I find the whole FSM thing annoying. The point is NOT to be a real a religion but obviously to mock religions. Okay. Whatever.

As a joke it soon turns bad -- like spaghetti that has been left in the frig for a week. The original point was "promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools." WEIRD how like so many religions it strayed from those virtuous goals so quickly -- and became remarkably less interesting and less note-worthy.

Those who don sincerity to defend it -- obviously you have never taught school. Stuff like that wears so thin so fast that you can never imagine as a grownup doing it again -- not after you have a faced a class of eighth-graders putting that on.\

Clipped from the Wiki: "However, in the United States, a federal judge has ruled that the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not a real religion.[7] In August 2018 the Dutch Council of State also ruled that Pastafarianism is not a religion.[8]" They did not do so because it is not long established or out of some kind of cruelty to you True Believers. It's just an acknowledgement of what you deny.

I think the reason it is so annoying is the wish to have it both ways -- to be satiric -- and yet somehow be taken very seriously. Just no. Sometimes in life you have to choose. This is one of them.

After all, no one argues that a SNL skit is the same as a current White House briefing -- although it might be hard to judge which is more absurd, which is mocking reality and which is reality.

Still, as Justice Stewart said of porn, "I know it when I see it." The same came even more easily be said of satire -- which does not benefit by taking the joke too far.

I don’t understand this post at all. I also don’t understand why people keep singling out Jacob for topics.

Read the last thread of the same name where Jacob says wearing a colander on the head in respect to a God made of spaghetti should have the same protection as a small cross. Alternately, he claims that no religious symbols should be allowed in schools. The problem is that the courts have ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion.It was started as a mockery of religion. It is a joke and jokes are not given the same Constitutional protection as established religions with followers,traditions etc.. . Jacob is being ridiculous which is why he is being singled out.I have taught school for 40 years and crosses, Muslim head scarves etc have never been a distraction in my experience, but kids wearing silly items and claiming they have a right to do so is definitely a distraction.

Let me set my beliefs on a platter for you.

I don't believe that the right to practice a religion should have greater protection than the simple right of individual expression. The fact that it is enumerated seems redundant to me. In addition this special carve out has empowered people to believe that since they have the right of that expression that others must listen. As demonstrated by the idea that a teacher couldn't tell a student to stop something disruptive simply because it is a religious expression.

I believe that the establishment clause should be reinforced with more specific and restrictive language.

I don't accept anecdotal evidences as proof positive that something is or isn't disruptive, silly, or right or wrong.


Obviously there is a lot more to what I believe but I think this more or less represents my stance regarding these things.

I understand where you are coming from, JE, but I don't think the Stewart dictum supports your point.

"I know it when I see it" has a folksy, down-home charm but is an extraordinarily imprecise legal and logical standard, one that depends inevitably on an individual's sensibilities. Just consider what Stewart "knew" as impermissible pornography when he wrote that in 1964 compared to what is constitutionally protected expression today. Stewart's principle ultimately had no meaning and eroded like a pile of sand in a storm.

It is therefore not a reliable guide to religion either. What the courts, and the public, view as a constitutionally protected faith today will almost certainly not be how the term is perceived in ten or twenty or thirty years. In fact, even today different authorities will reach radically different conclusions about what comprises a legitimate religion if they employ the "I know it when I see it" metric.

Do you have a more objective standard to offer? Because reference to the Stewart precedent comes close to acknowledging that Jacob is right when he suggests that there is little difference between the FSM and established religions. It would be nice to have a more durable standard by which to differentiate.

I gather that the judge drew a distinction between fake credulity and the real thing. That’s an important commentary on humanity. You can’t fake stupid. You actually have to be stupid to enjoy the protections of stupidity under the law.

Thank you,janeelliot.pastafarian was amusing when it was a satirical protest of religious nuts. Now their followers are demanding Constitutional protections or, if they don't get them, they demand that those protections be taken from others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 01:25PM by bona dea.

Not the point. The point is that Jacob's stance doesn't hold water for us. Also,you are assuming that those of us who think it is silly are all religious. I am not particularly religious although I ma no anti all religion or atheist and I am pretty sure two of the others aren't religious either.
We are talking about law, Constitutional protections, how to distinguish between a religion and a.parody of reilion, and, last, what constitutes an actual disruption among children in schools and how to handle it best.

Wrong place . Was meant to answer rocamop



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 01:37PM by bona dea.

OK, so how do you "legally" determine what constitutes a religion? (I'm going to leave the idea of "parody" out of it because the discussion boils down to what is a religion and what isn't according to the the law.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Church has, by all accounts, filled out all required legal documentation to be classified as a religion in the US at least. Members are allowed to fill out forms and allowed to legally perform marriages, wear religious headgear for Drivers licenses and College ID's, etc.

Since, as you say, "We are talking about law"... Not what you like, what you consider silly, etc. How is the FSM Church not legally a religion? I don't care what "holds water for you", that doesn't matter as far as the law is concerned.

In this case and in most it is obvious. If not, the courts decide.A new religion pulled out of thin air with no contact to other religions, with no.real theology or rituals would get more scrutiny than a religion which goes back thousands of years.If it was know to.have started as a joke, it would get even more scrutiny.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 02:11PM by bona dea.

When did the courts decide that Catholicism was a legit religion? When did the courts decide that Baptists were legit?

There are plenty of religions out there that have what many consider to be "silly" beliefs, yet are considered a religion, without a court case.

Legally, if they fill out the paperwork, they are a religion. Why is this so hard?

ETA... You seem to be pushing the idea that if you don't think it's a religion, it's not until a court decides that it is. That's not how things work. As I stated above, once the paperwork is filled out the organization is a religion. If the courts get involved, and that's a big if, then something might lose it's religion status, but it's not the other way around.

Religious protections exist for this very reason. To keep people like you from deciding that something they deem silly shouldn't get equal protection under the law.

Note that the law doesn't make distinctions about what, and this is important, if anything at all, a religion is said to believe. The only thing the law should care about is if they have filed the proper paperwork for such an organization and are adhering to the rules going forward.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 02:16PM by Finally Free!.

I said if there was a question the courts would decide. Guess you !missed that. Catholicism goes back 2000 years and has never come before the U.S. Court system in this sence. Neither have other established religions. BTW, you missed the part of characteristics of an established religion and, in case you bring it up, I had nothing to do with whether it is true or silly



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 03:31PM by bona dea.

"In this case and in most it is obvious."

Says you. If I decide the LDS church is obviously not a religion, it's a business, should it suddenly lose all it's protections? Because, I, a random citizen, have decided such a thing was completely obvious?

"If not, the courts decide."

What is your obsession with the courts? Besides, you know that's not how things work, as I stated above, a religion is a religion once the paperwork has been filled out. The courts, if they were to get involved, and why would they, may decide something is not. But, legally, it's a religion until the court decide they are not. It is not, something isn't a religion until a court case decides it is. No matter how much you wish it not to be that way.

"A new religion pulled out of thin air with no contact to other religions,..."

You do realize that the LDS church, something you, presumably, consider to be a legal religion, claims to have no ties or history with any other religion. They claim it was pulled whole cloth from "prophecy". They are often very careful to claim that they are not a branch or break off of any other existing religion and are not part of the protestant movement. So that argument doesn't work. I'm pretty sure I could come up with tons of examples of religions that break your rule here.

"...with no.real theology or rituals..."

Who says they don't have theology or rituals? They claim they do, you just happy to think they are silly and aren't real. Who are you to decide this for other people.

"...would get more scrutiny..."

Again, this is why legal protections exist. You don't get to scrutinize other religions and decide what's legit and what isn't. The law does, and that's just paperwork, which the FSM church has filled out.

"..than a religion which goes back thousands of years...."

So... Not the LDS church... Not Baptists which only started hundreds of years ago... Not Jehovah Witness which only started in 1870's. Wait... all these are considered religions.

"If it was know to.have started as a joke,.."

So a religion that was literally started by a con man, because he wanted fame, fortune, power and women, that's OK and totally deserving of projection under the law.

Besides, the church of the FSM wasn't started as a joke. It was started to prove a very important point. To deal with education and religious freedom. A point which you are handily proving still needs to be made because YOU think you know better than someone else what they believe and what protections under the law they should have.

Edited for spelling and clarity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 02:44PM by Finally Free!.

Bye bye.You are being deliberately obtuse and I dont have the patience or time right now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 02:45PM by bona dea.

So... you don't want to back up your arguments? I mean, your last post above stated that I didn't address them. I have now and they don't work for the reasons stated.

ETA to comment on your edit... Where am I being obtuse? You said I didn't address your arguments, I did.

You see it as annoying and without merit. I'm honestly not trying to just be annoying, I'm not "attacking" you and I'm honestly not trying to use condescending language.

I'm pointing out that your arguments do not work, and if they were applied to other religions, many other religions wouldn't meet their criteria, it's just that YOU'VE decided that they are acceptable. Which again, is the entire point of Equal protection under the law, to keep someone, like you, from deciding what's acceptable and what isn't.

You may not like it, but it is a legal religion that gets equal protection.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 02:53PM by Finally Free!.

I think you’re supposed to shut up and read your Book of Mormon.

As I've stated previously, ordinary expressions of religion are not normally a problem in the U.S. schools from what I've seen. Students and teachers wear crosses, Stars of David. Hammers of Thor, Pentagrams, hijabs, yarmulkes, etc. without interfering with instruction in any way. I've seen students share their religious faith with other students during lunch time. I've seen voluntary prayer circles. I've seen church groups do non-proselytizing youth work in schools.

Yet there are likely limits to this expression. A collander would be a major distraction to a class. I could see a burka or a niqab being problematic. I don't know what the exact limits would be, but I suspect that there are limits. Personally, in more than 20 years, I've never seen those limits tested. Even the Saudi national who taught in my school for a while only wore a hijab. If a student wore a collander into my classroom I would acknowledge his Pastafarianism and then tell him to put it in his locker. If the kid pushed the issue, then he could go discuss his concerns with the principal.

Agree. If it is a distraction, it needs another look. I have never had an incident where religious jewelry etc was a distraction though

"Train up a child to be silly, and he might always be silly, given the chance."

I bet most of us have a 'Sacred Cow.' Mine is tennis. I will not tolerate a lack of respect for the game and it is SO STUPID to tell me that table tennis is easier on older people, or that tennis courts should be turned into skateboard parks!

Religion is a Sacred Cow to many, many people. To Jacob and some few others, it is not. From what I can find online regarding Pastafarianism, it got its start when an Oklahoma man was raised to ire by Oklahoma's state school board okaying the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, as a legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution. Only within religion does intelligent design find any support. But when the religious decide to support something, the know God is on their side!

FSMism does not seek to mock religion, per se, since it asks to be considered one. Rather, FSMism exists for only one significant reason, to wipe out religious influence on core educational teaching.

The colander ought to be no more offensive than the fish device seen on the backs of cars, ostentatious crosses, Amish bonnets, Muslim hijabs, etc. And of course, no student should be allowed to wear a colander in class...unless over 50% of the class comes so attired.

By the way, I apologize to those folk who believe table tennis is worth getting up in the morning for.

Sunny Bona Dea said:

> Not the point. The point is that Jacob's
> stance doesn't hold water for us. Also,
> you are assuming that those of us who think
> it is silly are all religious. I am not
> particularly religious although I am no anti
> all religion or atheist and I am pretty sure
> two of the others aren't religious either.
>
> We are talking about law, Constitutional
> protections, how to distinguish between a
> religion and a parody of religion, and, last,
> what constitutes an actual disruption among
> children in schools and how to handle it best.

I can only support your final point, about disruption among children in schools. I sincerely believe your other points do not deserve serious consideration.

Your insistence that Jacob's point doesn't hold water for many of you is pointless, without merit, as a basis for sustaining rejection of FSMism as a religion. I absolutely agree, from my perspective, that FSMism is a ludicrous as Catholicism but I grant practitioners of both to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they don't disrupt classrooms or my forward progress on roadways.

What if a faithful Muslim 8th grader had an alarm on his phone which at the appropriate times called him to prayer. Certainly here in most areas of North America he or she would not be allowed to leave his seat, spread a prayer rug and do whatever it is they do. Likewise, in Saudia Arabia, a school teacher would have no trouble telling a Catholic to go wash his or her forehead on Ash Wednesday.

Yes, FSMisn, aka Pastafarianism, is a total mockery of religion, yet it's mocking practitioners have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom to seek redress from the government. They have the civil right to mock religion in any fashion that does not break civil and/or criminal laws. If said practitioners are not allowed to perform their mockeries in certain locales, so be it, as long as the forbidders have the right to limit said mockery.

Such power on RfM exists only with the mods and ultimately, with Concrete Zipper, about whom one wonders, is the zipper open or closed.

Railing against Jacob for exercising his opinions here on RfM is silly and pointless. RfM rewards and punishes based on the currents that flow here, which is nothing more than the collective will of the contributors.

And I totally disagree with you. pastafarianism is not a religion and that is not my view. It is the view of the courts. That is what matters. If the courts change their mind, I will reluctantly accept it as a religion.

"It is the view of the courts."

Which court case stated this? I'm genuinely interested to know.

It's a shame that they didn't appeal that. It would have been nice to have seen how that would have gone.

It is interesting to me that other countries have accepted it as a "legit" religion, but the US, a country that is supposed to have religious freedom as a core "belief" has decided not to. That's a shame.

I think Pastafarianism and the FSM are stupid. But I also think a number of widely accepted religions are stupid. And, more important, my personal views are irrelevant.

What matters is whether the courts can articulate a standard that reliably allows them to differentiate between phenomena that are covered by Freedom of Religion and those that are not. And just as my feelings aren't important, so too are the assertions by some that Pastafarianism is "obviously" not a religion, or that "I know one when I see one," or that FSM is "disruptive." Nor does such dismissal become more credible because someone decides after stating his opinion strongly to close off the conversation by saying "bye bye." That effectively means "I have no further substance or logic to offer in support of my view."

The article cited just above points out the problem. Granted, its title is "Pastafarianism is Not a Legally Recognized Religion in the U.S." But that title is not supported by the discussion presented in the actual article. Pastafarianism is in fact recognized by a few legal authorities, like DMVs, in some states. Such practices by legal authorities are in fact "legal recognition." So Pastafarianism is gaining ground, not losing it.

More accurate, accordingly, is the subtitle: "The Nebraska ruling is a small setback as the movement expands its noodly reach." Yes, the "religion" is progressing towards greater official status. Also accurate is the final sentence, which states that "if past efforts are any indication, we might be taking Pastafarianism a lot more seriously in the future."

In one form or another, the definition of "religion" in an increasingly pluralistic and cynical society is likely to require supreme court adjudication. The standards proposed in this thread are not dependable; they are no more objective than Stewart's "I know it when I see it" observation about dirty pictures.

And religious people should care. Subjective standards like "disruptive" or "silly" or "obvious" are each capable of invalidating established religions of one sort or another. Some protestant ruler might one day say Catholicism or Mormonism or Hinduism is "obviously false. Bye Bye." Ultimately there are only two ways out of this conundrum: either accept that "made-up" religions like Pastafarianism deserve equal legal recognition or offer an objective standard that allows courts, and people, to differentiate between the real and the false.

Perhaps there is no such standard.

Completely agreed, and thank you for weighing in. I have always appreciated your comments and analysis.

I especially like, "And religious people should care." They really should for the reasons you state. This is why I'm surprised that a Nebraska court made such a ruling. I would think that many religions would be horrified by this, but are likely thinking, "of coarse, we're totally legit, so that can't happen to us."

I do think organizations such as The Satanic Temple and Pastafarianism are showing the problems of the Religious majority in the US and problems with Religious freedoms. It's always interesting to watch how things play out.

I do wish they had appealed as I think they have a strong case, the "About" alone page on the main Pastafarian website easily counters the argument that it's a "satirical" religion that no one really believes.

I dont disagree with some of that, but as of now pastafarianism is not recognized as a religion in the US and doesn't have 1st Amendment protection which is accorded to religion. That is the whole point,DMV notwithstanding.Maybe it will be appealed and they will win. I hope not, but it could happen.Therefore as of now there is a big legal difference between wearing a cross in school or at work and wearing a pastanstrainer. I don't know how to say it more simply.

The DMV is an official governmental department. It's decisions regarding religions are authoritative.

Say what you want. In parts of the country Pastafarianism has legal recognition until a superior entity, the courts in the relevant jurisdictions, change the rule.

Until then, Pastafarianism enjoys legal recognition.

I might suggest that instead of there "is" a legal distinction, to there "may" be a legal distinction. As Lot's Wife and I have pointed out, several government organizations do recognize Pastafarianism as a legit religion. (see some DMV's, some schools, and as far as I'm aware everywhere for accepting Marriage licences signed by a Pastafarian Priest). I get that the court is the only ruling out there so far, but the stated example have happen since then and haven't been challenged.

I think legal challenges are still to come before giving a definitive answer. I don't think it's as simple and black and white as you seem to think. I just skimmed an article on the legal definition of religion and interestingly the LDS church has played an important part the history of that. While I didn't have time to read the whole thing, I get the impression that the definition is still evolving and changing and probably will continue to do so. (If you're interested, the article is http://americanaejournal.hu/vol5no1/blutman)

I also think it's sad that you want to see them lose, simply because you think they are silly. I think a lot of religions are "silly" and yet I don't want those religions to lose their rights.

I think that would be a huge blow to one of the founding and very important principles of the US. While I know about the slippery slope logical fallacy and the dangers of that, I do think there is a concern with the Christian majority potentially causing problems for those who don't believe that way. You may disagree, and that's fine, but it something I worry about, especially with the way the government has been going lately.

I think there's a place for the FSM and what it stands for, I hope they continue the good work they've been doing.

Regarding the legal question, the actions of DMVs and marriage authorities, etc., are absolutely "legal."

The constitution and Congressional laws establish a framework. Agencies are established to apply the law and the regulations they independently adopt. Those decisions are binding. Disputes are accordingly treated under a distinct body called "Administrative Law" which has separate judges and separate appeals processes. In short, agencies are empowered to make their own law within their ambits.

So yes, DMV practices count as legal action and can be used as precedent.

In your opinion. They still are not a court and do not have judicial power.

In my opinion? Amusing.

Tell that to the IRS or the SEC or the EPA or OSHA. You think for a moment that the IRS doesn't--your word, "interpret," law? Of course it does. If you go to court over a tax dispute, the court is going to apply the law as defined and codified by the IRS. If you dislike that interpretation, you have to appeal it the same way you would if seeking to overturn a district court decision.

Perhaps you could explain why, if the Nebraska court is superior to the DMVs and county clerk offices in other states, those agencies continue imperviously to violate the Nebraska decision. Is it your contention that the rest of the country is in violation of the law?

Lots of things are legal.The doesn't mean the agencies who put them into effect are courts. Take a civics class if you can see the difference

I should take a civics class? What a wonderful idea.

Is there a specific class you could recommend, perhaps one that would teach me to pretend you did not write (immediately below) that administrative agencies "neither make nor interpret laws?" Because your statement is false.

Would your recommended class teach me that there is no such field as administrative law? Because if if it did, your ignorance of the topic would no longer appear so glaring.

Would it teach me, with reference to the Catholic Church's child abuse, that there is no such legal principle as respondeat superior? Because there is.

Would it teach me that there is no RICO statute that can be employed when an institution covers up serial crimes? Because there is.

Where may I find this civics class that teaches things not as they are but as you would like them to be?

The point is that I don't think it comes anywhere near the standards of a religion.That is why I don't think it should have religious protection. So far, the courts agree with me.I feel the same way about Scientology which is bad science fiction by sci to author.You might as well make a religion out of Star Wars or Star Trek.As far asPastafarianism being disputed in the US, the DMV neither make nor interpret laws. Another point is that only a small handful of countries recognize Pastafarianism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 06:36PM by bona dea.

What do you know about the Church of the Jedi? Would you like to know more?

"Hey you kids, stop looking at my lawn! And we don't like your kind hanging around here in North America!

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is that I don't think it comes anywhere
> near the standards of a religion.

That is precisely the question. WHAT STANDARD IS THERE FOR DEFINING A RELIGION? Can you indicate a standard the supreme court uses to differentiate between real religions and fake ones? Of course you can't. Because there isn't one.


----------------
> That is why I
> don't think it should have religious protection.
> So far, the courts agree with me.

By "the courts," you mean "a court," right? Singular, not plural. One district court with jurisdiction in one district. You don't have a second ruling anywhere let alone a circuit court decision or a supreme court decision. Meanwhile you have administrative decisions in other jurisdictions that contradict your single judge.


---------
> I feel the same
> way about Scientology which is bad science fiction
> by sci to author.

That's the problem. Your feelings are not a judicial standard. And your description of false religions would, in the eyes of many, apply with equal merit to Mormonism or even your beloved Catholicism.


------------
> You might as well make a
> religion out of Star Wars or Star Trek.

That is the point. Your standard would allow a Star Trek faith, or disallow Catholicism, depending on the views of any particular judge. That is no standard.


---------------
> As far
> asPastafarianism being disputed in the US, the DMV
> neither make nor interpret laws.

Intentional ignorance. You have no clue what Administrative Law is, so you pretend it does not exist. Administrative agencies do exactly what you say they do not.

"Agencies are created through their own organic statutes, which establish new laws, and doing so, create the respective agencies to INTERPRET, administer, and enforce those new laws." My Emphasis. Administrative agencies, including the DMV and marriage registers, absolutely do interpret and enforce law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law


--------------
There is no legal standard that distinguishes between real and fake religions. Personal opinions are not legally significant. A single judge has ruled the way you like, but other administrative agencies have issued authoritative declarations to the contrary. Unless an superior body--ultimately the supreme court--formulates an objective and enforceable standard, the odds are that pastafarianism and other joke religions will eventually gain legal protection.

Much as joke religions have in the past.

It was a federal court.Until a higher court over rules them that is the law. What Poland,IDeal and the Netherlands dishes nothing to do with US law. BTW, Poland is a deeply religious country.

BD writes: "It was a federal court.Until a higher court over rules them that is the law."

False.

The decisions of administrative agencies are binding within their jurisdictions until overturned by superior courts. The Nebraska court's decision is binding in Nebraska; the administrative agencies' decisions are binding within their jurisdictions. This happens all the time with the SEC, the EPA, and every other administrative agency from top to bottom. The decision of a district court in Nebraska is not "the law" anywhere outside of Nebraska.


-----------
BD writes: "What Poland,IDeal and the Netherlands dishes nothing to do with US law."

Then why did you bring them up? I was replying to your post.


----------
BD writes: "BTW, Poland is a deeply religious country."

Yes, and the way that the country discriminates against minority religions underscores the unique importance within the United States of the First Amendment, which was written as a check on religious fervor. The US goes much further in protecting unpopular religions than other countries, which again suggests that Pastafarianism, stupid religion that it is, may ultimately gain constitutional protection in the US.

“Can you indicate a standard the supreme court uses to differentiate between real religions and fake ones? Of course you can't. Because there isn't one.”

There doesn’t need to be a standard because sincerity is obvious. The parody religions by definition don’t have sincere beliefs.

Because of the way US law evolved, crazy has a special section carved out. Deluded beliefs held in common have special protection. If you’re the only one that believes them, not so much. Then you’re just crazy. If you can convince a bunch of other people to believe the same as you, then you might have a religion. Religious standards are then a sham because the foundation is illusory.

FSM is grounded in reality. Sorry guys, no religion for you.

"There doesn’t need to be a standard because sincerity is obvious."

That would be a standard. A religion is recognized because it's followers are sincere.

But the Supreme Court has never enunciated that standard. It has studiously avoided doing that because the First Amendment and the establishment clause dictate that the state is not supposed to judge the validity of beliefs.

The court may one day decide to do that, or it may continue in the jurisprudence of the last 200+ years and steer clear of standards that require subjective judgments. "I know it when I see it" has not fared well as a judicial principle, no matter who the "I" may be.

>It has studiously avoided doing that because the First Amendment and the establishment clause dictate that the state is not supposed to judge the validity of beliefs.

This is the real heart of the matter.

Do we really want any government official (no matter what their title - judge, president, senator, governor, county clerk, school principal, or DMV employee) to have the ability to decide what belief is or is not valid?

That is how one ends up with legal religious discrimination. To anyone who is OK with that, I would only remind them that their beliefs are just as vulnerable as those they don't like. Ask yourself if you want anybody from the government deciding whether your beliefs are acceptable or not.

Personally, I do not want to go down that road.

That is exactly how I feel.

“Ask yourself if you want anybody from the government deciding whether your beliefs are acceptable or not.”

Isn’t that what we’re doing with Islamic and other extremists? Sometimes it’s better to not let the inmates run the asylum. Government is only a problem when it has no checks against corruption, but you’re right. It doesn’t have the resources to police religion.

On the other hand, it’s the state’s job to control the narrative in order to perpetuate the nation. Religion has been a great tool for that, but only some religions. So why shouldn’t it discriminate?

Case in point: the Russian Orthodox Church. Should the state discriminate against competing religions? Absolutely. They’re not crazy, they’re just ahead of the curve.

We in the West seem to be resigned to letting blood sucking parasite cults roam free among us, cuz religious freedom. The same freedom FSM lampoons. It’s about time someone broke out a can of Raid. Hey, I like freedom too. But I don’t like my life thrown into a wood chipper. Maybe it’s just me.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2019 05:31AM by babyloncansuckit.

>On the other hand, it’s the state’s job to control the narrative in order to perpetuate the nation. Religion has been a great tool for that, but only some religions. So why shouldn’t it discriminate?

>Case in point: the Russian Orthodox Church. Should the state discriminate against competing religions? Absolutely. They’re not crazy, they’re just ahead of the curve.

>We in the West seem to be resigned to letting blood sucking parasite cults roam free among us, cuz religious freedom. The same freedom FSM lampoons. It’s about time someone broke out a can of Raid. Hey, I like freedom too. But I don’t like my life thrown into a wood chipper. Maybe it’s just me.

I suppose that may be true if your ideal is to live in a dictatorship. Personally, I like the idea of having the freedom to believe in what I choose.

I couldn't agree more.

"Another point is that only a small handful of countries recognize Pastafarianism."

So you are saying that even countries with less respect for religion than the US, with its First Amendment, have reached the conclusion that Pastafarianism is a valid religion? Because that would seem to indicate that the US, with its much greater deference to individual faith, will eventually grant official recognition to the joke religion.

Okay, I am done. You are putting words in my mouth again in this post and in others. I am not playing this game.This is what you always do. You are either being deliberately obtuse or trying to start a fight.Saying an agency isn't a court does no mean that they can't interpret laws but they can still be overruled by courts .Congress makes laws and the courts have final authority to interpret laws in the case an agency gets it wrong or gets sued.Bye

Brilliant.

In the preceding two posts, I quoted your words verbatim four times--and you claim that I am putting words in your mouth.

If you don't like the words you used, go back and edit them. Then we can join you in pretending they don't exist.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2019 11:46PM by Lot's Wife.

Interpretation, dear.Maybe I should have expressed it better, but you are adding all sorts of meaning and ideas that are not mine even if the quotes are mine. You are trying to read my mind and doing a lousy job.Feel free to quote what I said, but don't expand on it and read hidden meanings to it. Example: you claimed that the three countries which recognize Pastafarianism are less religious than the US.Huh??? That was not my point and had nothing to do with what I meant. I simply said there were only three. I did point out that Poland is very religious though. Instead of admitting you were wrong on one of the three, you tried to read hidden meaning into that. I wasn't defending Poland in any way. I don't care how religious or secular three countries are. I was pointing out that only three countries on this planet recognize Pastafarianism.

I'm not hiding the ball, BD.

I said those three countries decided to recognize Pastafarianism even though they are not required to do so by anything like the First Amendment. Whether they are fervently religious or not is a separate matter.

The point, as I said, is that if countries with less constitutional protection for unpopular religions than the US decide that Pastafarianism deserves deference, the odds are higher for a country with such protection.

Good luck.

Notwithstanding the Vatican, I think Pastafarians have a real shot at recognition in Italy. Have you tasted Italian meatballs?

Actually it is a legally recognized religion. This is from the same article:

"In fact, Pastafarianism is an officially recognized religion in three countries—first in Poland, where it became an officially registered religious community in 2014 thanks to a legal technicality, then in the Netherlands this past January. And just this weekend, New Zealand recognized the first legally-binding Pastafarian wedding, officiated by “minestroni” Karen Martyn."

Since it is growing, and there are more lawsuits on the way... just give it time in America. I am going to meditate and practice my Jediism now.

HH =)

The logic here is pretty strong.

Superficially, Pastafarianism and Jediism and the rest seem ridiculous. But ridiculousness is not a judicial principle.

The question consequently becomes whether there is a solid objective rule courts could use to differentiate between "real" and "ersatz" faiths. What this thread indicates is that the RfM community cannot devise one. That seems to be the case with the courts, too, since they have not adopted any clear standard.

A greater truth is that rules like "I know it when I see it," "it is ridiculous," and "common sense" are innately subjective. They are espoused by people who feel entitled to make social and legal rules based on their own impulses. More often than not, these "standards" are a way through which the entitled insist that their views must remain socially dominant.

The collective inability to devise a more objective and rational standard, one not rooted in a particular economic or ethnic class, makes me think that it is only a matter of time before Pastafarianism gains broad acceptance as a religion. The way that might happen is if society decides to relax expectations for faith just as it previously did for marriage and, even earlier, race.

I said several times that it is not recognized in the US and acknowledged that it is recognized in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland. Read the whole thread.

You totally disagree with me? Did you read what I wrote?

I stated that FSMism is not a religion. I implied that colanders cannot be worn in classrooms if the teacher so decides.

All I am supporting is the freedom of speech and expression while recognizing that there are constraints to each.

Now I'm wondering who the radical is, you or Jacob?

I didn't express myself well.Sorry I didn't make it clearer. RFM posters can say what they like,within board rules, and that includes me. I am not saying they can't say what they think or trying to shut them up. Did you read my posts?

I'm on my phone so I can't really respond. Not wishing to rehash anything let me just state that the know it when I see it defense is acknowledgement that the distinction is subjective at best.

Of course it’s subjective, but you can’t roll over common sense with semantics. Well, maybe if you’re Kirton McConkie.

"Common sense" usually means "what I think" or what my socio-economic class thinks." The term's meaning changes over time as the dominant group's views evolve or as other groups of people gain influence.

That is why common sense makes a poor judicial standard. Courts would prefer to find something that is less subjective, less malleable.

Semantics gets a bad rap. There's a reason why it is universally derided and yet is the foundation of just about every conversation like this.

Relocated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2019 03:40PM by Lot's Wife.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find the whole FSM thing annoying. The point is
> NOT to be a real a religion but obviously to mock
> religions. Okay. Whatever.

Not mock, but instead fight movements to legitimize religious beliefs by teaching them in science classrooms.

> As a joke it soon turns bad -- like spaghetti that
> has been left in the frig for a week. The original
> point was "promotes a light-hearted view of
> religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent
> design and creationism in public schools." WEIRD
> how like so many religions it strayed from those
> virtuous goals so quickly -- and became remarkably
> less interesting and less note-worthy.

As demonstrated by this very thread, fighting defacto legitimacy is nuanced. How does a religion obtain legitimacy? Obviously by gaining early admittance to the market. Let's just imagine for a second that the real god and real religion sprang up tomorrow. How long would it take for that new, true, religion to gain legitimacy? And why, legaly speaking, would it need to prove itself when others haven't done anything except exist for longer than the real one?

> Those who don sincerity to defend it -- obviously
> you have never taught school. Stuff like that
> wears so thin so fast that you can never imagine
> as a grownup doing it again -- not after you have
> a faced a class of eighth-graders putting that
> on.\

I'll bet it would get real tiring real fast. Although why does a teacher grow tired quickly of accommodating something they feel they shouldn't have to? While they graciously accept accommodating something equally silly but steeped in tradition?

> Clipped from the Wiki: "However, in the United
> States, a federal judge has ruled that the "Church
> of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not a real
> religion.[7] In August 2018 the Dutch Council of
> State also ruled that Pastafarianism is not a
> religion.[8]" They did not do so because it is not
> long established or out of some kind of cruelty to
> you True Believers. It's just an acknowledgement
> of what you deny.

To be fair to you I must admit that I think courts can be wrong. I think that the SCOTUS failed the constitution with Citizens United. That acquitting OJ was a miscarriage of justice. Or even more relevant did you know that the Tennessee constitution used to ban the teaching of evolution? So when you tell me that a court has decided something or that a law says something I might be unimpressed.

> I think the reason it is so annoying is the wish
> to have it both ways -- to be satiric -- and yet
> somehow be taken very seriously. Just no.
> Sometimes in life you have to choose. This is one
> of them.

I'm not sure why I have to choose and who decides when I have to choose. Why can't it be that you have to choose to accept that satire might be relevant and useful when it is about something serious.

> After all, no one argues that a SNL skit is the
> same as a current White House briefing -- although
> it might be hard to judge which is more absurd,
> which is mocking reality and which is reality.

Unfortunately, SNL has hit too close to the mark sometimes. It has been hard to laugh because sometimes it isn't a skit.

> Still, as Justice Stewart said of porn, "I know it
> when I see it." The same came even more easily be
> said of satire -- which does not benefit by taking
> the joke too far.

As has been pointed out, one person's implicit bias is hardly an appropriate measuring stick when it comes to freedom expression.

Again and again we get back to the school teacher's position: "everything should accord with common sense, my common sense." That is an attitude that prevails in the classroom, which is in effect a limited dictatorship.

But in the real world, no one gets to define what terms like "common sense," "obvious," "silly," or "ridiculous" mean. What seems obvious to the authority figure in one context is not obvious to others.

This isn't a question of a person's political orientation: smug didacts exist on the right and on the left. It is a matter of life experience and a procedurally conservative personality. "I think this is common sense, and my views are objectively correct. End of story."

With regard to the Constitution, the primary purpose of Freedom of Speech is to permit satire since satire, parody, is one of the most potent weapons against tyranny that exists. It tears down artificial edifices. The notion that it should not apply to Freedom of Religion is patently false. The Founders saw the separation of church and state as critical, and they envisioned Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech as complementary means to promote that value.

Satire is as important, as vital, as religious liberty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2019 03:41PM by Lot's Wife.