Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/pastafarianism-is-satire-and-not-protected-religion-court-rules/

Edit: On laptop now, so here's the text:

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.'"

**Iron_Captain**

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.

**MrMoustaffa**

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.

**d-usa**

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?

**Kid_Kyoto**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

I say they just get rid of financial protections for religious institutions. They can then apply to be a non-profit if they are.

**d-usa**

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?

**Howard A Treesong**

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.

**Ahtman**

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

This is good.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
because frankly it's all made up anyway.

And then you lose it.

**timetowaste85**

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.

**Avatar 720**

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.

Nah, they're white and gold.

**Ustrello**

Ahtman wrote:
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

This is good.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
because frankly it's all made up anyway.

And then you lose it.

Well if you think about it someone had to make it up in their head and put it to paper or parchment later.

**SilverMK2**

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?

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**SilverMK2**

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?

**Co'tor Shas**

SilverMK2 wrote:
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**

SilverMK2 wrote:
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.

**SilverMK2**

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?

**feeder**

SilverMK2 wrote:
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.

**LordofHats**

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**

LordofHats wrote:
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?

**Peregrine**

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!

**LordofHats**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Polonius**

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.

**LordofHats**

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.

**Polonius**

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.

**d-usa**

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.

**Wyrmalla**

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?