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.
2016/04/19 16:06:04
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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).
2016/04/19 18:04:33
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/19 18:18:54
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
2016/04/19 19:01:14
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/19 19:07:10
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
2016/04/19 19:12:25
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/19 19:13:40
2016/04/19 19:16:39
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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).
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/19 19:19:36
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/19 19:50:34
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/04/19 19:28:57
Subject: Re:Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/19 19:31:21
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2016/04/19 19:31:24
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
2016/04/19 19:37:20
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
2016/04/19 19:38:16
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
Absolutely correct.
2016/04/19 19:40:11
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/19 19:43:15
2016/04/19 19:44:29
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/19 19:50:09
2016/04/19 19:44:46
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/19 19:50:31
2016/04/19 19:51:16
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
2016/04/19 19:53:48
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/19 20:05:47
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
2016/04/19 20:09:51
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/19 20:12:15
2016/04/19 20:12:08
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
= Epic First Post.
2016/04/19 20:45:42
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/19 20:58:40
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/19 21:00:44
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.
