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.

dethork wrote:
I did not get the impression that he was trying to lay the groundwork for instituting the Inquisition into the State of Nebraska.

Must... Resist.... Must... Remain... Strong.

That's what you think.

No one expects the Nebraskan Inquisition!

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what you think.

No one expects the Nebraskan Inquisition!

Complete with a different kind of pointy hat:



My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion. This would be a slippery slope into courts ruling what a valid religion is based upon the arbitrary decision by a single judge. Sure, he stated it was satire but anyone could claim the same of many/all of the "established" religions. My layman's opinion (which will be able to buy you a coke in today's economy if combined with about $2) is that the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims rather than treading into philosophical waters.

 agnosto wrote:
My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion.

Then you misinterpret as that is not what the judge did.

 agnosto wrote:
the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims

He did.

 agnosto wrote:
rather than treading into philosophical waters.

He did not.

 agnosto wrote:
My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion. This would be a slippery slope into courts ruling what a valid religion is based upon the arbitrary decision by a single judge. Sure, he stated it was satire but anyone could claim the same of many/all of the "established" religions. My layman's opinion (which will be able to buy you a coke in today's economy if combined with about $2) is that the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims rather than treading into philosophical waters.

Exactly. The judge could have easily dismissed the case on procedural grounds: that the plaintiff did not state what specific remedy they were seeking from the court, therefore there is nothing to rule on. But instead they had to make a broader comment on what does and doesn't qualify as a religion, using an argument that is little more than "nobody could believe something this ridiculous, therefore it isn't a religion". And that's some pretty dangerous territory for the state to be getting into.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
rather than treading into philosophical waters.

He did not.

But he did. For example, the judge stated that Pastafarianism doesn't address any questions about the meaning of life/what happens after death/etc, one of the (legal) requirements for a religion to be considered a religion. But Pastafarianism does in fact address things like "what happens after we die", the judge simply ruled that it isn't a plausible enough belief.

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. The judge could have easily dismissed the case on procedural grounds: that the plaintiff did not state what specific remedy they were seeking from the court, therefore there is nothing to rule on.

The plaintiff's case failed completely on procedural ground.

The primary focus of Cavanaugh's complaint, however, is that he is being discriminated against—that FSMism is not being treated the same as other faiths. He says very little about how his exercise of FSMism has been significantly burdened by that alleged discrimination. The closest he comes is alleging that the "wearing of special religious clothing is particularly important in FSMism" because, according to Cavanaugh, the FSM Gospel says that the Flying Spaghetti Monster "becomes angry if we don't." Filing 1 at 8-9. Cavanaugh does not, however, identify that religious clothing: a pirate costume.

Cavanaugh's contention seems to be that denying him a pirate outfit prevents him from evangelizing about FSMism.7 But it is not clear to the Court how such a limitation significantly burdens Cavanaugh's practice of his "religion," as opposed to constraining his ability to preach to others. Cavanaugh does not specifically identify the other "religious" practices he seeks; they would presumably include such things as grog, a parrot, a seaworthy vessel, a "Colander of Goodness," and to take off every Friday as a "religious holiday." See id. at 67-68, 74, 110, 124-25, 170. But even if denying those accommodations would make it more difficult for Cavanaugh to practice FSMism, it would not make him effectively unable to do so, or coerce him into acting contrary to his beliefs.

And even at the pleading stage, the Court finds that Cavanaugh has not alleged sufficient facts to suggest that his ability to practice FSMism—whatever that means—is substantially burdened.

Cavanaugh's complaint reflects only his "affirmative request that the prison accommodate his religious beliefs." See id. He does not allege that he altered his behavior or had direct, offensive, and alienating contact as a result of any accommodation given to another professed religion. See id. Absent an alleged injury, he does not have standing for an Establishment Clause claim.

Because Cavanaugh has alleged neither a "religious" exercise, nor a "substantial burden" upon it, his RLUIPA claim will be dismissed.

And the allegations set forth in Cavanaugh's complaint to not suggest invidious discrimination: rather, they establish that prison officials considered Cavanaugh's request in good faith and concluded, reasonably, that FSMism was satirical and required no accommodation.

Cavanaugh's complaint also relies upon art. I, §§ 3 and 4 of the Nebraska constitution. But Nebraska law does not permit a direct cause of action for violation of a state constitutional provision.

The Court concludes Cavanaugh has failed to state a claim under RLUIPA or under the state or federal constitution that is plausible on its face. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Specifically, he has failed to allege facts showing that the defendants have substantially burdened a religious exercise, or that the defendants' conduct violated his constitutional rights. And Cavanaugh's claims for money damages are barred by sovereign or qualified immunity. Cavanaugh's complaint will be dismissed.

The grounds for the dismissal as gone over detail by detail, where the defendants claims are subjected to the same standard as other religious claims. The basis of the ruling is completely procedural.

At this point people are just showing their own inability, or unwillingness, to comprehend the actual ruling. The thread might as well be closed. We're simply engaging OT's worst habits.

 Ahtman wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
My objection is what I interpreted as the judge determining the validity of Pastafarianism as a religion.

Then you misinterpret as that is not what the judge did.

 agnosto wrote:
the judge should have stuck to the facts of the case and the individual's personal claims

He did.

 agnosto wrote:
rather than treading into philosophical waters.

He did not.

I have no problem being wrong but there is an entire part of the decision that outlines how the judge decided that Pastafarianism is not a valid religion. I'll readily admit to being hamfisted with legal interpretations but it's fairly clear when the judge says:

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction. A prisoner could just as easily read the works of Vonnegut or Heinlein and claim it as his holy book, and demand accommodation of Bokononism or the Church of All Worlds. 6 See, Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle (Dell Publishing 1988) (1963); Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (Putnam Publ'g Grp. 1961). Of course, there are those who contend—and Cavanaugh is probably among them—that the Bible or the Koran are just as fictional as those books. It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such. The Court concludes that FSMism is on the far side of that line.

That much is clear to me, the judge is saying that worship of the FSM is not religious and, contrary to his first three words, he is actually making a philosophical/theological decision based upon what he believes to be factual. Not just, "not a religion" but really far from being a religion.

I will give him a bit of credit for recognizing that many people would argue that the holy books of the major religions could be fictional yet still finds that he is able to make the distinction with his imaginary line drawing.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


The grounds for the dismissal as gone over detail by detail, where the defendants claims are subjected to the same standard as other religious claims. The basis of the ruling is completely procedural.

And if he had stopped with the procedural stuff, I wouldn't really have anything to talk about but he went further and determined that FSMism isn't a religion.

 LordofHats wrote:


The plaintiff's case failed completely on procedural ground.

And even at the pleading stage, the Court finds that Cavanaugh has not alleged sufficient facts to suggest that his ability to practice FSMism—whatever that means—is substantially burdened.

Cavanaugh's complaint reflects only his "affirmative request that the prison accommodate his religious beliefs." See id. He does not allege that he altered his behavior or had direct, offensive, and alienating contact as a result of any accommodation given to another professed religion. See id. Absent an alleged injury, he does not have standing for an Establishment Clause claim.

Because Cavanaugh has alleged neither a "religious" exercise, nor a "substantial burden" upon it, his RLUIPA claim will be dismissed.

This part I agree with and is where it should have ended. But then the judge loses it here:

And the allegations set forth in Cavanaugh's complaint to not suggest invidious discrimination: rather, they establish that prison officials considered Cavanaugh's request in good faith and concluded, reasonably, that FSMism was satirical and required no accommodation.

What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?

Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?

Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?

That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?

It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.

sirlynchmob wrote:
He just decided

Well making decisions is sort of what being a judge entails.

sirlynchmob wrote:
that because this one guy didn't have a case

That is how things work when one guy brings forward a suit with no case.

sirlynchmob wrote:
he concluded that no one practicing the religion should have any accommodations that are grated to the other religions.

That isn't even close to what happened. You have to willfully distort the writing to come to that conclusion.


It seems like people who are zealous in their dislike of religion want to pervert and twist this case into something it really isn't, and some want to make a fool into an icon. There are honest-to-god problems with both religion and religion and government in this country but this is not one of them.

 agnosto wrote:
And if he had stopped with the procedural stuff, I wouldn't really have anything to talk about but he went further and determined that FSMism isn't a religion.

The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a "religion."

It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such.

The judge is completely correct. It is madness to accept something as religious simply because a plaintiff proclaims it as such. Working for the United States government and its affiliates does not hogtie someone from using their own intelligence to reach an obvious conclusion, nor does it compel the federal government to accept any and all claims on their face. Most of the ruling is about procedural failures in the plaintiff's claim, where the judge still subjected FSMism to the procedures of law to test for discrimination and substantial burden as proscribed by US state and federal laws, and all anyone can talk about is the completely uninteresting use of common sense. We've circled back to the beginning of the thread where posters were complaining that a parody had been recognized as a parody (which would seem to be the point of a parody).

 LordofHats wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
And if he had stopped with the procedural stuff, I wouldn't really have anything to talk about but he went further and determined that FSMism isn't a religion.

The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection as a "religion."

It is not always an easy line to draw. But there must be a line beyond which a practice is not "religious" simply because a plaintiff labels it as such.

The judge is completely correct. It is madness to accept something as religious simply because a plaintiff proclaims it as such. Working for the United States government and its affiliates does not hogtie someone from using their own intelligence to reach an obvious conclusion, nor does it compel the federal government to accept any and all claims on their face. Most of the ruling is about procedural failures in the plaintiff's claim, where the judge still subjected FSMism to the procedures of law to test for discrimination and substantial burden as proscribed by US state and federal laws, and all anyone can talk about is the completely uninteresting use of common sense. We've circled back to the beginning of the thread where posters were complaining that a parody had been recognized as a parody (which would seem to be the point of a parody).

I like how you split that up, it does a great job of illustrating your point (not being sarcastic).

What relevant federal statutes is he referring to I wonder? The only two that I can think of is the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) which very, very broadly touch on what religion and religious exercise is; in fact the RLUIPA defines religious exercise to mean:

"any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief."

It's entirely possible that I'm misinterpreting this definition.

As a non-lawyer, the judge seems to make use of RLUIPA a lot in the ruling, which is in part about protecting the religious rights of prisoners. That law is where the "substantial burden" stuff cited comes from. I assume there's case law, but beyond one supreme court case (Cutter v. Wilkinson) nothing else I can make immediate sense of arises in my google fu. The ruling is full of citations, but I honestly have no idea how to even read case law citations. It's all gibberish to me.

I can't see the judge using RFRA, but my google fu did find this neat chart;



That supposedly explains it.

I get all of that and procedural reasons for dismissal of the claim; what I don't get is the court's authority to determine what is or is not a religion when I can't find a definition in federal statute. I can only assume that I'm missing something.

If I walked into court proclaiming myself a Darwinist and claiming I needed religious protection, I'd probably be denied unless I put forth one hell of a convincing argument that Darwinism is a religion and not a scientific position because a scientific position is what it is. Hell, I'm probably more in need of a stupid judge than a good argument.

The court has to make decisions about what is and isn't religion by it's very nature. It has to balance the religious rights of individuals with the needs of a state and of larger society. You absolutely can't do that while refusing the courts (government in general really) the intellectual capacity to actually rule what is and is not religious practice, and which practices are worthy of protection and which are not (Kosher is a okay, but sorry we aren't going to allow you to rip that virgin's heart out to ensure a good harvest. not cool bro). I said earlier that the US is extremely forgiving on this in general. We've probably got some of the widest religion recognition on the planet, which is good because we're probably up there on the list of countries with religious diversity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This discussion is partly about law but perhaps more about ethics.

People are not really discussing whether the judge was right in law to slap down Mr Pasta. They are interested in what this means in terms of the rights of religious people to be recognised and get special treatment (or the same treatment as anyone else) as a result.

The thread is also about a functioning society. While it is important that society ensure religious minorities receive allowances so they are treated equally to everyone else, it is also important that we accept that society needs to function in a sensible fashion. As Monkey Tamer said, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

That means that non-genuine religious beliefs that are claimed just to game the system need to be dismissed. There should be a great deal of caution in dismissing a religious belief, but there are cases where it is extremely obvious.

 LordofHats wrote:
If I walked into court proclaiming myself a Darwinist and claiming I needed religious protection, I'd probably be denied unless I put forth one hell of a convincing argument that Darwinism is a religion and not a scientific position because a scientific position is what it is. Hell, I'm probably more in need of a stupid judge than a good argument.

You mean it's not already a religion? Odd I keep getting told it is one.

What's wrong with starting a new religion? scientology and mormons are doing well, the church of cannibus also seems to be off to a good start, and get this, christianity only started 2016 years ago. They were also once the new kids on the block, and the other newcommers Jedi and pastafarians are now gaining legal status. We could start one now, the first church of dakkadakka. Our holy texts are the tenets, this is our meeting place, and the mods are our spiritual leaders. I believe that covers everything we need to have to be a recognized religion. Here's the fun part, if the government has special privileges for one, it must grant them for all.

what protection are you referring to specifically, the general 'freedom of religion' which every religion should automatically get. Or would you want to be put on the list of groups it's illegal to discriminate against?

sirlynchmob wrote:
What's wrong with starting a new religion?

Absolutely nothing. Religion is part of culture. New religion = new culture. The world turns! Lots of new religions have been mentioned in this thread and have been getting protections. Scientology, Wicca, and the Church of Body Modification are all functionally from the past 100 years. I'd even throw Satanism in on that, because while it goes further back it wasn't really all that common even as a minority until the late 20th century.

Here's the fun part, if the government has special privileges for one, it must grant them for all.

Generally it is required to. That was covered in the ruling, and the Judge determined that accommodations granted to other religions were not impacting the plaintiff.

what protection are you referring to specifically, the general 'freedom of religion' which every religion should automatically get.

Because in the real world, a protection is not known to be needed until someone claims they need it. Thus the court/legal/legislative process begins for balancing religious freedom with everything else. Also, why would we need to extend the provisions respecting Jewish Kosher practices to other religions? Christians generally don't have any restrictions on what is eaten. They have no need for the protection. Islam has Halal, which is very similar to Kosher and if Jews can get Kosher then reasonably it's not a stretch and is fair to extend protections to Halal. However, a religion proclaiming a requirement to eat Black Truffles in every meal... Probably not going to overrule the state's compelling interest to not go bankrupt. Kosher and Halal requirements can be met without too much trouble and though they're more expensive they're not exceedingly so.

Or would you want to be put on the list of groups it's illegal to discriminate against?

Where has anyone even remotely proposed this?

you posted about walking into a court and claiming you needed religious protection for your new religion. I wasn't sure what protection you were referring to, so I asked the question.

sirlynchmob wrote:
you posted about walking into a court and claiming you needed religious protection for your new religion. I wasn't sure what protection you were referring to, so I asked the question.

Ah. I misunderstood.

Religion is like any other right. The government isn't going to go looking around asking "Everyone respecting religion in here? Anyone feeling discriminated?" If you think your being discriminated against, you have to make the claim, and the government in turn has the innate power there in to decide "yes you're being discriminated against" or "you're full of gak" (this doesn't mean the government is never wrong, but the innate ability is necessary for anything to be done). That's how the process works, not just for religion but rights in general. Getting a vague constitutional protection doesn't really give you much beyond a fundamental assurance. It's up to courts and laws to actually deal with the real world.

 LordofHats wrote:
If I walked into court proclaiming myself a Darwinist and claiming I needed religious protection, I'd probably be denied unless I put forth one hell of a convincing argument that Darwinism is a religion and not a scientific position because a scientific position is what it is. Hell, I'm probably more in need of a stupid judge than a good argument.

The court has to make decisions about what is and isn't religion by it's very nature. It has to balance the religious rights of individuals with the needs of a state and of larger society. You absolutely can't do that while refusing the courts (government in general really) the intellectual capacity to actually rule what is and is not religious practice, and which practices are worthy of protection and which are not (Kosher is a okay, but sorry we aren't going to allow you to rip that virgin's heart out to ensure a good harvest. not cool bro). I said earlier that the US is extremely forgiving on this in general. We've probably got some of the widest religion recognition on the planet, which is good because we're probably up there on the list of countries with religious diversity.

It obviously worked for the KKK-sponsored Christian sect that was involved in a SCOTUS ruling....I'd argue that there are a fair few more pastafarians than people involved in that or the other individuals protected by that ruling (Cutter v Wilkinson). A Satanist, a Wiccan, and a member of the white supremacist Christian sect. SCOTUS ruled, unanimously that prisoners have their protected right of religious exercise burdened already due to being incarcerated and that the federal law didn't run contrary to the establishment clause of the Constitution as long as favored treatment (i.e. no religions were placed above others).

Again, denial of the case could have occurred through procedural means already covered and stopped there, instead, the judge took it upon himself to attempt to discredit FSMism as a religion. It's that part of the case that I can't understand. I can find no federal law or regulation that defines what is a religion; I can find court cases like Cutter v Wilkinson that include religions with single or small numbers of members who were both protected and allowed accommodations. This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.

There is an interesting paper here...

I cannot believe that no one is taking seriously that the judge also ruled that there isn't an invisible teapot between Holy Terra and Mars and that eating Irish babies isn't legitimate religious belief. Everyone just seems to think it is background information in the case and that just because it isn't mentioned in the conclusion it isn't a key pillar of the case!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an interesting paper here...

I searched in Google before I posted and there still isn't a legal definition of what it takes to be recognized as a "valid" religion. American law and SCOTUS rulings deal with "sincerely held beliefs" one quote from a standing federal law (that I've quoted elsewhere in this thread) specifically defines the exercise of religion as:

any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief

So, again, the broadest strokes possible in addressing the issue which makes this judge's opinion odd considering the long history of courts and Congress in staying away from defining religion.

There were some fairly early attempts to define religion, US vs Macintosh (1931) being one case but these early rulings have since been superceded by Congressional legislation under the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as well as later SCOTUS rulings that served to broaden religion and the exercise of religion. Part of the reasoning for the overturning of the US vs Macintosh ruling was a later case involving a person who attested to be an Atheist who had been excluded from public office due to his inability to attest to a higher power when being sworn in.

I skimmed the paper that was the first entry in your Google search and found it interesting but without authority.

What interests me about this case, again, is that the US officially recognizes Atheism as a religion but this judge someone has taken the authority upon himself to state with conviction that FSMism is not a religion. So, he somehow is able to tread into land where even Congress and SCOTUS do not travel.

This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.

The only alternatives are to accept everything as a religion, which is ludicrous, or to accept nothing which is equally ludicrous. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't problematic. We're saying it's reality, and it's the only way for the courts and the law to function in a real world inhabited by real people. The courts very well could get something wrong, which is why the citizenry has to be active in politics. These things aren't the universal clock of Deism that we can just set up and proceed to ignore for the rest of time. The saying is my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. That's a very simple way of saying that your rights and my rights, if supposedly equal, can come into conflict and need resolution. Rights and privileges do not exist in such a state where they are proverbially understood by their very nature. They have to be defined, and generally we leave the defining of law to courts.

 LordofHats wrote:

This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.

The only alternatives are to accept everything as a religion, which is ludicrous, or to accept nothing which is equally ludicrous. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't problematic. We're saying it's reality, and it's the only way for the courts and the law to function in a real world inhabited by real people. The courts very well could get something wrong, which is why the citizenry has to be active in politics. These things aren't the universal clock of Deism that we can just set up and proceed to ignore for the rest of time. The saying is my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. That's a very simple way of saying that your rights and my rights, if supposedly equal, can come into conflict and need resolution. Rights and privileges do not exist in such a state where they are proverbially understood by their very nature. They have to be defined, and generally we leave the defining of law to courts.

I disagree that the first alternative is ludicrous, you could say that it's just as silly to say that your religion tells them to do things that are patently not present in source literature; it's all mental gymnastics and interpretation. There's a reason why the Lemon Test and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act exist. The State can burden a person's ability to practice their stated "sincerely held beliefs" in specific circumstances. Further, SCOTUS has produced rulings particular to incarcerated persons whereby the State may further burden a person's religions expression. All of which is on the books, present, defended in court and doesn't have to touch attempts to define religion. My opinion (this and 50 cents can buy you a stick of gum) is that the pertinent section of the decision which deals with the judge's statement that FSMism is not a religion constitutes overreach on his part.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge so my opinion has every chance of being incorrect from a legal perspective. That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith. I feel that laws passed by Congress and the decisions by SCOTUS (i.e. Cutter v Wilkinson) align with my opinion but I'm a layperson and readily admit to a faulty understanding of things outside my area of expertise.

 LordofHats wrote:

This is the crux of my issue with this ruling; not that some idiot cried "religion" so that he could get a pirate costume, but that the judge decided he could rule on what is or isn't a religion.

The only alternatives are to accept everything as a religion, which is ludicrous, or to accept nothing which is equally ludicrous. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't problematic. We're saying it's reality, and it's the only way for the courts and the law to function in a real world inhabited by real people. The courts very well could get something wrong, which is why the citizenry has to be active in politics. These things aren't the universal clock of Deism that we can just set up and proceed to ignore for the rest of time. The saying is my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. That's a very simple way of saying that your rights and my rights, if supposedly equal, can come into conflict and need resolution. Rights and privileges do not exist in such a state where they are proverbially understood by their very nature. They have to be defined, and generally we leave the defining of law to courts.

In this case it really is all or nothing, to do anything else is to show favoritism towards certain religions. Doing that is getting really close to state sponsored religion area. The government has no place passing laws about religions, I read that somewhere, the fact that it grants some religions benefits creates a problem. Our church of dakkadakka should also be granted the same tax exempt status other religious buildings enjoy.

If we have a deeply held belief that dakkadakka is a religion, it's not up to the government nor the courts to decide. We don't need their permission to start our religion, and they have no legal ground to deny us, what they grant to others.

 agnosto wrote:
that FSMism is not a religion constitutes overreach on his part.

And then we're just back to the complaint that someone used common sense. Being a judge doesn't force someone to accept a claim on its face. Proclaiming a parody a religion is as invalid as proclaiming intelligent design science, which is why I again state its very bizarre that people are upset FSMism has been recognized for what it is.

it's not up to the government nor the courts to decide.

Yes... it is. The IRS probably turns down loads claims for religious tax exemptions every year. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to think the government should automatically accept every religious claim on it's face. Being "government" doesn't bind someone and forbid them from using common sense, and it doesn't force the government to unilaterally accept every claim without inquiry. Government doesn't work that way. Under such conditions it probably wouldn't work at all.

 LordofHats wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
that FSMism is not a religion constitutes overreach on his part.

And then we're just back to the complaint that someone used common sense. Being a judge doesn't force someone to accept a claim on its face. Proclaiming a parody a religion is as invalid as proclaiming intelligent design science, which is why I again state its very bizarre that people are upset FSMism has been recognized for what it is.

it's not up to the government nor the courts to decide.

Yes... it is. The IRS probably turns down loads claims for religious tax exemptions every year. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to think the government should automatically accept every religious claim on it's face. Being "government" doesn't bind someone and forbid them from using common sense, and it doesn't force the government to unilaterally accept every claim without inquiry. Government doesn't work that way.

So you're saying it's ok for the government to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion?

That's a interesting position to take, especially when you just got done saying there's nothing wrong with starting a new religion.