate gets X amount of reading material, which may include religious texts if they wish. Each inmate gets Y amount of free time per week, which can be used for religious purposes if they wish. Etc. Under this kind of policy the Pastafarian guy's request for his ceremonial hat is probably within the scope of what can be granted, but demanding a pirate ship and a parrot is not.
Except whether or not something is reasonable depends on why a person needs a special exemption. You can't simple look at a request 'cook me a special meal' and decide if that is reasonable without looking at why they made the special request.
And so once you decide that religious conviction is a legitimate reason for special treatment, then you're back to having to make a call on what is and what isn't a genuine religious belief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Imagine a situation where someone is unfamiliar with the origins of Pastafarianism, reads its creation myth, claims about what happens after we die, etc, and decides "this sounds right, I believe it!". And from that point on the person sincerely attempts to live by Pastafarianism, discarding any previous religious beliefs they might have had. Pastafarianism is now legitimately that person's religion, regardless of how some other person treats the same text.
You have a point that if a person did come to truly, genuinely believe in the FSM and all the tenants of that faith, then that person should have their beliefs allowed for by some faith or another. The point being, of course, that no such person exist, and no such person will exist until the time that Pastafarianism is a very different thing to what it is today.
Which should make it clear that what we are talking about, this idea that a court might rule against someone because their religion isn't popular enough is entirely hypothetical.
Peregrine wrote: But there's a third option: ignore the question of recognizing the legitimacy of the religion itself, and rule based on the reasonableness of the request. Each inmate gets X amount of reading material, which may include religious texts if they wish. Each inmate gets Y amount of free time per week, which can be used for religious purposes if they wish. Etc. Under this kind of policy the Pastafarian guy's request for his ceremonial hat is probably within the scope of what can be granted, but demanding a pirate ship and a parrot is not.
Except whether or not something is reasonable depends on why a person needs a special exemption. You can't simple look at a request 'cook me a special meal' and decide if that is reasonable without looking at why they made the special request.
And so once you decide that religious conviction is a legitimate reason for special treatment, then you're back to having to make a call on what is and what isn't a genuine religious belief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Imagine a situation where someone is unfamiliar with the origins of Pastafarianism, reads its creation myth, claims about what happens after we die, etc, and decides "this sounds right, I believe it!". And from that point on the person sincerely attempts to live by Pastafarianism, discarding any previous religious beliefs they might have had. Pastafarianism is now legitimately that person's religion, regardless of how some other person treats the same text.
You have a point that if a person did come to truly, genuinely believe in the FSM and all the tenants of that faith, then that person should have their beliefs allowed for by some faith or another. The point being, of course, that no such person exist, and no such person will exist until the time that Pastafarianism is a very different thing to what it is today.
Which should make it clear that what we are talking about, this idea that a court might rule against someone because their religion isn't popular enough is entirely hypothetical.
The US is a large, large place and people have been silly enough to believe in almost anything. I posit to you that given infinite time and resources, I could find someone who truly believed in Pastafarianism the way a Christian or Buddhist does in their own religion.
Also, I have to side with Peregrine on this one, is it really that unbelievable that someone would be denied a claim based on their religion? People have been persecuting others based on their religion for hundreds of centuries, going all the way back to the Romans persecuting people that worshiped Isis and even further back.
My concern is I do see this a possible avenue for denying claims based on client's ability to be devout. Whether I believe in another religion or not does not make that person's right to practice religion any less valid.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Rather than trying to work out who really believes 'sincerely' in their beliefs, the better thing would be to just not give preferential treatment and rights to religion
Unless one wants to govern, legislate, have a friendly dialogue, of course. Telling that vast majority that there beliefs are fictional will get you exactly nowhere in a discussion, and make you look like a bit of a gakker that has a strong opinion but not much else on the subject; it undercuts the argument, not strengthens it.
jreilly89 wrote: The US is a large, large place and people have been silly enough to believe in almost anything. I posit to you that given infinite time and resources, I could find someone who truly believed in Pastafarianism the way a Christian or Buddhist does in their own religion.
Also, I have to side with Peregrine on this one, is it really that unbelievable that someone would be denied a claim based on their religion? People have been persecuting others based on their religion for hundreds of centuries, going all the way back to the Romans persecuting people that worshiped Isis and even further back.
My concern is I do see this a possible avenue for denying claims based on client's ability to be devout. Whether I believe in another religion or not does not make that person's right to practice religion any less valid.
Did you read his actual claim? He didn't ask for anything specific. Well, he asked for $5 Million because he felt his religion was insulted, but there was no specifics about how his ability to practice his religion was actually harmed.
This wasn't a general tribunal on if Pastafranism is a real religion, it was a question if the Prison violated this persons right to practice Pastafarianism. And I don't think the prison did, so the court was right to dismiss the suit.
Unless one wants to govern, legislate, have a friendly dialogue, of course. Telling that vast majority that there beliefs are fictional will get you exactly nowhere in a discussion, and make you look like a bit of a gakker that has a strong opinion but not much else on the subject; it undercuts the argument, not strengthens it.
What about Atheists? So an Atheist can't have a rational discussion with those that believe?
Unless one wants to govern, legislate, have a friendly dialogue, of course. Telling that vast majority that there beliefs are fictional will get you exactly nowhere in a discussion, and make you look like a bit of a gakker that has a strong opinion but not much else on the subject; it undercuts the argument, not strengthens it.
What about Atheists? So an Atheist can't have a rational discussion with those that believe?
I believe Ahtman means "a closed-mind." I could say "well Jesus is the only God, period," and even though I believe that, it comes out sounding like a donkey cave. It would be the same if I said any god was the only god without taking into consideration of what other people may believe. And while atheism doesn't have a god, saying everyone elses god doesn't exist falls into the same category.
Unless one wants to govern, legislate, have a friendly dialogue, of course. Telling that vast majority that there beliefs are fictional will get you exactly nowhere in a discussion, and make you look like a bit of a gakker that has a strong opinion but not much else on the subject; it undercuts the argument, not strengthens it.
What about Atheists? So an Atheist can't have a rational discussion with those that believe?
You need to go back and read the back-and-forth there. You are missing the whole conversation.
There is nothing wrong with an Atheist and a Believer having a polite and rational conversation.
Starting that conversation with "All your gak is made up" is not a good way to start.
Unless one wants to govern, legislate, have a friendly dialogue, of course. Telling that vast majority that there beliefs are fictional will get you exactly nowhere in a discussion, and make you look like a bit of a gakker that has a strong opinion but not much else on the subject; it undercuts the argument, not strengthens it.
What about Atheists? So an Atheist can't have a rational discussion with those that believe?
I believe Ahtman means "a closed-mind." I could say "well Jesus is the only God, period," and even though I believe that, it comes out sounding like a donkey cave. It would be the same if I said any god was the only god without taking into consideration of what other people may believe. And while atheism doesn't have a god, saying everyone elses god doesn't exist falls into the same category.
Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?
Whilst we appreciate that debate requires a certain level of give and take from all those participating, blanket crass dismissals of others peoples view and/or beliefs do nothing to further any actual conversation.
Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?
In the original post of this thread:
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. 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. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line
Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?
The category of people that understand Pastafarianism? If somebody were a devout Pastafarian, than we can talk. Until then, it's a joke, it's always been a joke, and we all know it's a joke.
Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?
The category of people that understand Pastafarianism? If somebody were a devout Pastafarian, than we can talk. Until then, it's a joke, it's always been a joke, and we all know it's a joke.
Until we can read peoples minds...that would be relatively impossible. Until then it should be treated just as every other religion - regardless of it's origin. And even then - why is sincerity of belief an issue here? Christians and Muslims and Jews aren't put through the sincerity test. Also anyone could pretend to believe in one of these "established" religions just to get their preferred treatment...No one takes issue with this ether.
Unless one wants to govern, legislate, have a friendly dialogue, of course. Telling that vast majority that there beliefs are fictional will get you exactly nowhere in a discussion, and make you look like a bit of a gakker that has a strong opinion but not much else on the subject; it undercuts the argument, not strengthens it.
What about Atheists? So an Atheist can't have a rational discussion with those that believe?
Rational discussion between a Christian and an Atheist: "Here is what I believe and why I believe it." "How do you reconcile that belief with this evidence." "I think it is because of this other thing."
Both sides are able to verbalize why they came to the conclusion that they are currently at, both sides are able to ask each other questions to expand on those explanations, both sides are even able to challenge each other in a friendly and courteous way, and both sides are able to respect each other and walk away after the discussion without hating each other.
Irrational discussion between a Christian and an Atheist: "You are a weak minded idiot for believing in an imaginary man in the sky." "You are a weak minded sinner who will burn in hell."
Both sides are donkey-caves who will walk away from Dakka with a ban, and who will go through life being an insufferable bully.
Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?
The category of people that understand Pastafarianism? If somebody were a devout Pastafarian, than we can talk. Until then, it's a joke, it's always been a joke, and we all know it's a joke.
Until we can read peoples minds...that would be relatively impossible. Until then it should be treated just as every other religion - regardless of it's origin. And even then - why is sincerity of belief an issue here? Christians and Muslims and Jews aren't put through the sincerity test. Also anyone could pretend to believe in one of these "established" religions just to get their preferred treatment...No one takes issue with this ether.
I'm not entirely certain what your arguing here. In the context of requesting accomodations from prison, Christians are absolutely required to show sincere belief. Some accomodations are so common, and so engrained in a religion that the test doesn't need to be applied, for example, a Jew could request a kosher meal. But.. a prison could demand that the person show some affiliation with Judaism.
It's not that some religions get preferred treatment, it's that the hard part of showing what are generally the precepts of that religion have already been shown. Look at Sikhs in the US military: they just won the right to grow their beards, which nobody else gets. It's a well established part of Sikh culture. The first Sikh to ask that had to work really hard, but going forward, it will be much easier.
The category of people that understand Pastafarianism? If somebody were a devout Pastafarian, than we can talk. Until then, it's a joke, it's always been a joke, and we all know it's a joke.
Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?
The category of people that understand Pastafarianism? If somebody were a devout Pastafarian, than we can talk. Until then, it's a joke, it's always been a joke, and we all know it's a joke.
Until we can read peoples minds...that would be relatively impossible. Until then it should be treated just as every other religion - regardless of it's origin. And even then - why is sincerity of belief an issue here? Christians and Muslims and Jews aren't put through the sincerity test. Also anyone could pretend to believe in one of these "established" religions just to get their preferred treatment...No one takes issue with this ether.
I'm not entirely certain what your arguing here. In the context of requesting accomodations from prison, Christians are absolutely required to show sincere belief. Some accomodations are so common, and so engrained in a religion that the test doesn't need to be applied, for example, a Jew could request a kosher meal. But.. a prison could demand that the person show some affiliation with Judaism.
It's not that some religions get preferred treatment, it's that the hard part of showing what are generally the precepts of that religion have already been shown. Look at Sikhs in the US military: they just won the right to grow their beards, which nobody else gets. It's a well established part of Sikh culture. The first Sikh to ask that had to work really hard, but going forward, it will be much easier.
The point I'm trying to argue is Pastafarianism is every bit as legitimate as Christianity and Islam. At least in the sense that worshiping satire is at least on par with worshiping something of which there is no scientific proof. In all fairness who can make that judgement?
To me the real issue is. There is no non discriminatory way to invalidate a religion. Since I am opposed to discrimination I see two options. Honor all religious special treatment claims (within reason) - or honor none at all. Can anyone really disagree with that?
The point I'm trying to argue is Pastafarianism is every bit as legitimate as Christianity and Islam. At least in the sense that worshiping satire is at least on par with worshiping something of which there is no scientific proof. In all fairness who can make that judgement?
To me the real issue is. There is no non discriminatory way to invalidate a religion. Since I am opposed to discrimination I see two options. Honor all religious special treatment claims (within reason) - or honor none at all. Can anyone really disagree with that?
Okay. Do you feel that Pastafarians are denied their rights to worship as they see fit by the government? I mean specifically.
And if any of them were in a federal prison, I'd imagine they could state a claim for religious exercise.
You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.
Dreadwinter wrote: Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.
For some reason.
I've heard that in Germany it is considered a terrorist group or something like that
By country, and judging by the Wikipedia article, plenty of countries class it as a cult rather than a religion (though make note that the whole concept is fairly abstract). Notably Russia tried to ban it, but that was overruled. It seems 50/50 on whether countries class it as a religious organization/ cult or don't recognize it at all.
Which is funny, considering it started as a big scam by an author. I guess that's what money and death threats do for you.
Polonius wrote: The original article included links to both the plaintiffs pleadings, and to the dismissal by the court. I read the court's order, and I think it did a very good job of showing why FSMism isn't a religion, or at least not one entitled to protection.
the court cited an earlier standard:
"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."
the court explicitly stated that you needed to look for religious signs, and not look for mainly secular concerns. "Because RLUIPA is a guarantor of sincerely held religious beliefs, it may not be invoked simply to protect any 'way of life, however virtuous and admirable, if it is based on purely secular considerations.'"
I read the full order, and I think the Judge did an amazing job of seriously handling a ridiculous issue, while leaving plenty of room for minority creeds.
Well there goes my bid for tax free status as Keeper of the Holy Dog Bowl of the Great Wienie. I am not sure how, but I am certain evil cat people are involved.
You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.
Articulate those beliefs how? "The Bible says we need a Church". Why do you need a Church? Because the Bible says so. I've actually heard people say this. That's not very articulate.
You mentioned in your post that there should be a group that speak about their religion. Then you said it was a joke. There are people that have this belief. Who is anyone to say it's a joke?
Xenomancers wrote: Honor all religious special treatment claims (within reason) - or honor none at all. Can anyone really disagree with that?
No. The part that has been brought up a few times and seems to be ignored is that honoring any religious claim entails an immediate question of whether the claim has real value to the claimant. Reasonable is not a one sided affair. It's a dance. The plaintiff claims something is needed, and part of gauging whether or not that need is reasonable is how important it is to their faith. Making Kosher meals probably costs the government/private firms a lot of money in prisons for example, but Kosher meals are a big part of Jewish and Muslim religion and it goes beyond "my book says pigs are unclean." Both religious associate the cleanliness of the body with the cleanliness of the soul (also something about obeying god, not partaking of the offerings to false idols, and a whole bunch of other reasons). A non-Kosher meal is in their faith, a direct threat to their spiritual lives.
Likewise the Christian practice of a "Church" is a lot more complex than "because I'm supposed to." The New Testament stresses the importance of the community of believers (Book of Acts chapter 2 for those interested), and that praying and worshiping together strengthens faith and allows the community to reach out to others and share the Word. This is part of why we all have those annoying proselytizers who always come to our doors at the worst possible moments.
On the other hand, the Pastafarian command to wear a colander has no theological argument behind it. None what so ever (this is true of Pastafarianism in general, which shouldn't be surprising given that it's a parody that spends more time mocking than building a comprehensive theology), which is why the Judge was on about in their ruling. Simply saying "because my religion says so" is not an accepted argument in court. This is why a member of the Church of Body Modification lost their suit for wrongful firing against Costco, while another member won their's when they were suspended from school.
Likewise the Christian practice of a "Church" is a lot more complex than "because I'm supposed to." The New Testament stresses the importance of the community of believers (Book of Acts chapter 2 for those interested), and that praying and worshiping together strengthens faith and allows the community to reach out to others and share the Word. This is part of why we all have those annoying proselytizers who always come to our doors at the worst possible moments.
I think you're missing my point here. You basically proved the point that a book tells you you need a Church. One can argue that although you articulated very well why this book tells you you need a communal place to practice your religion, it can still be boiled down to"because a book told you so". I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the argument can be made that there is no logical reason to build a church since you can do what you say in someone's home.
You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.
Articulate those beliefs how? "The Bible says we need a Church". Why do you need a Church? Because the Bible says so. I've actually heard people say this. That's not very articulate.
You mentioned in your post that there should be a group that speak about their religion. Then you said it was a joke. There are people that have this belief. Who is anyone to say it's a joke?
I agree. So, now the test is whether or not someone possesses the necessary ability to sufficiently explain their beliefs to a court in order for that 3rd party to magically understand that they hold their beliefs strongly enough when compared to some undefined yardstick that a particular judge is holding it next to. Gee, that's certainly an ugly way to go about things.
Yes, I know that this case was fairly clear; however, some of the things that the judge wrote were pretty asinine when read outside the context of the case and very easily applied broadly to any religious belief that he determines to be false. It's just as easy to dispute Christianity as it was created by a man who openly admitted that it only existed because he didn't agree with the established religious authority and even went so far as to curse a fig tree....that poor tree.
You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.
Articulate those beliefs how? "The Bible says we need a Church". Why do you need a Church? Because the Bible says so. I've actually heard people say this. That's not very articulate.
You mentioned in your post that there should be a group that speak about their religion. Then you said it was a joke. There are people that have this belief. Who is anyone to say it's a joke?
In order to make a claim for religious accommodation, you need to be able to articulate what, exactly, your beliefs are and what practices need accommodating. The plaintiff in this case did not make any specific claims to what parts of his practice were denied to him.
It has nothing to with why. I don't need to explain why I avoid meat on Fridays during Lent, only that it's my religious belief that I do so.
Having an organized entity helps here, because there is going to be a common creed.
No your point is very clear. You're missing mine; where the argument comes from doesn't matter. It's how much substance does the argument have behind it?
The Judge laid out plainly in the ruling and that courts use in making these decisions. "Because a book told me so" is not an argument. "Because my faith requires X so that I can do a, b, c, d, and e and thus achieve Z, Z being the primary goal of my beliefs" is an argument. The former argument is basically what the inmate in the OP argued, and he lost because he could not expand the former into the later. There is a vast world of difference between "because a book says so" and a complex and inclusive theological system. The later may very well be described in a book, but the argument isn't "because a book told me so" and cannot be fundamentally reduced down to the level without losing all its meaning.
I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the argument can be made that there is no logical reason to build a church since you can do what you say in someone's home.
You can, which is why a Christian in prison would probably be laughed away if he walked up to a Warden and said "I need $500,000 for a Neo-Gothic stone church. Hood moldings, and lancets. A large towers at the end, and a bell made of gold and ivory." Asking for a space to congregate on the other hand would probably be granted, because most prisons can probably afford to spare some space for an hour for the locals to congregate in.
Yes, I know that this case was fairly clear; however, some of the things that the judge wrote were pretty asinine when read outside the context of the case and very easily applied broadly to any religious belief that he determines to be false. It's just as easy to dispute Christianity as it was created by a man who openly admitted that it only existed because he didn't agree with the established religious authority and even went so far as to curse a fig tree....that poor tree.
One of the things to keep in mind is that the Court only looked to the books on Pastafarianism because there were no specific practices cited in the pleading. The court didn't dismiss the claim because FSM is a joke, it did so because the plaintiff didn't specify his beliefs, and looking to the source material doesn't exactly help.
If you pulled a book on nearly any minority religion, no matter how obscure, it would be written sincerely, and include a description of the creed and customs of the sect.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For general interest, here is an ACLU breakdown on religious rights of prisoners:
Yes, I know that this case was fairly clear; however, some of the things that the judge wrote were pretty asinine when read outside the context of the case and very easily applied broadly to any religious belief that he determines to be false. It's just as easy to dispute Christianity as it was created by a man who openly admitted that it only existed because he didn't agree with the established religious authority and even went so far as to curse a fig tree....that poor tree.
One of the things to keep in mind is that the Court only looked to the books on Pastafarianism because there were no specific practices cited in the pleading. The court didn't dismiss the claim because FSM is a joke, it did so because the plaintiff didn't specify his beliefs, and looking to the source material doesn't exactly help.
If you pulled a book on nearly any minority religion, no matter how obscure, it would be written sincerely, and include a description of the creed and customs of the sect.
Time and memory. I'm not defending FSM; I'm simply stating (clearly I thought but apparently not) that it is very easy to expand the same sort of questioning beyond the scope of the current case and apply it to any religion, major or minor, that the person in authority chose to. I could, without a great deal of difficulty, make any person's religious beliefs appear trite and write an opinion on the matter. Take the cursing of the fig tree for example. If you had no knowledge of Christianity and I were to tell you that the person in question attested to believe in a religion that was created by someone who traveled around a country preaching against the local, established religious practices. That this man openly told everyone that he was the son of God and he was there to open everyone's eyes to the wrong nature of the established religion. That the religious law followed by all up until this time was now defunct and what he preached was actually what God wanted. That he openly associated himself with prostitutes and other people of degenerate character. In this age, what would you say about such a religion? Would it be valid? Could you find some argument against its validity?
Again, I'm not saying any religion is a farce but if the only determining factor of whether or not someone follows a religion is their ability to coherently put together a defense, it's not hard to imagine that a large number of people wouldn't be able to meet such a requirement; especially if one is in possession of data which shows that vast numbers of people who have low capacity (due to special needs or otherwise) to express themselves and are incarcerated.
I don't think the problem is that you can reduce any religion down to near farce. The problem is that FSM has nothing beyond the farce, no beliefs, no creed, not established doctrine, no dogma. Sure, it's got some stuff that's been scribbled out, but I think that's one area in which time matters.
look at Judaism. If all you had was the Torah, you probably wouldn't create a religion that looks all that much like modern Judaism. There is an enormous breadth and depth of tradition and custom and dogma that have been built up.
One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.
Polonius wrote: I don't think the problem is that you can reduce any religion down to near farce. The problem is that FSM has nothing beyond the farce, no beliefs, no creed, not established doctrine, no dogma. Sure, it's got some stuff that's been scribbled out, but I think that's one area in which time matters.
look at Judaism. If all you had was the Torah, you probably wouldn't create a religion that looks all that much like modern Judaism. There is an enormous breadth and depth of tradition and custom and dogma that have been built up.
One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.
It has a lot going for it, they hold the belief that the separation of church and state is sacrosanct. To achieve that end they use levity, but that does not make the religion itself a joke. They believe children should be taught facts, and schools should not be used as a recruiting ground for churches. So don't teach my kids creationism in school, unless you teach the controversy and give equal time and reverence to the FSM.
One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.
If suffering is your major yardstick here, Charlie Manson could be the messiah as could the Heaven's Gate people or any other "cult" out there. Again, the point is greater than FSM. Yes, FSM is a farce at face value but if a judge can just sit in court and call something a farce, there's little point to anything being called a religion because each random judge could just say it's not. What this judge did was take away the "seriously held belief" argument by simply stating because the person did not (could not?) represent their beliefs coherently, he didn't actually believe anything. If this is the method of determination, every person with reduced capacity (of which there are many in the criminal system) is in danger of their religious beliefs being questioned by the court.
Out of curiosity, maybe I missed it?, did Henderson ever say that FSM is not a religion? On their website, the FAQ section clearly states that many people are "true" believers. Just because many people may feel it's a farce doesn't mean that someone isn't able to take it seriously.
One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.
If suffering is your major yardstick here, Charlie Manson could be the messiah as could the Heaven's Gate people or any other "cult" out there. Again, the point is greater than FSM. Yes, FSM is a farce at face value but if a judge can just sit in court and call something a farce, there's little point to anything being called a religion because each random judge could just say it's not. What this judge did was take away the "seriously held belief" argument by simply stating because the person did not (could not?) represent their beliefs coherently, he didn't actually believe anything. If this is the method of determination, every person with reduced capacity (of which there are many in the criminal system) is in danger of their religious beliefs being questioned by the court.
The more you keep in mind what the case was about, which was the alleged denial of his right to practice his religion, the more the standard makes sense.
What exactly is a judge supposed to do with a claim like the plaintiff submitted? It didn't articulate what he wanted, or why he was deserved it. A legal claim needs to have a basis. Courts will usually bend over backwards to find such a claim for a pro se plaintiff, but sometimes there just isn't' a claim on which relief can be granted.
Suffering was one of my points. The law simply does not allow a person to create their own religion, and then expect to receive all the benefits. That might sound harsh, but the right to religion is based not on some aspect of identity politics, but because religious beliefs have always, and probably will always, have enormous influence on the believer.
This isn't a persecuted religion. It's a group of people that are using the trappings of religion to make a really good point, but it's just not a religion from any philosophical or legal standard.
jreilly89 wrote: The US is a large, large place and people have been silly enough to believe in almost anything. I posit to you that given infinite time and resources, I could find someone who truly believed in Pastafarianism the way a Christian or Buddhist does in their own religion.
The US is not infinite, 300m people is a lot of people, but not enough for everything imaginable to exist. And while it is possible for this true believing Pastafarian to be out there, at this point we have no evidence of his existence, and even less evidence that he has been harshly treated by having his religion denied in courts of law.
It is hard enough to build a legal framework to make allowances for actual, real world things. Wanting a legal framework that also accounts for every possible hypothetical is sacrificing real world practicality for the sake of hypothetical neatness.
Also, I have to side with Peregrine on this one, is it really that unbelievable that someone would be denied a claim based on their religion? People have been persecuting others based on their religion for hundreds of centuries, going all the way back to the Romans persecuting people that worshiped Isis and even further back.
No really, think this through. If the courts refuse to place any judgement on what is a genuine religious faith, then people will be free to exploit that for whatever they want. "My religion means my daily exercise is digging tunnels under the prison wall, and its sacred so there's no guards allowed to watch."
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Disqualifying the belief of a prisoner who was claiming a parody religion, and who showed little knowledge of that religion is a bit of a no-brainer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Until we can read peoples minds...that would be relatively impossible. Until then it should be treated just as every other religion - regardless of it's origin. And even then - why is sincerity of belief an issue here? Christians and Muslims and Jews aren't put through the sincerity test. Also anyone could pretend to believe in one of these "established" religions just to get their preferred treatment...No one takes issue with this ether.
I've read your argument three times over and near as I can tell your argument basically comes down to saying we can never, in any way, conclude that another person might not be genuine in their religious faith. That we cannot apply judgement and reason to determine if someone is being genuine or not.
That argument doesn't work, because there are real world effects to accomodating someone's religion, so of course some people will attempt to manipulate that to get better treatment (in prison, for instance). As such, it becomes necessary to apply judgement and reason to someone's claim of religious belief. You may get uncomfortable with some of the things that we sometimes have to apply judgement to but oh well, it has to be done.
sebster wrote: No really, think this through. If the courts refuse to place any judgement on what is a genuine religious faith, then people will be free to exploit that for whatever they want. "My religion means my daily exercise is digging tunnels under the prison wall, and its sacred so there's no guards allowed to watch."
I said this before, but I'll say it again: it means no such thing. All you have to do is set the standard based on the reasonableness of the request, not the content of the religion that motivated it. So, for example, all inmates are allowed up to X amount of reading material, which can include religious texts if they wish. All inmates are allowed Y amount of religious or personal symbols (whether a Christian cross, a Pastafarian hat, etc), which can be stored by the prison and given to the inmate under supervision if they present a safety or security risk. Etc.
Under this standard the prisoner demanding a religious right to dig tunnels under the wall would obviously have their request refused. It doesn't matter whether or not the religion is legitimate or not, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from digging tunnels under the prison walls for any reason.
Peregrine wrote: I said this before, but I'll say it again: it means no such thing. All you have to do is set the standard based on the reasonableness of the request, not the content of the religion that motivated it.
Yes, you did say it before, and then I responded explaining why that didn't work. I'm guessing you missed my response.
Anyhow, the reason that argument doesn't work is because you cannot judge reasonableness in isolation, seperate from the motivation. "I would like a special meal that doesn't have pork in it" is entirely reasonable if it is due to a religious conviction, but it is not reasonable if the in-mate just happens to not like pork very much.
Your argument to just give everyone accommodation isn't practical - are you going to give every single prisoner a choice of many meal options, including meals made with every imaginable kind of religious consideration? What about work times? Muslim in-mates will need to take breaks to take the call to prayer, and the exact time of day that happens varies according to the sun. Are you going to give every single prisoner the work flexibility to take a break when they please?
sebster wrote: Anyhow, the reason that argument doesn't work is because you cannot judge reasonableness in isolation, seperate from the motivation. "I would like a special meal that doesn't have pork in it" is entirely reasonable if it is due to a religious conviction, but it is not reasonable if the in-mate just happens to not like pork very much.
But why isn't that reasonable? Why is it so important to feed every prisoner the same food unless they can provide a reason that satisfies your personal standards? Why is "I hate the taste of pork" any less valid than "my religion doesn't let me eat pork"? If you have the capacity to provide the alternative meal to an inmate with a religious objection then you have the capacity to provide it to one with a non-religious objection.
Your argument to just give everyone accommodation isn't practical - are you going to give every single prisoner a choice of many meal options, including meals made with every imaginable kind of religious consideration?
No, of course you don't have to produce every imaginable kind of meal. You produce a standard meal and wait until someone has a request for an alternative, and then judge the reasonableness of providing that alternative. For example, the inmate who doesn't want pork in their meals because they're vegetarian is probably easy enough to satisfy. There are plenty of alternative foods that meet the no-pork requirement and are easily available at a reasonable cost. On the other hand, the inmate who demands $100 steaks for every meal is obviously asking for something beyond the reasonable scope of prison meals, and it doesn't matter whether their request is motivated by religion or simply by a desire to have a really nice steak for dinner.
What about work times? Muslim in-mates will need to take breaks to take the call to prayer, and the exact time of day that happens varies according to the sun. Are you going to give every single prisoner the work flexibility to take a break when they please?
Why are prison jobs unable to handle something that non-prison businesses seem to deal with just fine?
Because at that point you might as well just say screw it and tell everyone in prison to suck it up and eat pork.
Why is "I hate the taste of pork" any less valid than "my religion doesn't let me eat pork"?
Already explained this.
Making Kosher meals probably costs the government/private firms a lot of money in prisons for example, but Kosher meals are a big part of Jewish and Muslim religion and it goes beyond "my book says pigs are unclean." Both religious associate the cleanliness of the body with the cleanliness of the soul (also something about obeying god, not partaking of the offerings to false idols, and a whole bunch of other reasons). A non-Kosher meal is in their faith, a direct threat to their spiritual lives.
Though I dumbed this down (Muslims don't do Kosher they have something else that's kind of similar).
The person who just doesn't like the taste of pork probably doesn't think they're mortal soul is being put in jeopardy if they're forced to eat it, and won't suffer the psychological duress that comes from that. You can't practically account for religion while simultaneously removing individual religious needs from any and all considerations. No one will ever look at a request in a vacuum, no matter how much you wish for a blind allowance that takes nothing theological into consideration (yet is magically still "reasoned"). The reason a Jew might get a kosher meal while someone else might not get one involves the immediate question of how significant kosher food is to Jewish faith. It's not just about cost to the state, it's about severity of need to the person.
Someone might not like pork, but if that's all they got then they can suck it up. They're in prison and not liking pork is not a valid argument for tax payers to foot the bill of increased logistics for a diverse menu that allows everyone to eat whatever $5 meal they choose. If you can't give me a good reason why you can't eat that $5 pork sandwich, well too bad. You're eating the $5 pork sandwich cause it's what I have and Florida State Prison isn't a franchise of Subway. I don't think you realize how far this could go. Do prisons need to make Kachera undergarments available to everyone to? Theaton reading sessions? Those nasty little crackers my fellows use at Communion? Wine? Why are we incurring the costs of providing everything to everyone even if it has nothing to do with their belief system? Further, how are we going to gauge the reasonableness of future requests that fall outside your "one size fits all" allowance system, except to do exactly what just happened in the OP article? If we're just going to have to do that anyway, why are we carrying on this costly charade of blindness? We're intelligent creatures. We should be able to figure that special needs need not be granted to everyone.
Why are prison jobs unable to handle something that non-prison businesses seem to deal with just fine?
Because it's prison, and being in prison will never be anything like a 9 to 5 job.
Kilkrazy wrote: For the perfectly obvious reason that prisoners can't be treated as non-prisoners.
They aren't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: The person who just doesn't like the taste of pork probably doesn't think they're mortal soul is being put in jeopardy if they're forced to eat it, and won't suffer the psychological duress that comes from that.
No, but they may suffer the duress of "eat this thing that makes me want to vomit, or go hungry". Or a vegetarian prisoner might have to suffer the distress of participating in the murder of an animal for the convenience of the prison system.
Someone might not like pork, but if that's all they got then they can suck it up. They're in prison and not liking pork is not a valid argument for tax payers to foot the bill of increased logistics for a diverse menu that allows everyone to eat whatever $5 meal they choose.
That's a nice straw man there. I am not advocating that everyone should be able to get any meal they choose. There's likely a fairly straightforward middle ground of providing a small menu of items, such that anyone with a specific "I won't eat that" objection to a particular item can still get a meal.
Why are we incurring the costs of providing everything to everyone even if it has nothing to do with their belief system?
Because you're already incurring that cost. There are a whole lot of religious prisoners whose religions beyond dispute even in this thread. So if you're willing to pay $X for one prisoner's religious needs then why does it matter what particular religion you're paying $X for? Rather than trying to determine whether or not a religion is legitimate or not simply allow each prisoner a fixed budget of $X which they can use to provide their religious items.
Further, how are we going to gauge the reasonableness of future requests that fall outside your "one size fits all" allowance system, except to do exactly what just happened in the OP article?
The same way you already gauge the reasonableness of future requests. A prisoner who requests a loaded machine gun is not going to get it, no matter how many bible verses they can cite in support of their request. You simply ask the question "is it reasonable for a prisoner to have this", and if the answer is yes then you grant the request regardless of your opinion of the reason for making it.
Because it's prison, and being in prison will never be anything like a 9 to 5 job.
In what way does this matter in this specific situation? You can't just say "it's not a 9 to 5 job" and assume that it means there must be some kind of impossible obstacle.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.
And they still do, under the system I proposed.
It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.
Then improve the budget or reduce the number of prisoners. In fact, I would consider significantly increasing the costs of prison to be a good thing, as it would make the state a lot less willing to put people in prison for things like possession of drugs for personal use. Keeping someone in prison should be expensive and difficult enough that it is reserved for people who legitimately need to be kept away from the rest of society, not people whose main offense is being a convenient scapegoat for "tough on crime" politicians.
Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?
Why do you think that posting an obvious straw man argument like this is ok? You have presumably read my posts, and you know that nowhere in them have I said that prisoners should have the same freedoms and choices as people who aren't prisoners. In fact I have explicitly stated that they shouldn't, complete with specific examples of things that non-prisoners can do but prisoners can't.
Kilkrazy wrote: You should start your own prison company and enact all these reforms.
Is that really your only response to my argument? I mean, if you don't want to discuss the subject with me any further that's fine, but there are much better ways of saying so.
Kilkrazy wrote: You should start your own prison company and enact all these reforms.
Is that really your only response to my argument? I mean, if you don't want to discuss the subject with me any further that's fine, but there are much better ways of saying so.
I don't want to discuss the subject with you any more.
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, it isn't a religion, so the court made a right decision.
Otherwise anyone could make up a movement with ridiculous ideas and get protection as a religion. This status should be restricted to movements with (ridiculous) ideas people actually believe in.
Scientology is a bet so its gambling and not a religion, Christianity uses other works so its closer to copyright infringement.
The odds are that there are only 2 meal choices: meat and vegetarian. Most people get meat, those with special dietary requirements get vegetarian. That should satisfy all of the religious groups. They won't do a kosher, halal and vegetarian option when a vegetarian option covers all 3.
People with allergies may be treated differently in some way, but that's a medical concern and not a preference.
Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.
Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.
It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.
Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?
They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.
It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.
Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?
They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.
I'm not sure denying a person the right to wear pirate garb is treating them like an animal, but that's just me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.
It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.
Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?
They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.
I'm not sure denying a person the right to wear pirate garb is treating them like an animal, but that's just me.
the current subject was how we feed prisoners, and how it's not unreasonable to offer a varied menu. Feeding them slop that's been marked 'not fit for human consumption' is treating them like animals.
NEW ZEALAND – Donned in eye-patches and a spaghetti bridal headdress, two New Zealanders have celebrated the first legally recognized “Pastafarian” marriage on board a pirate ship, in a milestone of recognition for the bizarre global “religion.”
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose stated beliefs are in a god made of spaghetti, have amassed followers around the world.
The group initially formed as a sarcastic criticism of Christian creationist teachings at schools in the United States.
“We decided to do a pirate wedding mainly because it shows respect to the Pastafarian faith. Pastafarianism believes that all humans are descendants of pirates,” groom Toby Ricketts said alongside bride Marianna Fenn.
Followers who wear colanders on their heads and revere pirates insist that they are not a spoof church and that their beliefs are genuine. The group also celebrates holidays such as ‘Talk like a pirate day.’
New Zealand’s government earlier this month agreed to an application from member Karen Martyn to become a legal marriage celebrant after the group was deemed to comply with the country’s regulations.
“Does ye take this feisty wench to be yah lawfully wedded best mate? Does yea promise to stay at the helm even when seas are rough?” Karen Martyn, and self-declared “Ministeroni” asked the couple.
Martyn told reporters that many more Pastafarian weddings were being planned.
Religious freedom and how people are treated in Prison. The two are intertwined by one word. "Freedom"
If you are in prison, you should not have any. Particularly if you are there for a violent crime.This is part of prison reform and getting people out of prison for things they shouldn't be there for in the first place. Like smoking pot for example.
Yes, they should be fed things that re for human consumption, but criminals are treated better than the homeless in the USA. And the veterans. And the elderly. Some of those people don't get fed three squares a day, have a place to exercise daily, have a warm bed to sleep in or a roof over their heads.
The real question I have is why should we care so much about a criminal's religious beliefs and waste tax dollars in court for something like this?
Throw them on an island and let them fend for themselves.
Religious freedom and how people are treated in Prison. The two are intertwined by one word. "Freedom"
If you are in prison, you should not have any. Particularly if you are there for a violent crime.This is part of prison reform and getting people out of prison for things they shouldn't be there for in the first place. Like smoking pot for example.
Yes, they should be fed things that re for human consumption, but criminals are treated better than the homeless in the USA. And the veterans. And the elderly. Some of those people don't get fed three squares a day, have a place to exercise daily, have a warm bed to sleep in or a roof over their heads.
The real question I have is why should we care so much about a criminal's religious beliefs and waste tax dollars in court for something like this?
Throw them on an island and let them fend for themselves.
I hear the government wants to seal off Manhattan to create a prison island.
There is the base assumption that prisoners have reduced rights compared to non-prisoners. For instance, they have less rights regarding searches and seizures. (More searches and seizures are considered 'lawful'.)
The government cannot institutionalize religion, which primarily means they cannot set up a State Church. This has been expanded over time separating Church and State further. At the foundation of the U.S. there were some States with State Churches, the main thing was there so that the Federal Government wouldn't be showing favoritism to one State or another.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that you can do anything you want based on religious preferences. You cannot cut people's hearts out because the sun got the munchies or burn babies alive (though, that could have only existed in Roman propaganda). You could also look at restrictions on Islamic or Mormon polygamy for a less extreme example.
A lot of religious freedoms are granted based on how onerous it will be to allow them. A conscientious objector will probably not be that effective of a soldier anyway (unless he happens to hold the rank of sergeant and has a last name of York) but he can still drive a truck or work in a hospital. If Jews or Muslims want to hack off part of a baby's wienie and enough doctors say there are no negative medical effects (and perhaps some benefits) they can allow that. If a Christian wants to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", well, I'm sure the IRS will be more than happy in facilitating this arrangement! If you want to mutilate a girl's parts with major medical complications or want the state to pay for your pirate costume, you might run into some opposition.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.
Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.
I don't even disagree with you. Except in the case that concessions are considered unreasonable because they come from a "joke" religion as opposed to a "real" one. Any unreasonable request should be denied of course.
The more you keep in mind what the case was about, which was the alleged denial of his right to practice his religion, the more the standard makes sense.
If you have to go through a set of mental gymnastics to create an argument, it's not a very strong argument. It's easy to write a decision discounting something that you find nonsensical while discounting anything someone says by simply saying, "I don't think you adequately described what your belief is." I am perfectly capable of sitting in any church/synagogue and listening to a sermon then standing up and stating that what I just heard was claptrap and the religious leader did not provide me with substantial information on their beliefs. It's a subjective statement; I'm applying my own measurement of what I think a "seriously held belief" entails rather than just nodding and saying, "I can see you hold a belief." SCOTUS ruled out such strict scrutiny when it moved from the Sherbert Principal (somewhat).
I recommend that you look into the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for more relevant casework. Specifically, Cutter v. Wilkinson would be relevant here since one of the plaintiffs was a member of some pseudo-Chrsitian sect (The White Supremacist Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that had like 5 members (not literally but certainly less than FSM).
The point made by SCOTUS is that it's not the government's business to decide what is or isn't a religion.
Polonius wrote: What exactly is a judge supposed to do with a claim like the plaintiff submitted? It didn't articulate what he wanted, or why he was deserved it. A legal claim needs to have a basis. Courts will usually bend over backwards to find such a claim for a pro se plaintiff, but sometimes there just isn't' a claim on which relief can be granted.
I expect them to follow established SCOTUS decisions. Clearly, to me at least, RLUIPA applies as long as the prison is in receipt of federal funds. If it's not, there's more latitude.
Suffering was one of my points. The law simply does not allow a person to create their own religion, and then expect to receive all the benefits. That might sound harsh, but the right to religion is based not on some aspect of identity politics, but because religious beliefs have always, and probably will always, have enormous influence on the believer.
Please cite your reference because the RLUIPA very clearly does allow people to create their own religion:
“religious exercise” to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief
Again, case law clearly states that it's nobody's business what someone believes.
This isn't a persecuted religion. It's a group of people that are using the trappings of religion to make a really good point, but it's just not a religion from any philosophical or legal standard.
Who are you to judge what is or isn't a religion. As I've stated repeatedly, I could easily stand up and refute, on a factual, historical basis, every tenet of every "established" religion. People have the freedom, whether they are or are not incarcerated, to believe what they want and practice their religion. This country was founded on the belief that people should be able to practice whatever religion they choose to. Later laws were passed to ensure that "religion" was as loosely defined as possible. You, me, or the courts do not have the right to decide what is or isn't a religion which is why caselaw completely hinges on "seriously held belief" of plaintiffs rather than attempting to determine whether something is a factual religion.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.
Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.
I don't even disagree with you. Except in the case that concessions are considered unreasonable because they come from a "joke" religion as opposed to a "real" one. Any unreasonable request should be denied of course.
Now you're setting up a case where the state gets to decide what religions are real religions. given the 42,000 different types of christian churches, which one is the real one? Catholicism? so if your not a catholic you belong to a fake religion and any requests from them should be deemed unreasonable out of hand?
what you're suggesting is giving preferential treatment to those who share your religion.
Kilkrazy wrote: Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.
It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.
Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?
They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.
If you treat them like vegans, you don't need to buy them meat , thereby avoiding a ton of religious dietary shenanigans.
Krusty Brand imitation gruel for all.
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
Respectfully, I don't think it's accurate at all. You appear to be arguing that not all religious beliefs can be reasonably accommodated, which is of course true and I agree with; the example of a Sikk in prison being denied the kirpan is an obvious and fair one.
This case, however, clearly was a judge ruling that Pastafarianism wasn't a "real" religion, unambiguously. He wasn't denied the headgear because it wasn't a reasonable accommodation, he was denied it because it was ruled that it wasn't a real religion.
The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of
the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a
parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life,
and the place of religion in public education. 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." Nor, the Court finds, has Cavanaugh sufficiently alleged how
the exercise of his "religion" has been substantially burdened. The Court will
grant the defendants' motion to dismiss
And you know what? He's not wrong. The idea that the FSM was a parody used to mock some religious advantages is totally true, and wasn't really even in dispute. As such, I think this was the right ruling - you have the founder himself saying it's satire.
That being said, it's a pretty unsettling idea that the state is now going to be ruling on what is a religion, and what is a "religion", complete with arbitrary metrics formed fully out of cloth by the state. That's why I am so unhappy with all these bathroom bills and other backdoor attempts to legalize religious discrimination - these laws are setting a really dangerous precedent, but not in the obvious way, rather they are opening the door for the courts to decide what a sincerely held religious belief is, or isn't.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.
Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
Respectfully, I don't think it's accurate at all. You appear to be arguing that not all religious beliefs can be reasonably accommodated, which is of course true and I agree with; the example of a Sikk in prison being denied the kirpan is an obvious and fair one.
This case, however, clearly was a judge ruling that Pastafarianism wasn't a "real" religion, unambiguously. He wasn't denied the headgear because it wasn't a reasonable accommodation, he was denied it because it was ruled that it wasn't a real religion.
The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of
the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a
parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life,
and the place of religion in public education. 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." Nor, the Court finds, has Cavanaugh sufficiently alleged how
the exercise of his "religion" has been substantially burdened. The Court will
grant the defendants' motion to dismiss
And you know what? He's not wrong. The idea that the FSM was a parody used to mock some religious advantages is totally true, and wasn't really even in dispute. As such, I think this was the right ruling - you have the founder himself saying it's satire.
That being said, it's a pretty unsettling idea that the state is now going to be ruling on what is a religion, and what is a "religion", complete with arbitrary metrics formed fully out of cloth by the state. That's why I am so unhappy with all these bathroom bills and other backdoor attempts to legalize religious discrimination - these laws are setting a really dangerous precedent, but not in the obvious way, rather they are opening the door for the courts to decide what a sincerely held religious belief is, or isn't.
I agree, though as mentioned earlier the legal precedent can be set by this decision. I recommend those in this discussion not get hung-up on Pastafarianism but look at the bigger picture. We have a judge who has arbitrarily decided what is and is not a religion, contrary to federal law on the matter. We also have the same judge arbitrarily deciding what constitutes "sufficiently" describing how the plaintiff's religion has been burdened, creating a situation by which any court may deny request for religious observance based solely on an individual's ability or capacity to espouse their beliefs. Where do you draw a line? Is there a line? Not even the SCOTUS goes as far as to define religious beliefs nor has Congress but this judge took it upon himself to do so.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.
Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.
There is an actual sect of Christianity that says that Jesus only loves white people. Is it a religion? Who decides? It's plainly a vehicle to push a racist agenda yet was protected by the SCOTUS. Who decides what a religion is? You? Existing law even states:
“religious exercise” to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief
By that federal definition, all that is required is a belief by a person that they are performing a religious exercise.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.
Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.
It has become one though, it doesn't matter how it started. People have a deeply held belief that the FSM is real. Also with the Jedi becoming a recognized religion, now its the pastafarians time to become the religion it deserves to be.
The Temple of the Jedi Order is a registered church and non-profit in Texas[11] and their clergy are registered and ordained in Texas. The USA military allows Jedi to be listed as your religion on dog tags.10
“What’s on Your Dog Tags“. army.mil. Retrieved Oct 27, 2015.
“About Us“. templeofthejediorder.org. Retrieved Oct 28, 2015.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and they've been declared a "real religion" in the netherlands.
Peregrine wrote: But why isn't that reasonable? Why is it so important to feed every prisoner the same food unless they can provide a reason that satisfies your personal standards? Why is "I hate the taste of pork" any less valid than "my religion doesn't let me eat pork"? If you have the capacity to provide the alternative meal to an inmate with a religious objection then you have the capacity to provide it to one with a non-religious objection.
I think you're really failing to think through how institutions operate. There is very little scope for special treatment, food, bedding, routines, everything is aimed to be one size fits all. It isn't just cheaper that way, it's also the only way you can keep organised and supplied, the only way that the bureaucracy can operate.
Any time you step outside that creates way more hassle than you can imagine. If you don't get that instinctively, then just think about cooking yourself a steak, its easier to cook it how you like it. Then consider hosting a dinner party for 12, and asking everyone how they like they their steaks. Now you've got to record each request, plan when to start each steak, and track who is getting each steak. Now consider having three dinner parties a day for 1,000 prisoners. It shouldn't be any surprise they stick to one pot recipes.
As such you have to put a limit on any variation from the norm. And so you need a really good reason to break from that norm. Religious practice is a good reason, because obviously its more important than a simple preference.
Why are prison jobs unable to handle something that non-prison businesses seem to deal with just fine?
Probably because they're prisons. I know employees goof off from time to time and you have to keep an eye for them, but it really is not the same thing as people imprisoned against their will who must be supervised by armed guards.
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.
Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.
It has become one though, it doesn't matter how it started. People have a deeply held belief that the FSM is real. Also with the Jedi becoming a recognized religion, now its the pastafarians time to become the religion it deserves to be.
The Temple of the Jedi Order is a registered church and non-profit in Texas[11] and their clergy are registered and ordained in Texas. The USA military allows Jedi to be listed as your religion on dog tags.10
“What’s on Your Dog Tags“. army.mil. Retrieved Oct 27, 2015.
“About Us“. templeofthejediorder.org. Retrieved Oct 28, 2015.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and they've been declared a "real religion" in the netherlands.
I agree. IMO Jedi, Pastafarians, and Christians, and Muslims are all on the same level. They are all religions. Equally silly and deserve equal treatment and recognition. As does anyone elses made up religion. If that twerks a nerve with you...maybe move to a country that doesn't have freedom of religion in it's constitution.
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.
Which is exactly what Scientology is. Based on the novel Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard. I consider it a novel. Other consider it Gospel. What's the difference here?
Kilkrazy wrote: Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.
This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.
All professed religions that might be imaginable cannot be accommodated, so there has to be some discrimination. In our current social system, that is done by the process of law and is largely administered by judges. Mr Pasta can if he likes fight his case all the way up to the Supreme Court. If he truly believes, no doubt he will persist with it, and his devotion will impress the court.
All religious exercises to my knowledge are grounded on works of fiction. That statement is a strange one... it operates with the clear assumption that other religions are not grounded in works of fiction, which to me is a somewhat unnerving viewpoint for a lawman to have. It's discriminatory for an uncertain reason, not objective.
That's what bothers me about all this. There is no literal difference between religiously believing in the Christian god and religiously believing in Superman. The difference is only cultural.
That's exactly the point of FSMism. The only thing that sets it apart is how few people legitimize behaviour inspired by it compared to other religions.
Can anyone say religions aren't grounded in works of fiction? That kinda seems to be a defining feature of them, throughout the ages.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.
Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.
The Catholic church allows non-alcoholic wine (mustum) to be used in situations where alcohol is prohibited.
I love watching non-lawyers debate this stuff. It's almost as good as the legal articles written by non-lawyers that fail to grasp the reasoning behind a ruling.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
As an attorney, and through the simple fact that you're commenting on the matter, I would hope that you're aware of the test that federal case law requires when it comes to "reasonable" accommodation. If it were determined that the absence of filet mignon placed an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice their religion, I would assume that they would have an actionable case.
In the instance of this story, it would have been simple for the judge to rule that the absence of pirate garb did not place an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice his religion. Instead he went beyond the scope of the litigation to question the legitimacy of the plaintiff's religion (a no-no) and the plaintiff's ability to adequately profess his beliefs. Both of these are a slippery slope as they could be contested in further court proceedings. This is further compounded if the jail/prison is in receipt of federal funds and therefor held to the standards outlined in the religious land use and institutionalized persons act (rluipa). I don't know if this is the case in this particular prison setting but it's something to consider.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
As an attorney, and through the simple fact that you're commenting on the matter, I would hope that you're aware of the test that federal case law requires when it comes to "reasonable" accommodation. If it were determined that the absence of filet mignon placed an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice their religion, I would assume that they would have an actionable case.
In the instance of this story, it would have been simple for the judge to rule that the absence of pirate garb did not place an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice his religion. Instead he went beyond the scope of the litigation to question the legitimacy of the plaintiff's religion (a no-no) and the plaintiff's ability to adequately profess his beliefs. Both of these are a slippery slope as they could be contested in further court proceedings. This is further compounded if the jail/prison is in receipt of federal funds and therefor held to the standards outlined in the religious land use and institutionalized persons act (rluipa). I don't know if this is the case in this particular prison setting but it's something to consider.
This illustrates my point beautifully. The average person has no idea why a judge rules the way he/she does.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
As an attorney, and through the simple fact that you're commenting on the matter, I would hope that you're aware of the test that federal case law requires when it comes to "reasonable" accommodation. If it were determined that the absence of filet mignon placed an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice their religion, I would assume that they would have an actionable case.
In the instance of this story, it would have been simple for the judge to rule that the absence of pirate garb did not place an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice his religion. Instead he went beyond the scope of the litigation to question the legitimacy of the plaintiff's religion (a no-no) and the plaintiff's ability to adequately profess his beliefs. Both of these are a slippery slope as they could be contested in further court proceedings. This is further compounded if the jail/prison is in receipt of federal funds and therefor held to the standards outlined in the religious land use and institutionalized persons act (rluipa). I don't know if this is the case in this particular prison setting but it's something to consider.
This illustrates my point beautifully. The average person has no idea why a judge rules the way he/she does.
So, not going to actually contribute? The rude undertones of your posts illustrate a number of points regarding attorneys beautifully.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
Actually that's about word for word the same standards for meals the military has. No pork now, that's just inhumane and the military at least will server up the bacon. Trust me I used to be a sailor in the US Navy. So the christians have to give up ham because of other peoples religion? sounds like the jail is playing favorites with the religions.
Apparently it's quite easy to start up a church, John Oliver did a segment on it and had his studio declared his church and the audience was his flock.
Yes it's quite amazing people find religion while incarcerated, it's almost as if the parole panel looked favorably upon inmates who join into their religion. Which is also the heart of this matter, if you make allowances for some peoples religion while dismissing others outright, the prison is opening itself up for legal trouble. As a layman in the legal area, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that point. One of the things he asked for, that other religions get was a place to worship, a simple request really that is already granted to other religions.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
As an attorney, and through the simple fact that you're commenting on the matter, I would hope that you're aware of the test that federal case law requires when it comes to "reasonable" accommodation. If it were determined that the absence of filet mignon placed an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice their religion, I would assume that they would have an actionable case.
In the instance of this story, it would have been simple for the judge to rule that the absence of pirate garb did not place an undue burden on the plaintiff's ability to practice his religion. Instead he went beyond the scope of the litigation to question the legitimacy of the plaintiff's religion (a no-no) and the plaintiff's ability to adequately profess his beliefs. Both of these are a slippery slope as they could be contested in further court proceedings. This is further compounded if the jail/prison is in receipt of federal funds and therefor held to the standards outlined in the religious land use and institutionalized persons act (rluipa). I don't know if this is the case in this particular prison setting but it's something to consider.
This illustrates my point beautifully. The average person has no idea why a judge rules the way he/she does.
So, not going to actually contribute? The rude undertones of your posts illustrate a number of points regarding attorneys beautifully.
The legal standard that you have already formed your opinion on how should be construed has a lot more going on than you or the journalists that write about cases know about. My point, and my contribution is just that. The fact of the matter is, despite what arm chair judges think, is the man/woman in the black robes has the only opinion worth the physical effort of expelling said opinion into the world. And this is for good reason, and why I get a kick out of threads like this. I've went through this with clients, who much like you are so convinced they're right until they get to hearing/trial and they realized they should have listened after the judge ruled. Most people don't realize how complicated and nuanced the law is, and the "wealth" of information on the internet is partially to blame. Nothing makes me happier than a criminal that thinks he understands how to suppress evidence or get his case summarily dismissed based on his limited understanding of the legal profession. But by all means, don't listen to me. Demand strict and absolute adherence to the reasonable accommodation rule, because it's that simple . . . until it gets in front of someone whose opinion actually matters. Just like in this case.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
I don't understand what you're saying - can you explain it a little more? (I'm not a lawyer).
Monkey Tamer wrote: Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
I don't understand what you're saying - can you explain it a little more? (I'm not a lawyer).
I'm not a lawyer and I understand what he's saying, which is that we've clearly been doing religion wrong this entire time because there isn't one that requires the faithful to eat good ass steaks or lobster every day.
No, sorry - still not getting it. Why couldn't you just claim that eating steak every day is a religious belief? I think there is a major, major loophole here. A delicious loophole!
To be clear, I didn't go to law school, so maybe there is something I'm missing.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm a prosecutor. Every time one of my friends finds an article about a recent ruling I can usually find something that the journalist failed to report or did not understand. Usually this is limited to Supreme Court and Illinois decisions. My Westlaw subscription only covers those jurisdictions. It's kind of like a journalist reporting on tech. With law the devil is in the details, and those little details are often left out in the name of party politics or sensationalism.
In regards to the jail meals, Illinois has minimum guidelines for the content and caloric intake that must be given to inmates. I'm also legal counsel on civil matters to county elected officials, and put together the bid package for our jail meal provider. Inmates must be given a beverage other than water, and at least one meal must be hot per day. This puts them above the standard that has to be given to United States military. Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
Actually that's about word for word the same standards for meals the military has. No pork now, that's just inhumane and the military at least will server up the bacon. Trust me I used to be a sailor in the US Navy. So the christians have to give up ham because of other peoples religion? sounds like the jail is playing favorites with the religions.
Apparently it's quite easy to start up a church, John Oliver did a segment on it and had his studio declared his church and the audience was his flock.
Yes it's quite amazing people find religion while incarcerated, it's almost as if the parole panel looked favorably upon inmates who join into their religion. Which is also the heart of this matter, if you make allowances for some peoples religion while dismissing others outright, the prison is opening itself up for legal trouble. As a layman in the legal area, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that point. One of the things he asked for, that other religions get was a place to worship, a simple request really that is already granted to other religions.
I was in the Marines, and the inmates in Illinois jails are fed better than I was, which was sometimes not at all. There is no requirement to provide pork, so for the sake of keeping costs down it isn't offered. Don't take what John Oliver says on his show about the legal system as the gospel truth. I watched his segment about public defenders. If he only knew how many high dollar defense attorneys charge a mint to plea you out as fast as possible. In defense practice, that's the quickest to make money. In all the counties I've worked I'd take the public defender over private any day. It's all just a dog and pony show. Your conviction record isn't their concern. Their business is. When certain attorneys appear for defendants I know I'll have an easy case. I'll toss them an offer and they'll sell it to their client. The public defender is much better at catching the tiny things that can sink the State's case. Public defenders being worthless is about as true as the liberal media saying we're incarcerating people only for personal use amounts of marijuana.
d-usa wrote: Today I learned that according to attorneys, attorneys don't understand what they are talking about. So there is that.
When it comes to constitutional law? yeah, actually, that's about right.
Hell, most attorneys don't know much about the law outside of their area of practice. No offense, but we learn something in those three years of school. And one of the first things is that impulse that says "but it shouldn't be that way."
A good attorney knows how things are, first and foremost.
This discussion is partly about law but perhaps more about ethics.
People are not really discussing whether the judge was right in law to slap down Mr Pasta. They are interested in what this means in terms of the rights of religious people to be recognised and get special treatment (or the same treatment as anyone else) as a result.
The law doesn't make things right. It lays down certain standards and procedures according to the general opinions of society. These opinions of course may change (e.g. Gay Marriage) and the law then has to follow suit.
The law doesn't make things right. It lays down certain standards and procedures according to the general opinions of society. These opinions of course may change (e.g. Gay Marriage) and the law then has to follow suit.
Monkey Tamer wrote: Imagine if we entertained the notion that someone's religion required them to eat filet mignon or lobster every meal. My jail meal provider doesn't include any pork products to avoid complications involving jews and muslims. It's amazing how many people find religion while incarcerated. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If everyone can make up a religion I'll be sure to declare my house a religious structure. Goodbye property taxes. I'm sure nothing bad could ever come of this (sarcasm).
I don't understand what you're saying - can you explain it a little more? (I'm not a lawyer).
it's actually a pretty common practice for some people to declare that they belong to a church that meets at their house, making their house a religious structure, and thus immune from property taxation. Further, as the minister of that church, they are allowed to reside there without the impugned rent being taxable under the parsonage exemption. No matter how badly you believe that your the priest of your little religion, courts aren't going to allow everybody to do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: This discussion is partly about law but perhaps more about ethics.
People are not really discussing whether the judge was right in law to slap down Mr Pasta. They are interested in what this means in terms of the rights of religious people to be recognised and get special treatment (or the same treatment as anyone else) as a result.
The law doesn't make things right. It lays down certain standards and procedures according to the general opinions of society. These opinions of course may change (e.g. Gay Marriage) and the law then has to follow suit.
The problem is that they're looking at this decision like it means something about the latter. It really, really doesn't. It's an incredibly fact specific dismissal at the lowest possible level. It says about as much about the constitutional rights of minority religions as a speeding ticket does about transportation policy.
For those of you wanting answers as to how could he (insert ridiculous notion here)? read the judge's opinion. There's a link in the article to it. It's at the lowest level of federal opinions. It won't bind anyone, but it lays the ground work to avoid being overturned. I'm willing to bet if you are incarcerated and demand the government pay for strippers to dance for you as part of your sabbath, your lawsuit will be dismissed. But hey, I'm just a lawyer. I only keep my local jail out of trouble. I've never dealt with this sort of thing before. And I do think religion is one of the last vestiges of barbarism our society clings to.
Ouze wrote: No, sorry - still not getting it. Why couldn't you just claim that eating steak every day is a religious belief? I think there is a major, major loophole here.
To be clear, I didn't go to law school, so maybe there is something I'm missing.
I have been a nurse for a very long time, and I am currently in the process of completing my thesis for graduate school. My thesis covers the relationship between nutrition and spirituality and the effects it has on the physical and emotional health of practitioners. There is a lot of literature out there suggesting a relationship between spirituality and how it might possibly enhance the nutritional benefits of certain foods simply by following dietary restrictions. It isn't very clear yet if a strong spirit-mind connection, such as the one created by faithfully following religions dietary restrictions, allows the body to be more efficient when it comes to absorbing micro and macro nutrients from foods, or if the process of mindful eating releases endorphins that improve the wellness of religious practitioners. This goes all the way back to biblical times where there is archaeological evidence that the Tribes of Israel that followed dietary laws had improved health and life expectancy than the populations around them, even if they shared the same dietary patterns. Non-Jewish people traveling with the tribes, who followed the same diet because they had to and not because they believed in it, did not show the same health benefits.
Now I realize that this is all highly technical research, and that a non-medical person wouldn't understand it, but my question for the more legal-minded people is this:
If my religion requires me to eat Steak & Lobster, and the evidence shows that my mental and physical health will suffer if I don't, wouldn't it fall under the 8th Amendment as well as the 1st?
Again, I realize that the research might seem pretty nonsensical to people that aren't trained in the same area of expertise as me, so I appreciate if any responses could just focus on the actual impact of my research might have on prisoners and their religious accommodations as it impact their physical health and not on the merits of my research itself.
Please and thank you.
Again: I'm just a medical professional and not a lawyer.
d-usa wrote: Today I learned that according to attorneys, attorneys don't understand what they are talking about. So there is that.
When it comes to constitutional law? yeah, actually, that's about right.
Hell, most attorneys don't know much about the law outside of their area of practice. No offense, but we learn something in those three years of school. And one of the first things is that impulse that says "but it shouldn't be that way."
A good attorney knows how things are, first and foremost.
I actually ran into this the other day. A patient's family member who is a lawyer was somehow a specialist on everything, even though we never figured out what exactly his area of practice was. What we did know was that he walked into his brothers room, had his brother sign a weird medical power of attorney that he typed up and printed himself instead of using the actual form supplied by the state for that purpose or the federal form that we accept, then he had his wife notarize it, and then he handed it to us declaring himself the POA and deciding that he can now make whatever decision he wants. When questioned about the fact that the State of Oklahoma has very specific statutory language required for a MPOA, that his brother is still able to make his own decisions, and the possible legal or ethical implications of having his wife notarize something giving him full control over his brother his only reply was "I'm a lawyer, I know what I'm doing."
The way I see it lawyers are like nurses (or physicians even): We get very shallow and broad training covering a ton of stuff that we will never ever see or use again for the rest of our careers. We have a very basic understanding of many things. We have a very deep understanding of the particular area we practice in. And we have no clue about a ton of stuff that is way outside of area of practice.
d-usa wrote: If my religion requires me to eat Steak & Lobster, and the evidence shows that my mental and physical health will suffer if I don't, wouldn't it fall under the 8th Amendment as well as the 1st?
Arguably yes. One problem is that there is no constitutional to "optimal health" while in prison. In practice, they'd just find a cheaper alternative, and offer that. Inmate health would improve without sharing an enclosed space with dozens of other men, but nobody has been able to use the 8th to get out of jail because they're more likely to contract TB or Hep.
Again, I realize that the research might seem pretty nonsensical to people that aren't trained in the same area of expertise as me, so I appreciate if any responses could just focus on the actual impact of my research might have on prisoners and their religious accommodations as it impact their physical health and not on the merits of my research itself.
Please and thank you.
Again: I'm just a medical professional and not a lawyer.
I know that when Michael Vick was in prison, one article interviewed an NFL that did time who said that they problem he'd have is getting enough protein to keep his muscle mass. It wasn't a religious issue, but the prison system wasn't worried about keeping an NFL star in game shape. "Not killing them" is generally enough.
The legal standard that you have already formed your opinion on how should be construed has a lot more going on than you or the journalists that write about cases know about. My point, and my contribution is just that. The fact of the matter is, despite what arm chair judges think, is the man/woman in the black robes has the only opinion worth the physical effort of expelling said opinion into the world. And this is for good reason, and why I get a kick out of threads like this. I've went through this with clients, who much like you are so convinced they're right until they get to hearing/trial and they realized they should have listened after the judge ruled. Most people don't realize how complicated and nuanced the law is, and the "wealth" of information on the internet is partially to blame. Nothing makes me happier than a criminal that thinks he understands how to suppress evidence or get his case summarily dismissed based on his limited understanding of the legal profession. But by all means, don't listen to me. Demand strict and absolute adherence to the reasonable accommodation rule, because it's that simple . . . until it gets in front of someone whose opinion actually matters. Just like in this case.
Your point being that we shouldn't discuss things that we find interesting because, according to you, our opinions/thoughts don't matter. Discussions, particularly online discussions, don't work this way. life doesn't equal court and hypotheticals and back and forth conversations are interesting to many of us. Further, discussing subjects that we are not experts on is a method to increase understanding on such subjects.
I'd love to hear you explain to the Office of Civil Rights how all of their requirements shouldn't be strictly adhered to; truly, I'd love to hear you try that. I've dealt with OCR and OIG attorneys for years and they are the most literal people created by whatever infernal entity you care to worship.
d-usa wrote: The way I see it lawyers are like nurses (or physicians even): We get very shallow and broad training covering a ton of stuff that we will never ever see or use again for the rest of our careers. We have a very basic understanding of many things. We have a very deep understanding of the particular area we practice in. And we have no clue about a ton of stuff that is way outside of area of practice.
For the most part, but Lawyers have a huge advantage when they see case law outside of their area of specialty, in that they're trained to read caselaw. So, as a lawyer, my first instinct was to actually read both the complaint, and the court's order. I was able to follow the analysis, see the citations, and I know where to look up key concepts (even in the public domain). In other words, I can think like a lawyer.
And all professions are taught how to approach situations. Look at nurses and physicians: not to over simplify, but nursing is a care based field, that emphasizes the patient. Medicine emphasizes scientific method and a disease based approach. Nurse will focus on making a patient well, a doctor will focus on managing a specific ailment. Law has its own focus.
The legal standard that you have already formed your opinion on how should be construed has a lot more going on than you or the journalists that write about cases know about. My point, and my contribution is just that. The fact of the matter is, despite what arm chair judges think, is the man/woman in the black robes has the only opinion worth the physical effort of expelling said opinion into the world. And this is for good reason, and why I get a kick out of threads like this. I've went through this with clients, who much like you are so convinced they're right until they get to hearing/trial and they realized they should have listened after the judge ruled. Most people don't realize how complicated and nuanced the law is, and the "wealth" of information on the internet is partially to blame. Nothing makes me happier than a criminal that thinks he understands how to suppress evidence or get his case summarily dismissed based on his limited understanding of the legal profession. But by all means, don't listen to me. Demand strict and absolute adherence to the reasonable accommodation rule, because it's that simple . . . until it gets in front of someone whose opinion actually matters. Just like in this case.
Your point being that we shouldn't discuss things that we find interesting because, according to you, our opinions/thoughts don't matter. Discussions, particularly online discussions, don't work this way. life doesn't equal court and hypotheticals and back and forth conversations are interesting to many of us. Further, discussing subjects that we are not experts on is a method to increase understanding on such subjects.
I'd love to hear you explain to the Office of Civil Rights how all of their requirements shouldn't be strictly adhered to; truly, I'd love to hear you try that. I've dealt with OCR and OIG attorneys for years and they are the most literal people created by whatever infernal entity you care to worship.
No, discuss all you want. It's about as interesting as an engineer watching two paper pushing attorneys discuss the merits of a mechanical design. I love watching the facebook discussions when a new search and seizure case comes out and all the potheads think the cops are now powerless. I was giving the caveat that you shouldn't trust what journalists say about the law and their or the internet's interpretation of legal proceedings. Like I said, discuss all you want and fling poo all you want because I won't agree that inmates should be fed whatever they want based upon religious beliefs that are obviously concocted to give them an advantage. Have fun and keep up the entertainment. I'm enjoying it. You wanted to argue the application of a legal rule and apparently think you're right. Go on believing that. You jabbed at me with the "I hope you know as an attorney" line. Welcome to my ignore list.
If enough people said they were Pastafarians nad they actually built churches or Pirate dens or whatever, eventually they would gain legal status. But that will most likely never happen. Unless militant aethiests take up the FSM banner, then stuff would get done.
d-usa wrote: The way I see it lawyers are like nurses (or physicians even): We get very shallow and broad training covering a ton of stuff that we will never ever see or use again for the rest of our careers. We have a very basic understanding of many things. We have a very deep understanding of the particular area we practice in. And we have no clue about a ton of stuff that is way outside of area of practice.
For the most part, but Lawyers have a huge advantage when they see case law outside of their area of specialty, in that they're trained to read caselaw. So, as a lawyer, my first instinct was to actually read both the complaint, and the court's order. I was able to follow the analysis, see the citations, and I know where to look up key concepts (even in the public domain). In other words, I can think like a lawyer.
And all professions are taught how to approach situations. Look at nurses and physicians: not to over simplify, but nursing is a care based field, that emphasizes the patient. Medicine emphasizes scientific method and a disease based approach. Nurse will focus on making a patient well, a doctor will focus on managing a specific ailment. Law has its own focus.
Well said and well explained. Thank you. Based upon your reasoning, I can see where I erred in my argument. My particular problem is that I've had enough legal training and experience to make me dangerous(to myself); my two years of paralegal coursework and experience working for a law firm gave me just enough ammunition to shoot myself with. Oddly, I think more and more about law school these days as my career in education led me into administrative roles at the State and district level which requires me to interact with federal and state law on a daily basis.
I don't mind being wrong. I mind people just saying, "your wrong and it's cute/funny/whatever" without telling me why I'm wrong. Thanks for not being like that.
d-usa wrote: The way I see it lawyers are like nurses (or physicians even): We get very shallow and broad training covering a ton of stuff that we will never ever see or use again for the rest of our careers. We have a very basic understanding of many things. We have a very deep understanding of the particular area we practice in. And we have no clue about a ton of stuff that is way outside of area of practice.
For the most part, but Lawyers have a huge advantage when they see case law outside of their area of specialty, in that they're trained to read caselaw. So, as a lawyer, my first instinct was to actually read both the complaint, and the court's order. I was able to follow the analysis, see the citations, and I know where to look up key concepts (even in the public domain). In other words, I can think like a lawyer.
And all professions are taught how to approach situations. Look at nurses and physicians: not to over simplify, but nursing is a care based field, that emphasizes the patient. Medicine emphasizes scientific method and a disease based approach. Nurse will focus on making a patient well, a doctor will focus on managing a specific ailment. Law has its own focus.
Well said and well explained. Thank you. Based upon your reasoning, I can see where I erred in my argument. My particular problem is that I've had enough legal training and experience to make me dangerous(to myself); my two years of paralegal coursework and experience working for a law firm gave me just enough ammunition to shoot myself with. Oddly, I think more and more about law school these days as my career in education led me into administrative roles at the State and district level which requires me to interact with federal and state law on a daily basis.
I don't mind being wrong. I mind people just saying, "your wrong and it's cute/funny/whatever" without telling me why I'm wrong. Thanks for not being like that.
I know I have probably been guilty of it myself at times, particularly back during our Ebola thread (may the mother's sister's cousin's former roommate rest in peace), but I think that almost all of us agree that there is a pretty good difference in tone between "I have some training, here is what I think is actually happening" and "fething peasants, don't know anything about anything, good thing I'm here now to spread the wealth of my knowledge, now here is the truth and the only truth, so all you idiots stop posting while I adjust my monocle and drink my whisky".
Almost all of our posters are the former kind, you and Polonius included, and the latter kind will figure things out soon enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Interestingly enough, atheism is a protected religious belief.
Atheism and Humanism are both options for having their symbol included on military tombstones provided by the VA, if I recall.
And if people push hard enough, I wouldn't be surprised if would eventually provide a FSM symbol as well. But do they even have one?
SickSix wrote: If enough people said they were Pastafarians nad they actually built churches or Pirate dens or whatever, eventually they would gain legal status. But that will most likely never happen. Unless militant aethiests take up the FSM banner, then stuff would get done.
It's being done, they're even being elected into office.
Christopher Schaeffer, a Pastafarian minister, took his oath of office to join the Pomfret Town Board in New York while sporting the kitchen utensil. 'This may be the first openly Pastafarian sworn into office. For sure, the first to be sworn in wearing a colander,' said faith follower Bobby Henderson.
I tried to get a google shot of the church, they have one,if your not at work and no kids are around, google images 'pastafarian church' It would be hilarious if the olive garden declared that it's religion. It could enjoy being a tax free restaurant and a place of worship for all pastafarians
As a atheist, I couldn't join the FSM church. I love eating spaghetti and that would start to feel like cannibalism. It was weird enough being a catholic and eating jesus every sunday while drinking his blood.
I agree with mokey tamer on this point, always hire and listen to your lawyer. I wasn't about to comment on the whole military and their eating habits so I specified the navy. and if we can eat good for 30 days before taking on more food, than surely the prison system could just as easily feed them better and cater to more than 2 religions. No bacon, that's just horrible. day 30 underway and we're having bacon and eggs for breakfast, or a ham & cheese omelet. Get in good with the cooks and they'll cook extra bacon and keep it warm on slider weds and you can enjoy a nice bacon cheeseburger. Ham isn't just a religious food, it's the ultimate american food. not serving pork products is just unamerican
I know I have probably been guilty of it myself at times, particularly back during our Ebola thread (may the mother's sister's cousin's former roommate rest in peace), but I think that almost all of us agree that there is a pretty good difference in tone between "I have some training, here is what I think is actually happening" and "fething peasants, don't know anything about anything, good thing I'm here now to spread the wealth of my knowledge, now here is the truth and the only truth, so all you idiots stop posting while I adjust my monocle and drink my whisky".
Almost all of our posters are the former kind, you and Polonius included, and the latter kind will figure things out soon enough.
I want a monocle now, thanks.
The point of a discussion board is to, well discuss things. I try to appreciate every opinion that I read here; some I agree with, some I don't, but they all have value if they're relevant to the topic or at least funny.
Atheism is a rejection of the idea of the divine. It answers an unknowable (what is the nature of the divine) with a simple answer: they don't exist. It's a religious belief. It's pretty clearly not a religion, in the sense of an organized sect with a shared creed and rituals, but not all religious beliefs are part of an organized religion.
I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.
A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.
You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.
if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.
There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.
The way I see it lawyers are like nurses (or physicians even): We get very shallow and broad training covering a ton of stuff that we will never ever see or use again for the rest of our careers. We have a very basic understanding of many things. We have a very deep understanding of the particular area we practice in. And we have no clue about a ton of stuff that is way outside of area of practice.
Yes, except every person who is on the internet thinks they know better than the ones who actually practice medicine, law, nursing, etc.
Precisely why I have a mug on my desk that says "Don't confuse your Google search with my Medical Degree".
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.
A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.
If you are going to pursue the idea that all religious and metaphysical thought is simply deciding which fictional story to believe, we can probably end this conversation now.
You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.
Who are you trying to convince here? You've never once pondered if there was a power greater than human? I'm genuinely surprised.
if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.
Not at all. Even if you've never asked the questions, you are aware that they exist. My cat is, so far as I can tell, unaware of questions surrounding the divine.
There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.
Oddly, your brand of atheism is the sort of deep, complex belief structure that's entitled to protection!
Nobody is above the game. You can't stare into the metaphysical abyss, which we all do, and say, "nope, nothing worth thinking about here." Well, you can, but it's a conscious decision to not engage.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but you have beliefs.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.
A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.
You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.
if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.
There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
I don't know. Sometimes I get so depressed about this life that I wonder if it would be better not to have another one afterwards
I'm kind of confused about this. It isn't a deep belief structure... religious people believe in stories contained in their particular books. I think it's a book and a nice piece of fiction and nothing more. That really isn't very deep.
I went to church for a decade. I've spent quite a bit of time pondering things. That doesn't mean I get to throw away rational thought because of any particular mythological tome, and the amount of my peers invested in its belief structure.
I really quite simply don't buy it and that's it. There is nothing else. I don't need to fill a void, I'm not missing anything, I'm a happy person, I just don't buy it. I don't need it. I don't think it helps me understand anything or accomplish anything. I don't see a use for it. It's a story.
Why do you think my "belief structure" is deep or complex and needs protection? I mean I take alot of flak for being an atheist but I don't think I should be protected any more or less than anyone else is. Believing in something is a quality. Not believing in something is not a quality.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.
A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.
You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.
if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.
There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
No, it isn't depressing. Not at all. It isn't like I believe this is the only life I get, it's just all I know for sure and all I can prove so rather than make a way around it I accept what I have.
Even if it was depressing I wouldn't care, or change my mind about it based on that. That would mean the belief is artificial anyways... indulged in only because I felt sad when I thought about the alternative.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
I don't know. Sometimes I get so depressed about this life that I wonder if it would be better not to have another one afterwards
In my wife's religion, Hinduism, we are married for 7 reincarnations. There are fates worse than death or nonexistence.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
No, not at all. You have this life, and you make the most of it. I can see why people would believe in such things, and why people would want such things, but I think it's disingenuous to all humans to think that people need that belief to get on. The point of living isn't to look forward to what happens after you die, but instead to do what you can while you are still alive.
It's like the "no moral basis" thing. I don't need a reward to be a good person, I am a good person because that is the right thing to do. I do it because helping people makes both me and the people I help happier. To think that we need reward to do something is simply insulting to mankind as a whole. (not directed at you in particular, but I've had stuff like that thrown at me before)
As far as atheism goes, I don't think it, in it'self has the same sort of structure as a religion, it's simply the lack of religion. Anti-theism may be the word you (that's non-specific "you") are looking for. I think it should get the same protections as religious beliefs however.
Also, to be extra-transparent on my beliefs, I am atheist, as I don't believe in anything, but I do not deny the possible existence of something either. I simply require proof of why I should do so. I live my life to the best of my abilities and be the best person I can, and if any deity would damn me for that, I wouldn't wish to worship them anyway.
AncientSkarbrand wrote: I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.
A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.
You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.
if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.
There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
It's not depressing. Certain things depress me - not the lack of a god.
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
Live your life and be happy. There is nothing depressing about that to me.
What's depressing for me is the millions of lives that were snuffed out throughout human history in the name of religion. To this day people are murdered every day in the name of religion somewhere on this Earth. THAT'S depressing.
timetowaste85 wrote: What's depressing for me is the millions of lives that were snuffed out throughout human history in the name of religion. To this day people are murdered every day in the name of religion somewhere on this Earth. THAT'S depressing.
I don't think there is anything depressing about a person living their life as they see fit. The only thing any of us really know is that we're alive and experiencing a life.
I'm a radical ecumentalist in that I think everybody gets what they belief should happen to them on death.
feeder wrote: I don't know what worse, a there is no afterlife, or that there is.
I can see pros and cons with either:
Oblivion - pretty terrifying to just not be... but it's not like you'd actually be there to worry about that
Afterlife - yay, more existing... oh but death has a certain liberation to it, suddenly continuing on might get a bit awkward (imagine if you had secrets you took to the grave, now what happens?)
AncientSkarbrand wrote: There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.
It's actually a good thing, as it means atheism is afforded the same respect and freedoms under law that religions have.
What's depressing for me is the millions of lives that were snuffed out throughout human history in the name of religion. To this day people are murdered every day in the name of religion somewhere on this Earth. THAT'S depressing.
Alternatively, one could see that as, "in the name of political goals from influential and trusted figures have convinced otherwise Good people to snuff out lives." I'm not a particularly religious person (I think Agnostic might be the closest term). - Maybe alternatively, "atheist that errs on the side of caution." - I kinda go along the lines of.
"If there's no higher power, then hey, at least I tried to do Good."
"If there's a higher power and they're intrinsically good, try to do Good, because, well, God."
"If there's a higher power and they are intrinsically a big meanie, I'm stuffed anyway."
So, I dunno, I kinda see both sides of things. - I like that 'reasonable measures' thought (the whole, pirate hat, no pirate ship thing that someone said). - Though isn't that often rife with problems when you're not dealing with black and white, "this is allowed, this is not allowed" when it comes to allowed things Legalwise? Overall though, really I kinda fall on the kind of fence of, "prescribing your religion in any way you wish I'd great until it gets to a point of directly negatively impacting others or their safety."
So that's kind of, to use some recent examples on the UK press. "Yes to wearing a cross necklace as an air attendant if other jewellery is allowed. No to wearing it in hospital, where other jewellery is disallowed due to infection reasons."
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
I don't know. Sometimes I get so depressed about this life that I wonder if it would be better not to have another one afterwards
In my wife's religion, Hinduism, we are married for 7 reincarnations. There are fates worse than death or nonexistence.
Cheer up. Odds are that you are on the 7th round already.
I'd just like to point out, in the dispute over whether atheism is a religion or not, the claim originally was that atheism is a protected religious belief from a legal point of view, not a philosophical one. Atheism is not a religion in the philosophical sense, but it still falls into the general category of "belief systems that get legal protection". And the simplest way to grant that protection is just to treat it as a religion, not to invent a whole new category of religion-like things for it.
timetowaste85 wrote: Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.
Why does it matter if it gets depressing? Let me put it this way: imagine your spouse is cheating on you. That's a depressing fact, and you'd probably be happier if you never found out. But it would be a lie to say that your spouse is honest and devoted to you. And the fact that the lie would be a happy fantasy world to live in doesn't make it true. They're still cheating on you, whether you acknowledge it or not.
Same thing with god. It doesn't matter if the truth is happy or depressing, one life is all you get. Make the most of it while you can.
I thought the original point was that a prisoner that didn't know much about Pastafarianism tried to use it to get privileges in jail and a judge found the attempt less than convincing.
The legal standard that you have already formed your opinion on how should be construed has a lot more going on than you or the journalists that write about cases know about. My point, and my contribution is just that. The fact of the matter is, despite what arm chair judges think, is the man/woman in the black robes has the only opinion worth the physical effort of expelling said opinion into the world. And this is for good reason, and why I get a kick out of threads like this. I've went through this with clients, who much like you are so convinced they're right until they get to hearing/trial and they realized they should have listened after the judge ruled. Most people don't realize how complicated and nuanced the law is, and the "wealth" of information on the internet is partially to blame. Nothing makes me happier than a criminal that thinks he understands how to suppress evidence or get his case summarily dismissed based on his limited understanding of the legal profession. But by all means, don't listen to me. Demand strict and absolute adherence to the reasonable accommodation rule, because it's that simple . . . until it gets in front of someone whose opinion actually matters. Just like in this case.
Your point being that we shouldn't discuss things that we find interesting because, according to you, our opinions/thoughts don't matter. Discussions, particularly online discussions, don't work this way. life doesn't equal court and hypotheticals and back and forth conversations are interesting to many of us. Further, discussing subjects that we are not experts on is a method to increase understanding on such subjects.
I'd love to hear you explain to the Office of Civil Rights how all of their requirements shouldn't be strictly adhered to; truly, I'd love to hear you try that. I've dealt with OCR and OIG attorneys for years and they are the most literal people created by whatever infernal entity you care to worship.
That's the problem. Lawyers are too involved after the fact, past the trial and conviction phase. And often, they're either clueless about how things roll on the inside, or they don't care (all they see is dollar signs).
After I got out of police work, I went into corrections. Started as a C.O., and worked my way up to shift sergeant, then to case manager before I was forced into early retirement due to health. And during those years, I was forced to wade through the end results of lawyers in action, or policies implemented to avoid the headaches of lawyers getting in the State's hair because of frivolous lawsuits the inmates tended to cook up over bs.
"Con" isn't just shorthand for "convict". It also relates to the big game they play with the system known as the "Con Game". It's their way of continuously flipping off society and butting heads with the system. They're gonna "show you" that they have "the power", and how, thanks to their manipulation, the system becomes more and more a joke with each passing generation of "cons" being incarcerated. Being locked up gives them all the time in the world to figure out ways to get one over on "The Man" and his establishment.
Even if the State puts it's foot down and tightens up, sooner or later, the inmates are going to get their way. They have access to television. They have access to newspapers. They have access to radios. They keep up with politics and social changes on the outside. In other words, they do their homework. And if they can use it to their advantage, they will. They have nothing but time. And because of past court rulings in various jurisdictions up to Federal, they can get free legal representation while the State has to spend the working man's tax dollars to go through the hoops to deal with the crap.
The various civil liberties, inmates rights groups, non-profits, ministries, and civil rights groups are just more suckers they can play and weapons in their arsenal for the "Con Game". They know that public opinion, no matter which way it goes, can work to their advantage when political idiots and political hucksters get involved. They don't appreciate these so-called "advocates". To them, they're just a joke and people that can benefit them in some way. All that "feel good" crap is just that, and wasted on career criminals that have so easy now, that prison is just a vacation to them since it's nothing to re-adapt to life on the inside.
I'm of the opinion that there should be no special considerations for religious practice in prison, beyond what the inmate can use to practice in private. Because inmates just use it as another way to game the system and cause problems on all levels. Problems that can be kept at minimum, or rubbed out altogether. Like this pathetic lawsuit involving that "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense that cost taxpayers money.
I can't count the number of times on both hands and feet, either through catching them in the act, or finding out through investigation of an incident, that inmates have used church services to pass instructions, conduct gang business, pass contraband, or pass weapons. And more often than not, it's after the fact, because four officers can't catch everything when you have over a hundred inmates attending services (many of them don't even attend services regularly).
When the State was forced to add the American Indian "faith" (which was some crap concocted from watching old Hollywood films, and the writings of self-proclaimed "shamans" from Robeson County) to the list of approved faiths, and they pulled tobacco off of State for both staff and inmates because of the health and liability insurance companies, we had a jump in conversions to this so-called "faith". Why? Because it's practices involved smoking tobacco in a pipe during worship ceremonies. And that provided more paperwork, headaches, and frequent shakedowns of cell blocks (or "pods" as we called them) for staff. The "Con Game" at work.
Every year, when Ramadan rolled around, we had inmates change their "faith" to Islam. And it was usually the same ones who pulled this crap on my watch (when I was a Case Manager, I would have the exact number of forms needed on top of my desks, in every unit, when it rolled around. Waiting for them to show up as regular as clockwork). The reason being that they could eat breakfast earlier and supper later than the main population. The State ended up paying OT to the kitchen staff (especially the civilian staff working for outside contractors), and we had problems with a hostile inmate kitchen crew and turn overs, because they got tired of having to get up at three A.M. to feed what they knew to be a bunch of bullshitters. We always ended up having disciplinary headaches to deal with because of altercations relating to the pissed off kitchen crew.
And after Ramadan ended? Off came the beards and skullcaps. The Korans forgotten until next year. Some even changed faiths again (Rastafarianism was a favorite. They got to wear those big rainbow hats indoors for contraband purposes and to irk us). And because of court rulings on religion and inmates, there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it unless we actually caught them doing something in violation of policy. And even then, we couldn't stop them from continuing "practicing" their so-called "faith".
Prison shouldn't just be a vacation from their "job" (crime), a way to get "free gak", or a carnival for their amusement (with staff as the trained monkeys), or a venue to conduct regular criminal business and make new contacts. And it's shouldn't be a whorehouse-slash-singles match service either.
Prison should be harsh. Prison should be about punishment. Prison should be a place where those who've violated the social contract, by conducting unlawful behavior and enterprises, are locked away from society, enjoying only the basic rights and privileges afforded to those on the outside (hygine,clothing,three hots and a cot, basic and emergency medical treatment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment from the State, safety regulations during work, and protection from sexual assault). Anything else, like luxuries and special privileges, should be at the whim of the system. Like the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
A lot of this crap is why I'm glad that I was forced to retire. It's a reason why I have no faith in the system anymore. It's all about paying lawyers, being thrown under the bus by politicos, appeasing supposed advocacy groups, and coddling criminals, most of whom will never be rehabilitated and will just come right back to the time-honored "cross bar hilton". Most don't even take great pains not to get caught anymore, since prison isn't as harsh and brutal as it used to be. It doesn't mean gak to the career criminal to pull time, since that's just the nature of the beast. Hell, most of these punks don't know what real prison is like, and wouldn't last a week if things were like they were back in the day (according to my uncle, who pulled 30 years in the California penal system for murder, and based on my own experiences).
I wasn't going to post in this thread more than once, because of the last couple of threads I've debated in ended up getting locked, since my views rub people here the wrong way (and the fact that I can be abrasive at times). But this is a topic that interests me, since it applies to personal experiences and my former career.
Then stop putting people in prison for victimless "crimes". Then we can talk about how things need to be harsh punishment. But until then "tough on crime" is nothing more than sadistic brutality.
Then stop putting people in prison for victimless "crimes". Then we can talk about how things need to be harsh punishment. But until then "tough on crime" is nothing more than sadistic brutality.
Then explain to me what you consider a "victimless crime".
Back in my day this thread had a topic. Back in my day it was kept that way.
As interesting a discussion as the 'what is prison for', 'is X crime bad enough' etc argument can be, it really belongs in another thread. So let's keep this thread for its topic and, if either of you feel up for it, feel free to spin off your own on this topic
Your point being that we shouldn't discuss things that we find interesting because, according to you, our opinions/thoughts don't matter. Discussions, particularly online discussions, don't work this way. life doesn't equal court and hypotheticals and back and forth conversations are interesting to many of us. Further, discussing subjects that we are not experts on is a method to increase understanding on such subjects.
I'd love to hear you explain to the Office of Civil Rights how all of their requirements shouldn't be strictly adhered to; truly, I'd love to hear you try that. I've dealt with OCR and OIG attorneys for years and they are the most literal people created by whatever infernal entity you care to worship.
That's the problem. Lawyers are too involved after the fact, past the trial and conviction phase. And often, they're either clueless about how things roll on the inside, or they don't care (all they see is dollar signs).
Spoiler:
After I got out of police work, I went into corrections. Started as a C.O., and worked my way up to shift sergeant, then to case manager before I was forced into early retirement due to health. And during those years, I was forced to wade through the end results of lawyers in action, or policies implemented to avoid the headaches of lawyers getting in the State's hair because of frivolous lawsuits the inmates tended to cook up over bs.
"Con" isn't just shorthand for "convict". It also relates to the big game they play with the system known as the "Con Game". It's their way of continuously flipping off society and butting heads with the system. They're gonna "show you" that they have "the power", and how, thanks to their manipulation, the system becomes more and more a joke with each passing generation of "cons" being incarcerated. Being locked up gives them all the time in the world to figure out ways to get one over on "The Man" and his establishment.
Even if the State puts it's foot down and tightens up, sooner or later, the inmates are going to get their way. They have access to television. They have access to newspapers. They have access to radios. They keep up with politics and social changes on the outside. In other words, they do their homework. And if they can use it to their advantage, they will. They have nothing but time. And because of past court rulings in various jurisdictions up to Federal, they can get free legal representation while the State has to spend the working man's tax dollars to go through the hoops to deal with the crap.
The various civil liberties, inmates rights groups, non-profits, ministries, and civil rights groups are just more suckers they can play and weapons in their arsenal for the "Con Game". They know that public opinion, no matter which way it goes, can work to their advantage when political idiots and political hucksters get involved. They don't appreciate these so-called "advocates". To them, they're just a joke and people that can benefit them in some way. All that "feel good" crap is just that, and wasted on career criminals that have so easy now, that prison is just a vacation to them since it's nothing to re-adapt to life on the inside.
I'm of the opinion that there should be no special considerations for religious practice in prison, beyond what the inmate can use to practice in private. Because inmates just use it as another way to game the system and cause problems on all levels. Problems that can be kept at minimum, or rubbed out altogether. Like this pathetic lawsuit involving that "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense that cost taxpayers money.
I can't count the number of times on both hands and feet, either through catching them in the act, or finding out through investigation of an incident, that inmates have used church services to pass instructions, conduct gang business, pass contraband, or pass weapons. And more often than not, it's after the fact, because four officers can't catch everything when you have over a hundred inmates attending services (many of them don't even attend services regularly).
When the State was forced to add the American Indian "faith" (which was some crap concocted from watching old Hollywood films, and the writings of self-proclaimed "shamans" from Robeson County) to the list of approved faiths, and they pulled tobacco off of State for both staff and inmates because of the health and liability insurance companies, we had a jump in conversions to this so-called "faith". Why? Because it's practices involved smoking tobacco in a pipe during worship ceremonies. And that provided more paperwork, headaches, and frequent shakedowns of cell blocks (or "pods" as we called them) for staff. The "Con Game" at work.
Every year, when Ramadan rolled around, we had inmates change their "faith" to Islam. And it was usually the same ones who pulled this crap on my watch (when I was a Case Manager, I would have the exact number of forms needed on top of my desks, in every unit, when it rolled around. Waiting for them to show up as regular as clockwork). The reason being that they could eat breakfast earlier and supper later than the main population. The State ended up paying OT to the kitchen staff (especially the civilian staff working for outside contractors), and we had problems with a hostile inmate kitchen crew and turn overs, because they got tired of having to get up at three A.M. to feed what they knew to be a bunch of bullshitters. We always ended up having disciplinary headaches to deal with because of altercations relating to the pissed off kitchen crew.
And after Ramadan ended? Off came the beards and skullcaps. The Korans forgotten until next year. Some even changed faiths again (Rastafarianism was a favorite. They got to wear those big rainbow hats indoors for contraband purposes and to irk us). And because of court rulings on religion and inmates, there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it unless we actually caught them doing something in violation of policy. And even then, we couldn't stop them from continuing "practicing" their so-called "faith".
Prison shouldn't just be a vacation from their "job" (crime), a way to get "free gak", or a carnival for their amusement (with staff as the trained monkeys), or a venue to conduct regular criminal business and make new contacts. And it's shouldn't be a whorehouse-slash-singles match service either.
Prison should be harsh. Prison should be about punishment. Prison should be a place where those who've violated the social contract, by conducting unlawful behavior and enterprises, are locked away from society, enjoying only the basic rights and privileges afforded to those on the outside (hygine,clothing,three hots and a cot, basic and emergency medical treatment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment from the State, safety regulations during work, and protection from sexual assault). Anything else, like luxuries and special privileges, should be at the whim of the system. Like the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
A lot of this crap is why I'm glad that I was forced to retire. It's a reason why I have no faith in the system anymore. It's all about paying lawyers, being thrown under the bus by politicos, appeasing supposed advocacy groups, and coddling criminals, most of whom will never be rehabilitated and will just come right back to the time-honored "cross bar hilton". Most don't even take great pains not to get caught anymore, since prison isn't as harsh and brutal as it used to be. It doesn't mean gak to the career criminal to pull time, since that's just the nature of the beast. Hell, most of these punks don't know what real prison is like, and wouldn't last a week if things were like they were back in the day (according to my uncle, who pulled 30 years in the California penal system for murder, and based on my own experiences).
I wasn't going to post in this thread more than once, because of the last couple of threads I've debated in ended up getting locked, since my views rub people here the wrong way (and the fact that I can be abrasive at times). But this is a topic that interests me, since it applies to personal experiences and my former career.
Thank you for sharing; you present an interesting viewpoint, one from inside the prisons themselves, that we lacked earlier in the discussion. I actually find myself agreeing with your opinion that accommodations should only be made to the point where inmates are able to practice their chosen religion privately rather than allowing for proselytizing...though thinking about it, don't some religions require that practice? There's no easy answer in such a thorny topic.
Ahtman wrote: I thought the original point was that a prisoner that didn't know much about Pastafarianism tried to use it to get privileges in jail and a judge found the attempt less than convincing.
I read the entire ruling from the judge and that is the impression I got. The plaintiff also didn't seem to know the law either - cannot use the federal act for monetary damages, qualified immunity, he didn't show substantial burden, etc. The judge also admitted it was a sticky issue and I did not get the impression that he was trying to lay the groundwork for instituting the Inquisition into the State of Nebraska.
My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion. This would be a slippery slope into courts ruling what a valid religion is based upon the arbitrary decision by a single judge. Sure, he stated it was satire but anyone could claim the same of many/all of the "established" religions. My layman's opinion (which will be able to buy you a coke in today's economy if combined with about $2) is that the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims rather than treading into philosophical waters.
agnosto wrote: My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion. This would be a slippery slope into courts ruling what a valid religion is based upon the arbitrary decision by a single judge. Sure, he stated it was satire but anyone could claim the same of many/all of the "established" religions. My layman's opinion (which will be able to buy you a coke in today's economy if combined with about $2) is that the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims rather than treading into philosophical waters.
Exactly. The judge could have easily dismissed the case on procedural grounds: that the plaintiff did not state what specific remedy they were seeking from the court, therefore there is nothing to rule on. But instead they had to make a broader comment on what does and doesn't qualify as a religion, using an argument that is little more than "nobody could believe something this ridiculous, therefore it isn't a religion". And that's some pretty dangerous territory for the state to be getting into.
agnosto wrote: rather than treading into philosophical waters.
He did not.
But he did. For example, the judge stated that Pastafarianism doesn't address any questions about the meaning of life/what happens after death/etc, one of the (legal) requirements for a religion to be considered a religion. But Pastafarianism does in fact address things like "what happens after we die", the judge simply ruled that it isn't a plausible enough belief.
Peregrine wrote: Exactly. The judge could have easily dismissed the case on procedural grounds: that the plaintiff did not state what specific remedy they were seeking from the court, therefore there is nothing to rule on.
The plaintiff's case failed completely on procedural ground.
The primary focus of Cavanaugh's complaint, however, is that he is being discriminated against—that FSMism is not being treated the same as other faiths. He says very little about how his exercise of FSMism has been significantly burdened by that alleged discrimination. The closest he comes is alleging that the "wearing of special religious clothing is particularly important in FSMism" because, according to Cavanaugh, the FSM Gospel says that the Flying Spaghetti Monster "becomes angry if we don't." Filing 1 at 8-9. Cavanaugh does not, however, identify that religious clothing: a pirate costume.
Cavanaugh's contention seems to be that denying him a pirate outfit prevents him from evangelizing about FSMism.7 But it is not clear to the Court how such a limitation significantly burdens Cavanaugh's practice of his "religion," as opposed to constraining his ability to preach to others. Cavanaugh does not specifically identify the other "religious" practices he seeks; they would presumably include such things as grog, a parrot, a seaworthy vessel, a "Colander of Goodness," and to take off every Friday as a "religious holiday." See id. at 67-68, 74, 110, 124-25, 170. But even if denying those accommodations would make it more difficult for Cavanaugh to practice FSMism, it would not make him effectively unable to do so, or coerce him into acting contrary to his beliefs.
And even at the pleading stage, the Court finds that Cavanaugh has not alleged sufficient facts to suggest that his ability to practice FSMism—whatever that means—is substantially burdened.
Cavanaugh's complaint reflects only his "affirmative request that the prison accommodate his religious beliefs." See id. He does not allege that he altered his behavior or had direct, offensive, and alienating contact as a result of any accommodation given to another professed religion. See id. Absent an alleged injury, he does not have standing for an Establishment Clause claim.
Because Cavanaugh has alleged neither a "religious" exercise, nor a "substantial burden" upon it, his RLUIPA claim will be dismissed.
And the allegations set forth in Cavanaugh's complaint to not suggest invidious discrimination: rather, they establish that prison officials considered Cavanaugh's request in good faith and concluded, reasonably, that FSMism was satirical and required no accommodation.
Cavanaugh's complaint also relies upon art. I, §§ 3 and 4 of the Nebraska constitution. But Nebraska law does not permit a direct cause of action for violation of a state constitutional provision.
The Court concludes Cavanaugh has failed to state a claim under RLUIPA or under the state or federal constitution that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Specifically, he has failed to allege facts showing that the defendants have substantially burdened a religious exercise, or that the defendants' conduct violated his constitutional rights. And Cavanaugh's claims for money damages are barred by sovereign or qualified immunity. Cavanaugh's complaint will be dismissed.
The grounds for the dismissal as gone over detail by detail, where the defendants claims are subjected to the same standard as other religious claims. The basis of the ruling is completely procedural.
At this point people are just showing their own inability, or unwillingness, to comprehend the actual ruling. The thread might as well be closed. We're simply engaging OT's worst habits.
agnosto wrote: My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion.
Then you misinterpret as that is not what the judge did.
agnosto wrote: the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims
He did.
agnosto wrote: rather than treading into philosophical waters.
He did not.
I have no problem being wrong but there is an entire part of the decision that outlines how the judge decided that Pastafarianism is not a valid religion. I'll readily admit to being hamfisted with legal interpretations but it's fairly clear when the judge says:
This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. 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. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.
That much is clear to me, the judge is saying that worship of the FSM is not religious and, contrary to his first three words, he is actually making a philosophical/theological decision based upon what he believes to be factual. Not just, "not a religion" but really far from being a religion.
I will give him a bit of credit for recognizing that many people would argue that the holy books of the major religions could be fictional yet still finds that he is able to make the distinction with his imaginary line drawing.
The grounds for the dismissal as gone over detail by detail, where the defendants claims are subjected to the same standard as other religious claims. The basis of the ruling is completely procedural.
And if he had stopped with the procedural stuff, I wouldn't really have anything to talk about but he went further and determined that FSMism isn't a religion.
The plaintiff's case failed completely on procedural ground.
And even at the pleading stage, the Court finds that Cavanaugh has not alleged sufficient facts to suggest that his ability to practice FSMism—whatever that means—is substantially burdened.
Cavanaugh's complaint reflects only his "affirmative request that the prison accommodate his religious beliefs." See id. He does not allege that he altered his behavior or had direct, offensive, and alienating contact as a result of any accommodation given to another professed religion. See id. Absent an alleged injury, he does not have standing for an Establishment Clause claim.
Because Cavanaugh has alleged neither a "religious" exercise, nor a "substantial burden" upon it, his RLUIPA claim will be dismissed.
This part I agree with and is where it should have ended. But then the judge loses it here:
And the allegations set forth in Cavanaugh's complaint to not suggest invidious discrimination: rather, they establish that prison officials considered Cavanaugh's request in good faith and concluded, reasonably, that FSMism was satirical and required no accommodation.
He just decided, that because this one guy didn't have a case, he concluded that no one practicing the religion should have any accommodations that are grated to the other religions. And that's where he went to far. I consider the west borough baptists to be satirical, so is it reasonable to allow no accomodations to any christian religions or even dismiss the big 3 since they follow the same god?
That is how things work when one guy brings forward a suit with no case.
sirlynchmob wrote: he concluded that no one practicing the religion should have any accommodations that are grated to the other religions.
That isn't even close to what happened. You have to willfully distort the writing to come to that conclusion.
It seems like people who are zealous in their dislike of religion want to pervert and twist this case into something it really isn't, and some want to make a fool into an icon. There are honest-to-god problems with both religion and religion and government in this country but this is not one of them.
agnosto wrote: And if he had stopped with the procedural stuff, I wouldn't really have anything to talk about but he went further and determined that FSMism isn't a religion.
The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. 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."
It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such.
The judge is completely correct. It is madness to accept something as religious simply because a plaintiff proclaims it as such. Working for the United States government and its affiliates does not hogtie someone from using their own intelligence to reach an obvious conclusion, nor does it compel the federal government to accept any and all claims on their face. Most of the ruling is about procedural failures in the plaintiff's claim, where the judge still subjected FSMism to the procedures of law to test for discrimination and substantial burden as proscribed by US state and federal laws, and all anyone can talk about is the completely uninteresting use of common sense. We've circled back to the beginning of the thread where posters were complaining that a parody had been recognized as a parody (which would seem to be the point of a parody).
agnosto wrote: And if he had stopped with the procedural stuff, I wouldn't really have anything to talk about but he went further and determined that FSMism isn't a religion.
The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. 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."
It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such.
The judge is completely correct. It is madness to accept something as religious simply because a plaintiff proclaims it as such. Working for the United States government and its affiliates does not hogtie someone from using their own intelligence to reach an obvious conclusion, nor does it compel the federal government to accept any and all claims on their face. Most of the ruling is about procedural failures in the plaintiff's claim, where the judge still subjected FSMism to the procedures of law to test for discrimination and substantial burden as proscribed by US state and federal laws, and all anyone can talk about is the completely uninteresting use of common sense. We've circled back to the beginning of the thread where posters were complaining that a parody had been recognized as a parody (which would seem to be the point of a parody).
I like how you split that up, it does a great job of illustrating your point (not being sarcastic).
What relevant federal statutes is he referring to I wonder? The only two that I can think of is the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) which very, very broadly touch on what religion and religious exercise is; in fact the RLUIPA defines religious exercise to mean:
"any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief."
It's entirely possible that I'm misinterpreting this definition.
As a non-lawyer, the judge seems to make use of RLUIPA a lot in the ruling, which is in part about protecting the religious rights of prisoners. That law is where the "substantial burden" stuff cited comes from. I assume there's case law, but beyond one supreme court case (Cutter v. Wilkinson) nothing else I can make immediate sense of arises in my google fu. The ruling is full of citations, but I honestly have no idea how to even read case law citations. It's all gibberish to me.
I can't see the judge using RFRA, but my google fu did find this neat chart;
I get all of that and procedural reasons for dismissal of the claim; what I don't get is the court's authority to determine what is or is not a religion when I can't find a definition in federal statute. I can only assume that I'm missing something.
If I walked into court proclaiming myself a Darwinist and claiming I needed religious protection, I'd probably be denied unless I put forth one hell of a convincing argument that Darwinism is a religion and not a scientific position because a scientific position is what it is. Hell, I'm probably more in need of a stupid judge than a good argument.
The court has to make decisions about what is and isn't religion by it's very nature. It has to balance the religious rights of individuals with the needs of a state and of larger society. You absolutely can't do that while refusing the courts (government in general really) the intellectual capacity to actually rule what is and is not religious practice, and which practices are worthy of protection and which are not (Kosher is a okay, but sorry we aren't going to allow you to rip that virgin's heart out to ensure a good harvest. not cool bro). I said earlier that the US is extremely forgiving on this in general. We've probably got some of the widest religion recognition on the planet, which is good because we're probably up there on the list of countries with religious diversity.
Kilkrazy wrote: This discussion is partly about law but perhaps more about ethics.
People are not really discussing whether the judge was right in law to slap down Mr Pasta. They are interested in what this means in terms of the rights of religious people to be recognised and get special treatment (or the same treatment as anyone else) as a result.
The thread is also about a functioning society. While it is important that society ensure religious minorities receive allowances so they are treated equally to everyone else, it is also important that we accept that society needs to function in a sensible fashion. As Monkey Tamer said, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
That means that non-genuine religious beliefs that are claimed just to game the system need to be dismissed. There should be a great deal of caution in dismissing a religious belief, but there are cases where it is extremely obvious.
LordofHats wrote: If I walked into court proclaiming myself a Darwinist and claiming I needed religious protection, I'd probably be denied unless I put forth one hell of a convincing argument that Darwinism is a religion and not a scientific position because a scientific position is what it is. Hell, I'm probably more in need of a stupid judge than a good argument.
You mean it's not already a religion? Odd I keep getting told it is one.
What's wrong with starting a new religion? scientology and mormons are doing well, the church of cannibus also seems to be off to a good start, and get this, christianity only started 2016 years ago. They were also once the new kids on the block, and the other newcommers Jedi and pastafarians are now gaining legal status. We could start one now, the first church of dakkadakka. Our holy texts are the tenets, this is our meeting place, and the mods are our spiritual leaders. I believe that covers everything we need to have to be a recognized religion. Here's the fun part, if the government has special privileges for one, it must grant them for all.
what protection are you referring to specifically, the general 'freedom of religion' which every religion should automatically get. Or would you want to be put on the list of groups it's illegal to discriminate against?
Absolutely nothing. Religion is part of culture. New religion = new culture. The world turns! Lots of new religions have been mentioned in this thread and have been getting protections. Scientology, Wicca, and the Church of Body Modification are all functionally from the past 100 years. I'd even throw Satanism in on that, because while it goes further back it wasn't really all that common even as a minority until the late 20th century.
Here's the fun part, if the government has special privileges for one, it must grant them for all.
Generally it is required to. That was covered in the ruling, and the Judge determined that accommodations granted to other religions were not impacting the plaintiff.
what protection are you referring to specifically, the general 'freedom of religion' which every religion should automatically get.
Because in the real world, a protection is not known to be needed until someone claims they need it. Thus the court/legal/legislative process begins for balancing religious freedom with everything else. Also, why would we need to extend the provisions respecting Jewish Kosher practices to other religions? Christians generally don't have any restrictions on what is eaten. They have no need for the protection. Islam has Halal, which is very similar to Kosher and if Jews can get Kosher then reasonably it's not a stretch and is fair to extend protections to Halal. However, a religion proclaiming a requirement to eat Black Truffles in every meal... Probably not going to overrule the state's compelling interest to not go bankrupt. Kosher and Halal requirements can be met without too much trouble and though they're more expensive they're not exceedingly so.
Or would you want to be put on the list of groups it's illegal to discriminate against?
you posted about walking into a court and claiming you needed religious protection for your new religion. I wasn't sure what protection you were referring to, so I asked the question.
sirlynchmob wrote: you posted about walking into a court and claiming you needed religious protection for your new religion. I wasn't sure what protection you were referring to, so I asked the question.
Ah. I misunderstood.
Religion is like any other right. The government isn't going to go looking around asking "Everyone respecting religion in here? Anyone feeling discriminated?" If you think your being discriminated against, you have to make the claim, and the government in turn has the innate power there in to decide "yes you're being discriminated against" or "you're full of gak" (this doesn't mean the government is never wrong, but the innate ability is necessary for anything to be done). That's how the process works, not just for religion but rights in general. Getting a vague constitutional protection doesn't really give you much beyond a fundamental assurance. It's up to courts and laws to actually deal with the real world.
LordofHats wrote: If I walked into court proclaiming myself a Darwinist and claiming I needed religious protection, I'd probably be denied unless I put forth one hell of a convincing argument that Darwinism is a religion and not a scientific position because a scientific position is what it is. Hell, I'm probably more in need of a stupid judge than a good argument.
The court has to make decisions about what is and isn't religion by it's very nature. It has to balance the religious rights of individuals with the needs of a state and of larger society. You absolutely can't do that while refusing the courts (government in general really) the intellectual capacity to actually rule what is and is not religious practice, and which practices are worthy of protection and which are not (Kosher is a okay, but sorry we aren't going to allow you to rip that virgin's heart out to ensure a good harvest. not cool bro). I said earlier that the US is extremely forgiving on this in general. We've probably got some of the widest religion recognition on the planet, which is good because we're probably up there on the list of countries with religious diversity.
It obviously worked for the KKK-sponsored Christian sect that was involved in a SCOTUS ruling....I'd argue that there are a fair few more pastafarians than people involved in that or the other individuals protected by that ruling (Cutter v Wilkinson). A Satanist, a Wiccan, and a member of the white supremacist Christian sect. SCOTUS ruled, unanimously that prisoners have their protected right of religious exercise burdened already due to being incarcerated and that the federal law didn't run contrary to the establishment clause of the Constitution as long as favored treatment (i.e. no religions were placed above others).
Again, denial of the case could have occurred through procedural means already covered and stopped there, instead, the judge took it upon himself to attempt to discredit FSMism as a religion. It's that part of the case that I can't understand. I can find no federal law or regulation that defines what is a religion; I can find court cases like Cutter v Wilkinson that include religions with single or small numbers of members who were both protected and allowed accommodations. This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.
I cannot believe that no one is taking seriously that the judge also ruled that there isn't an invisible teapot between Holy Terra and Mars and that eating Irish babies isn't legitimate religious belief. Everyone just seems to think it is background information in the case and that just because it isn't mentioned in the conclusion it isn't a key pillar of the case!
I searched in Google before I posted and there still isn't a legal definition of what it takes to be recognized as a "valid" religion. American law and SCOTUS rulings deal with "sincerely held beliefs" one quote from a standing federal law (that I've quoted elsewhere in this thread) specifically defines the exercise of religion as:
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief
So, again, the broadest strokes possible in addressing the issue which makes this judge's opinion odd considering the long history of courts and Congress in staying away from defining religion.
There were some fairly early attempts to define religion, US vs Macintosh (1931) being one case but these early rulings have since been superceded by Congressional legislation under the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as well as later SCOTUS rulings that served to broaden religion and the exercise of religion. Part of the reasoning for the overturning of the US vs Macintosh ruling was a later case involving a person who attested to be an Atheist who had been excluded from public office due to his inability to attest to a higher power when being sworn in.
I skimmed the paper that was the first entry in your Google search and found it interesting but without authority.
What interests me about this case, again, is that the US officially recognizes Atheism as a religion but this judge someone has taken the authority upon himself to state with conviction that FSMism is not a religion. So, he somehow is able to tread into land where even Congress and SCOTUS do not travel.
This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.
The only alternatives are to accept everything as a religion, which is ludicrous, or to accept nothing which is equally ludicrous. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't problematic. We're saying it's reality, and it's the only way for the courts and the law to function in a real world inhabited by real people. The courts very well could get something wrong, which is why the citizenry has to be active in politics. These things aren't the universal clock of Deism that we can just set up and proceed to ignore for the rest of time. The saying is my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. That's a very simple way of saying that your rights and my rights, if supposedly equal, can come into conflict and need resolution. Rights and privileges do not exist in such a state where they are proverbially understood by their very nature. They have to be defined, and generally we leave the defining of law to courts.
This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.
The only alternatives are to accept everything as a religion, which is ludicrous, or to accept nothing which is equally ludicrous. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't problematic. We're saying it's reality, and it's the only way for the courts and the law to function in a real world inhabited by real people. The courts very well could get something wrong, which is why the citizenry has to be active in politics. These things aren't the universal clock of Deism that we can just set up and proceed to ignore for the rest of time. The saying is my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. That's a very simple way of saying that your rights and my rights, if supposedly equal, can come into conflict and need resolution. Rights and privileges do not exist in such a state where they are proverbially understood by their very nature. They have to be defined, and generally we leave the defining of law to courts.
I disagree that the first alternative is ludicrous, you could say that it's just as silly to say that your religion tells them to do things that are patently not present in source literature; it's all mental gymnastics and interpretation. There's a reason why the Lemon Test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exist. The State can burden a person's ability to practice their stated "sincerely held beliefs" in specific circumstances. Further, SCOTUS has produced rulings particular to incarcerated persons whereby the State may further burden a person's religions expression. All of which is on the books, present, defended in court and doesn't have to touch attempts to define religion. My opinion (this and 50 cents can buy you a stick of gum) is that the pertinent section of the decision which deals with the judge's statement that FSMism is not a religion constitutes overreach on his part.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge so my opinion has every chance of being incorrect from a legal perspective. That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith. I feel that laws passed by Congress and the decisions by SCOTUS (i.e. Cutter v Wilkinson) align with my opinion but I'm a layperson and readily admit to a faulty understanding of things outside my area of expertise.
This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.
The only alternatives are to accept everything as a religion, which is ludicrous, or to accept nothing which is equally ludicrous. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't problematic. We're saying it's reality, and it's the only way for the courts and the law to function in a real world inhabited by real people. The courts very well could get something wrong, which is why the citizenry has to be active in politics. These things aren't the universal clock of Deism that we can just set up and proceed to ignore for the rest of time. The saying is my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. That's a very simple way of saying that your rights and my rights, if supposedly equal, can come into conflict and need resolution. Rights and privileges do not exist in such a state where they are proverbially understood by their very nature. They have to be defined, and generally we leave the defining of law to courts.
In this case it really is all or nothing, to do anything else is to show favoritism towards certain religions. Doing that is getting really close to state sponsored religion area. The government has no place passing laws about religions, I read that somewhere, the fact that it grants some religions benefits creates a problem. Our church of dakkadakka should also be granted the same tax exempt status other religious buildings enjoy.
If we have a deeply held belief that dakkadakka is a religion, it's not up to the government nor the courts to decide. We don't need their permission to start our religion, and they have no legal ground to deny us, what they grant to others.
agnosto wrote: that FSMism is not a religion constitutes overreach on his part.
And then we're just back to the complaint that someone used common sense. Being a judge doesn't force someone to accept a claim on its face. Proclaiming a parody a religion is as invalid as proclaiming intelligent design science, which is why I again state its very bizarre that people are upset FSMism has been recognized for what it is.
it's not up to the government nor the courts to decide.
Yes... it is. The IRS probably turns down loads claims for religious tax exemptions every year. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to think the government should automatically accept every religious claim on it's face. Being "government" doesn't bind someone and forbid them from using common sense, and it doesn't force the government to unilaterally accept every claim without inquiry. Government doesn't work that way. Under such conditions it probably wouldn't work at all.
agnosto wrote: that FSMism is not a religion constitutes overreach on his part.
And then we're just back to the complaint that someone used common sense. Being a judge doesn't force someone to accept a claim on its face. Proclaiming a parody a religion is as invalid as proclaiming intelligent design science, which is why I again state its very bizarre that people are upset FSMism has been recognized for what it is.
it's not up to the government nor the courts to decide.
Yes... it is. The IRS probably turns down loads claims for religious tax exemptions every year. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to think the government should automatically accept every religious claim on it's face. Being "government" doesn't bind someone and forbid them from using common sense, and it doesn't force the government to unilaterally accept every claim without inquiry. Government doesn't work that way.
So you're saying it's ok for the government to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion?
That's a interesting position to take, especially when you just got done saying there's nothing wrong with starting a new religion.
sirlynchmob wrote: So you're saying it's ok for the government to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion?
Find me anywhere I said that. When you see I didn't, go on to read the rest of this post;
Separation of Church and State is not a gag order doctrine that forbids the state from ever talking about religion or enacting policy to deal with religion. It forbids the US government from establishing a state religion ala the Church of England (which this ruling does absolutely nothing to do). The free exercise of religion, and protecting it, inherently requires the government to establish a legal bounds for what religion is and what religion is not. Adapting that to real world policy, and to balance the needs of the state with individual and social religious freedom, innately requires law makers and jurists to make decisions concerning religion, and you cannot do that while bound and gagged forever forbidden from talking about it.
I.E. These doctrines do not function the way you think they do.
Kilkrazy wrote: What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?
Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?
That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?
It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.
Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.
sirlynchmob wrote: So you're saying it's ok for the government to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion?
Find me anywhere I said that. When you see I didn't, go on to read the rest of this post;
Separation of Church and State is not a gag order doctrine that forbids the state from ever talking about religion or enacting policy to deal with religion. It forbids the US government from establishing a state religion ala the Church of England (which this ruling does absolutely nothing to do). The free exercise of religion, and protecting it, inherently requires the government to establish a legal bounds for what religion is and what religion is not. Adapting that to real world policy, and to balance the needs of the state with individual and social religious freedom, innately requires law makers and jurists to make decisions, and you cannot do that while bound and gagged.
You just said it again, you're saying the government should establish what is and is not a religion. they're making laws respecting the establishment of religion.
agnosto wrote: That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith.
That way lies madness. You end up in a situation where things like honor killing, genital mutilation, and suicide bombing are protected forms of expression.
Kilkrazy wrote: What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?
Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?
That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?
It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.
Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.
That someone else said the religion is a joke is irrelevant to the person practicing the religion.
Kilkrazy wrote: What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?
Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?
That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?
It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.
Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.
No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it. The jews say jesus wasn't the messiah, the muslims say he wasn't the son of god, so shouldn't that settle it and christianty should not be considered a religion?
You just said it again, you're saying the government should establish what is and is not a religion. they're making laws respecting the establishment of religion.
Why do I bother?
"Establishment of Religion" is a legal phrase with a specific meaning and that meaning is not whatever combination of the words "religion" and "establishment" you decide to be upset about. It is part of the Establishment Clause and forbids Congress from establishing a "State Religion." Establishing a legal definition of what is religion is, or by which to determine religious practice from non-religious practice, is not even remotely the same thing. The later is a necessity if we're to go about protecting Free Exercise. You can't protect something that has no beginning and no end. The law can't function in a realm of absolute ambiguity.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.
The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.
We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.
The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.
We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.
When you hate all religion it is easy to get butt hurt when a parody is dismissed but actual religions are not. I think this thread makes that pretty clear. I'm amazed it has been allowed to go on as long as it has.
agnosto wrote: That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith.
That way lies madness. You end up in a situation where things like honor killing, genital mutilation, and suicide bombing are protected forms of expression.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.
The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.
We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.
When you hate all religion it is easy to get butt hurt when a parody is dismissed but actual religions are not. I think this thread makes that pretty clear. I'm amazed it has been allowed to go on as long as it has.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.
The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.
We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.
why must they be mutually exclusive? How about we take their 30 day challenge, they have a god back guarantee, then we can have a more educated discussion on if parodies can be religions.
http://www.venganza.org/about/
209 pages? now that's a respectable size holy book, I'll get back to you on that one, and by that I mean I'll consider reading it, but I won't
I'll save you some time and laughs then and get to the point (though I highly suggest reading Frequently Asked Questions of page 63, cause it's god damn awesome);
Now I don't know how you feel about the issue, but basically we're opposed to the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classrooms. 7 We're not out to prove it wrong, just that it's not science. ~ LC, page 149
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the members of which are referred to as Pastafarians) is dedicated to keeping Intelligent Design (ID) out of public school science classrooms. At this point in time, ID cannot be falsified, tested, or observed. 3 These characteristics are fundamental to science and any idea that does not possess them is not science. Furthermore, ID is clearly based on religion and therefore it cannot be taught in public school due to the separation of church and state. ~ Loose Canon page 153.
The conclusion on Page 205 is a wonderfully well written thesis on deity and character as well, though notable for a complete rejection of divinity and transcendence, which would squarely place the conception of FSM outside the bounds of what we call religious The conception presented is actually quite similar to non-religious variations of Taoism.
agnosto wrote: That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith.
That way lies madness. You end up in a situation where things like honor killing, genital mutilation, and suicide bombing are protected forms of expression.
Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.
Kilkrazy wrote: What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?
Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?
That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?
It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.
Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.
No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it. The jews say jesus wasn't the messiah, the muslims say he wasn't the son of god, so shouldn't that settle it and christianty should not be considered a religion?
Which is why the relevant federal laws hinge on "sincerely held belief" rather than religion which goes back to my contention that the judge should have kept his nose out of trying to say something is a valid religion or not and just stuck with established procedural protocols for denial of the plaintiff's case.
Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.
If the state is allowed to burden the expression of religion in some case, then it stands to reason that it might burden it in others according to its judgment.
agnosto wrote: Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.
That doesn't really cover what he's getting at.
Example;
Under US law, Religious institutions are allowed to apply for non-profit status with the IRS. They've always been able to do this, but under LBJ we added them to 501(c)(3) in a bid to get religious institutions out of politics (actually a really good historical hypothesis being explored now that this shift in tax policy helped give rise to the modern Religious Right but that's another discussion). Under 501(c)(3) a religious institution can avoid property taxes for chapels, synagogues, etc. Monkey Tamer made this comparison before that if we are uncritical about what is and is not religion, than anyone can proclaim their house a religious building and no one will ever pay property taxes. The state reasonably accepts religious institutions as a non-profit activity,* but for that exact reason the government has to note what is and is not religion, or else it ends up in a ludicrous position of accepting all claims uncritically.
This is of course madness. It's also happened before; in the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had a serious tax crisis. One of the many problems was that so many religious tax exemptions (some going back centuries) had been handed out, and so liberally, that the state was starting to be unable to legitimately tax property and commercial activity. This crisis, and the inability of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code to fully rectify it contributed to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
* (though as has often been noted there is a lot of profit to be had in non-profit )
When you hate all religion it is easy to get butt hurt when a parody is dismissed but actual religions are not. I think this thread makes that pretty clear. I'm amazed it has been allowed to go on as long as it has.
The FSM is exactly as valid as any other religion. The Prophet was touched by the noodly apendage whether he believes in it or not. And you can't disprove it!
Present some evidence to prove what you believe is true, otherwise why SHOULD you get any special protections and rights above and beyond what anyone else gets?
As noted directly above, the state cannot afford for everyone to be able to decide they have a sincerely declared belief and thereby become a religion and not pay taxes.
Also as noted by other people earlier, the state cannot grant religions exemptions to any kind of behaviour that people might want to practice in the name of religion (e.g. cutting the living hearts out of people and consuming their flesh in a cannibalistic orgy.)
Therefore when someone claims they have a religion and it requires them to perform such and such a rite, the state, the law, is compelled in some fashion to take a view on whether this is going to be allowable. No doubt due to the separation of state and church, the courts have normally laid a very light hand indeed on this issue.
agnosto wrote: Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.
That doesn't really cover what he's getting at.
Example;
Under US law, Religious institutions are allowed to apply for non-profit status with the IRS. They've always been able to do this, but under LBJ we added them to 501(c)(3) in a bid to get religious institutions out of politics (actually a really good historical hypothesis being explored now that this shift in tax policy helped give rise to the modern Religious Right but that's another discussion). Under 501(c)(3) a religious institution can avoid property taxes for chapels, synagogues, etc. Monkey Tamer made this comparison before that if we are uncritical about what is and is not religion, than anyone can proclaim their house a religious building and no one will ever pay property taxes. The state reasonably accepts religious institutions as a non-profit activity,* but for that exact reason the government has to note what is and is not religion, or else it ends up in a ludicrous position of accepting all claims uncritically.
This is of course madness. It's also happened before; in the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had a serious tax crisis. One of the many problems was that so many religious tax exemptions (some going back centuries) had been handed out, and so liberally, that the state was starting to be unable to legitimately tax property and commercial activity. This crisis, and the inability of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code to fully rectify it contributed to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
* (though as has often been noted there is a lot of profit to be had in non-profit )
The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is. The exact information can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf For a particular Church or religious organization to qualify for tax-exempt status, they must meet the criteria as defined by the IRS; this does not mean that the organization or church is not a legitimate religious entity, just that it does not qualify. Here's a simple outline from the document:
IRC Section 501(c)(3). IRC section 501(c)(3) describes charitable organizations,
including churches and religious organizations, which qualify for exemption from
federal income tax and generally are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
This section provides that:
n an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other
charitable purposes,
n net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
n no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
n the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental
public policy.
I think it's easy to see how an entity from an established religion could be involved in one of the prohibited activities from that list and not qualify as 501(c)(3). Do they suddenly stop being a religion at that point? I'd be afraid if the IRS is the final arbiter in what is and isn't a religion.
If that's all it takes to be a religion then the "Church of Euthanasia" qualifies as it does possess that status.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: As noted directly above, the state cannot afford for everyone to be able to decide they have a sincerely declared belief and thereby become a religion and not pay taxes.
Also as noted by other people earlier, the state cannot grant religions exemptions to any kind of behaviour that people might want to practice in the name of religion (e.g. cutting the living hearts out of people and consuming their flesh in a cannibalistic orgy.)
Therefore when someone claims they have a religion and it requires them to perform such and such a rite, the state, the law, is compelled in some fashion to take a view on whether this is going to be allowable. No doubt due to the separation of state and church, the courts have normally laid a very light hand indeed on this issue.
It's a bit trickier than that. There have been cases like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, whereby a municipality passed an ordinance that prevented mutilation of animals which the Santaria church protested and SCOTUS ruled in favor of the church.
When it comes to law, the Lemon Test remains the established measuring stick for religious liberty. Again, this only applies to religious expression as there are no laws or court cases that I'm aware (outside of the one related to this thread) which attempt to define what is or is not a religion.
The Lemon Test:
The three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
It would appear they don't stop being a religion but they would lose their tax free status.
For example, General Electric can decide to be a religion, and if people sincerely believe, then it is one, but since its earnings inure to shareholders, it's going to be taxed anyway.
Kilkrazy wrote: It would appear they don't stop being a religion but they would lose their tax free status.
For example, General Electric can decide to be a religion, and if people sincerely believe, then it is one, but since its earnings inure to shareholders, it's going to be taxed anyway.
Funny example but yes. The Church of Charlie Manson couldn't be 501(c)(3) as it would be to benefit one person.
agnosto wrote: The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is.
It's not really a hair split. These are important and meaningful distinctions. The IRS decides what is and isn't acceptable for religious tax exemption every day when they stamp forms with "approved" and "rejected." They're just not the sole deciders. They have to follow laws as laid out by Congress, and when ambiguity arises in the law and practice, the Courts have to resolve them.
n an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other charitable purposes,
Define religious. We can always pull a dictionary definition from somewhere like Webster, but how do we in turn apply that definition into policy? People under appreciate the reality of law. By writing down "for religious or other charitable purpose" I've written law yes, but that law is ambiguous. What constitutes religion under the law? How will the law consider acceptable and unacceptable activity? Someone has to interpret this stuff when it becomes unclear what is to be done. We usually hand that responsibility to the courts.
Do they suddenly stop being a religion at that point?
I think that's getting into the murky reality that "law" != "all life." It fundamentally can't account for everything. If the IRS turns down a church's application, that just means it's not an institution whose activities are acceptable for tax exempt status under said law. That might be because someone tried to claim their house as a religious structure, or it might be because the structure and money operations of the body were not non-profit. The IRS doesn't get to decide solely what is religious; only what is deserving of religious tax exemptions. That entails the inherent and very first question that is probably asked "is this a religion, or someone scamming the system?"
I'd be afraid if the IRS is the final arbiter in what is and isn't a religion.
Be afraid if anyone is the final arbiter of anything. Judges decisions are never final. They stand until another judge overturns them. Even SCOTUS' word is not final. A later court can overturn their decisions. The plaintiff in the OP could appeal, though given the nature of his claim I doubt anyone will accept. All other things aside, his claim is very vague. At most, we'd have to wait for another case where a judge might cite one element of this decision in denying another FSM related claim, and that plaintiff might get a chance to appeal on the grounds that this judge's ruling was wrong. That's the basics of how case law works.
well to show how easy it can be to get a 501(c)(3) That is the same type of charity that anita runs for her video series. And it is to the benefit of just one person.
agnosto wrote: The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is.
It's not really a hair split. These are important and meaningful distinctions. The IRS decides what is and isn't acceptable for religious tax exemption every day when they stamp forms with "approved" and "rejected." They're just not the sole deciders. They have to follow laws as laid out by Congress, and when ambiguity arises in the law and practice, the Courts have to resolve them.
n an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other charitable purposes,
Define religious. We can always pull a dictionary definition from somewhere like Webster, but how do we in turn apply that definition into policy? People under appreciate the reality of law. By writing down "for religious or other charitable purpose" I've written law yes, but that law is ambiguous. What constitutes religion under the law? How will the law consider acceptable and unacceptable activity? Someone has to interpret this stuff when it becomes unclear what is to be done. We usually hand that responsibility to the courts.
Do they suddenly stop being a religion at that point?
I think that's getting into the murky reality that "law" != "all life." It fundamentally can't account for everything. If the IRS turns down a church's application, that just means it's not an institution whose activities are acceptable for tax exempt status under said law. That might be because someone tried to claim their house as a religious structure, or it might be because the structure and money operations of the body were not non-profit. The IRS doesn't get to decide solely what is religious; only what is deserving of religious tax exemptions. That entails the inherent and very first question that is probably asked "is this a religion, or someone scamming the system?"
I'd be afraid if the IRS is the final arbiter in what is and isn't a religion.
Be afraid if anyone is the final arbiter of anything. Judges decisions are never final. They stand until another judge overturns them. Even SCOTUS' word is not final. A later court can overturn their decisions. The plaintiff in the OP could appeal, though given the nature of his claim I doubt anyone will accept. All other things aside, his claim is very vague. At most, we'd have to wait for another case where a judge might cite one element of this decision in denying another FSM related claim, and that plaintiff might get a chance to appeal on the grounds that this judge's ruling was wrong. That's the basics of how case law works.
I suppose I did a shoddy job of getting my point across because you basically said everything that I was driving at. There is no legal definition of "religion" and so it has been my issue with this case that the judge, in this case, decided he would just go ahead and punt for the bleachers and make one, in this case.
Again, the Church of Euthanasia is a 501(c)(3) and if they can be considered a religion, anything can. Atheists for Humanity is another one....
The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is. The exact information can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf For a particular Church or religious organization to qualify for tax-exempt status, they must meet the criteria as defined by the IRS; this does not mean that the organization or church is not a legitimate religious entity, just that it does not qualify.
That means, for all intents and purposes, it is not.
Legal definitions are not like dictionary definitions. They're built up, amended, and torn down as the law goes forward. "Religion" in US law is defined by a body of US case law. That's how the concept of sincere belief came about. The lemon test. Everything. We've once again come around to the same issue; common sense was used to note something was a parody. Why does a judge need permission to use common sense, or are they required to turn their brain off and accept without thought because the word "religion" was uttered?
The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is. The exact information can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf For a particular Church or religious organization to qualify for tax-exempt status, they must meet the criteria as defined by the IRS; this does not mean that the organization or church is not a legitimate religious entity, just that it does not qualify.
That means, for all intents and purposes, it is not.
Again, the Church of Euthanasia is a 501(c)(3) and if they can be considered a religion, anything can. Atheists for Humanity is another one....
AFH qualifies as a charity and educational service, not a religious organization.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I think there's plenty of good arguments that 501(c)(3) is just a really silly way of going about tax exempt organizations
Just looked that up, and saw Citizens United v. FEC in the related searches. Ugh.
AFH qualifies as a charity and educational service, not a religious organization.
And maybe because there's confusion about this, 501(c)(3) is not just for religious organizations. Most non-profits in the US are registered as 501(c)(3). Though my understanding is that "Churches" have some special exemptions under this law that only apply to them (like not having to pay property taxes on church buildings). And before anyone jumps anywhere, Churches as defined by the IRS is not just Christians. They use the word to define basically religious congregation. Other religious bodies, like say the "International Committee for Philosophically Talking about Interfaith Stuff" likely wouldn't qualify. It is a religious organization, but not a church.
LordofHats wrote: . If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed.
And if you're even remotely familiar with older Pagan religions, it's obvious that Christianity is a spoof on them...
LordofHats wrote: . If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed.
And if you're even remotely familiar with older Pagan religions, it's obvious that Christianity is a spoof on them...
There is a fine difference between spoof and syncretism (and really, prety much all religions currently evident in human socities were born syncretically). Christinaity's development out of Judaism in the first and second centuries has been getting much better understood in the past few decades. It's a subject I very much enjoy
Because Pastaferianism incorporates some elements of Christianity (Since it originated in a culture seeped with Christian traditions) it doesn't mean that it has to be a parody. Yes, I believe it was intended to be a spoof, but I also think someone could find genuine faith in it. I don't want someone in power to have the ability to declare that it isn't a 'real' religion and thus deserves no rights.
skyth wrote: And the difference is in the eye of the beholder.
It's really not (def 1 is what I refer to). We could say a spoof could eventually become religion via syncretic processes, but that's something in the future. With their own book making their intent clear not just in the parody itself, but in plain terms I highly doubt that'll ever happen. It could though*, but we can't go making laws for hypothetical non-extant things.
*and it would be incredibly hilarious given the original intent. The world really is a comedy.
I don't want someone in power to have the ability to declare that it isn't a 'real' religion and thus deserves no rights.
And I don't want to pay taxes every April. The realities of running a functioning state really reminds me of that song by the Rolling Stones about what is wanted and needed.
skyth wrote: And the difference is in the eye of the beholder.
It's really not (def 1 is what I refer to). We could say a spoof could eventually become religion via syncretic processes, but that's something in the future. With their own book making their intent clear not just in the parody itself, but in plain terms I highly doubt that'll ever happen. It could though*, but we can't go making laws for hypothetical non-extant things.
Like voter impersonation having an effect on an election in the US, or people impersonating trans people in order to get into womens bathrooms
To be clear, the article I linked to was not defining religion, it was discussing the fact there wasn't a legal definition of religion, looking at the ways the law looked at religion, and arguing there should be some attempt to make a legal definition. Written in 1982, but still relevant today, perhaps.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be clear, the article I linked to was not defining religion, it was discussing the fact there wasn't a legal definition of religion, looking at the ways the law looked at religion, and arguing there should be some attempt to make a legal definition. Written in 1982, but still relevant today, perhaps.
I enjoyed skimming it.
Even the linked legal treatise doesn't have an outright legal definition but a smattering of court decisions that wind up still leaving it vague.
Edit:
Regarding the CoE. Meh. I was wrong, I didn't look into where they arrived at their status. Upon reflection, I suppose a stronger argument would be that the IRS has neither the authority to create law nor the ability to create legal precedence.
Regarding the CoE. Meh. I was wrong, I didn't look into where they arrived at their status. Upon reflection, I suppose a stronger argument would be that the IRS has neither the authority to create law nor the ability to create legal precedence.
No, but it does have the authority to execute the law which is under its mandate and some of those laws necessitate determining what a religion is.
Regarding the CoE. Meh. I was wrong, I didn't look into where they arrived at their status. Upon reflection, I suppose a stronger argument would be that the IRS has neither the authority to create law nor the ability to create legal precedence.
No, but it does have the authority to execute the law which is under its mandate and some of those laws necessitate determining what a religion is.
Please quote the law that requires or allows the IRS to define religion.
More likely, what has occurred is that in the absence of law, the IRS has determined that a definition of a Church or Religious Organization (note, these are institutions not religions in and of themselves) is needed for them to determine eligibility for tax exemption status. As I mentioned before, it is entirely possible for a specific Christian Church (for example) to break the restrictions on tax-exempt status and for them to lose that status without any impact whatsoever on the status of other Churches of the same religion. The IRS has no definition of a religion that I am able to find; if you find one, please post it. Rather, they have a definition of institutions related to religions.
Rather, they have a definition of institutions related to religions.
If you don't think there is an IRS definition of "religion", then it seems odd to believe that there is a separate definition of "religious institution".
Rather, they have a definition of institutions related to religions.
If you don't think there is an IRS definition of "religion", then it seems odd to believe that there is a separate definition of "religious institution".
As Killkrazy points out in the post below yours. The page that he linked as well as the document that I linked earlier in the thread provide the IRS definitions of "Church" and "Religious Organization"; I apologize if my use of the word "institution" caused any confusion. Organizations and Churches are not the same as religions. What the IRS is doing is defining their criteria for a body to claim tax-exempt status. This status has no bearing whatsoever on what a religion is as a church from an "established" religion could not qualify for tax-exempt status through the IRS yet still be part of the overall religion it belongs to.
Again, to my knowledge there is no federal definition of what constitutes a religion. Instead there are a number of court cases and laws that refer to "sincerely held religious belief" which still shies away from attempting to define religion. In the case of incarcerated persons, as in this case, there is an existing law which applies which also does not define religion. In fact the existing law, which has been upheld so far by SCOTUS, only defines religious exercise:
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief
Note that the federal definition even states that someone could be performing a religious act that is not even a part of a system of religious belief. I can't think of how they could have written that more broadly.
Additionally, the Lemon Test is used frequently and still upheld by SCOTUS. Here is what the federal court system has to say on religion and the 1st amendment:
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I'm glad that I found this because it does a very good job of outlining the historical interpretation of what "establishment" means in the 1st Amendment and then goes on to describe how the courts interpret this today.
Religion isn't unique in not having a single definion. A word like "disability" has wildly different meanings to Social Security, VA, Department of Labor, or Health and Human Services.
Likewise, "household" has different meanings to the Census Bureau than the IRS.
So yes, "religion" is going to be defined in many different ways in many different applications.
agnosto wrote: Organizations and Churches are not the same as religions. What the IRS is doing is defining their criteria for a body to claim tax-exempt status. This status has no bearing whatsoever on what a religion is as a church from an "established" religion could not qualify for tax-exempt status through the IRS yet still be part of the overall religion it belongs to.
True, but they get the benefit of the doubt because they are established religions. You're talking about hundreds, or thousands, of years; not ~11.
agnosto wrote: Organizations and Churches are not the same as religions. What the IRS is doing is defining their criteria for a body to claim tax-exempt status. This status has no bearing whatsoever on what a religion is as a church from an "established" religion could not qualify for tax-exempt status through the IRS yet still be part of the overall religion it belongs to.
True, but they get the benefit of the doubt because they are established religions. You're talking about hundreds, or thousands, of years; not ~11.
The law says that the government can't play favorites. Court cases have been won over perceived favoritism. Larson v Valente (1982) for example resulted in a ruling that found:
Freedom of religion would not exist if the state were allowed to provide favorable treatment to certain religions. The Establishment Clause requires legislatures and citizens to treat all religions with the same respect and deference they afford their own.
