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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

Just sayin'.

 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).

 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.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.

For some reason.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
For some reason.

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.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 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?

 LordofHats wrote:
How exactly are we on page 2, and still having to explain how a self admitted satire of religion is not religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

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.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.

For some reason.

Quite a huge amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ involve

 Peregrine wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

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.

 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 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.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 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'.

Ten silver shekels and Judas was a sore loser.

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.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 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'.

Ten silver shekels and Judas was a sore loser.

Sore in the neck

It's okay. He became a vampire afterwards, and everyone knows vampires are the cool brand of evil

 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.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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

 Peregrine wrote:
[Except the text itself doesn't scream "I am a parody", any more than other religions do.

Everything about Pastafarianism is a parody, right down to its name.

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.

 LordofHats wrote:
Everything about Pastafarianism is a parody, right down to its name.

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.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Because stupid people exist.

So, if you'd said the same thing about Christianity you'd be taking a nice long forum vacation, but it's ok to say it about a less-popular religion?