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:
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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:
The standard isn't "what religion is real" though, the standard is "does that person have a sincere belief".

"I'll know sincere belief when I see it."

/Too Live Crew for Life!

 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.

Both are actually equally good and true statements.

This is a dismissal by a district court. It's not precedent for much. That's just not how precedent works.

How is religion not made up?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Both are actually equally good and true statements.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

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?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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?

Indeed.

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 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

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

Edit: Not worth it. Moving on.

Nevermind.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yet somehow it's okay to claim Pastafarianism is not equal to Christiaity or Islam. What category is that in?

This is exactly the point. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

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.

Close minded much?
Ask these people:
http://www.venganza.org/

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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?

So glad I am Pagan

Full time follower of Bacchus....pass the wine and more sex

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Close minded much?
Ask these people:
http://www.venganza.org/

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.

 Jihadin wrote:
So glad I am Pagan

Full time follower of Bacchus....pass the wine and more sex

Cheers, fether!

I went to a wine tasting at a Lincoln dealership this weekend. Bought a nice, spicy cigar on the way home.

So who the feth am I supposed to pray to now?

 Ratius wrote:
So who the feth am I supposed to pray to now?

Bacchus on his throne of wine and women, beloved by all.

Except the Iron Druid, it seems.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 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.