Flying Spaghetti Monster is not God, rules mortal judge

[Lord Revan]

oh yeah I forgot that US churches and temples aren't tax funded like here, granted it's a small tax and you have to be a member of the church to need to pay that but still.

regardless it would be hypocritical to claim to be advocating freedom of expression while supressing religions even if only in-directly (by making sure they won't survive), since freedom of expression includes also forms of expression that you don't like, not just the ones you like.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes.

[Note, Revan, the following is not really addressed to you.]

The complication when it comes to freedom of religion is that while all expression is protected, not all expression is protected equally.

Me personally getting up on a street corner and saying "I think the universe was created by the squirrels" is not the exercise of a religion. Me writing a book intended to parody creationists or the Koran or whatever, about how squirrels created the universe and laid down laws for us Big People to follow, is not the exercise of a religion. Me and my twenty closest friends all attending Squirrelist 'church services' while barely suppressing our laughter is not the exercise of a religion. It is, bluntly, a joke. We all know this. Pretending otherwise is at best a frivolous use of our time.

Now, do I have a right to tell my jokes? Yes. Do I still have a right to tell my jokes if they offend someone who thinks I'm insulting their religion? Yes.

But do I have a right to say that my Squirrelist religion 'forbids' me from doing this or that thing which is otherwise legally mandated, or means that the government is required to give me special accomodations including macaroni and cheese on Wednesdays because that's what we Squirrelists do, and "Stop oppressing my culture, you ethnocentric bitch!"...

No. No, I do not, precisely because my so-called 'religion' is a thing I created frivolously, as a toy, and I am attempting to use this toy of my own creation for personal gain.

Now, you can argue "wait, but Muslims get to eat halaal food, why can't I have mac and cheese on Wednesdays?" And the answer here is not "we believe in freedom of religion for Muslims but not for Squirrelists." The answer is "Muslims and Squirrelists aren't even the same category of thing. One is a religion, the other is a joke." It's like the difference between real legal holidays, and International Talk Like A Pirate Day. Don't get me wrong, I like to yell "avast" in mid-September as much as the next man, but it's a joke and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

You can also argue "wait, who are you to judge which things are religions and which things aren't?" And the answer is "because it is very much possible to pretend to have invented a religion, without actually doing so, there has to be some means of assessing what is and is not a religion."

And I'm trying as hard as I can to be fair here. Small religions (commonly called 'cults') with weird beliefs are still religions. The Heaven's Gate cult, for instance- quite frankly, a religion. We can tell because its leadership showed many signs of believing what they were saying, and because a significant fraction of its membership made major sacrifices due to their adherence to the religion (to say the least). They were weird, no sensible person would actually believe the stuff they believed for a minute. But say what you will... they were not joking. They didn't make up their religion for personal convenience.

But if your religion is indistinguishable from 'no religion,' even when we're looking at your most dedicated practitioners of the religion... then no, it's not a real religion. It's a game played with the concept of religion. And when the state is trying to fulfill legal requirements for the protection of religious groups, no it is not required to play along with your game.

[Zwinmar]

And who is anyone to actually say what someone else believes? There is more than ample evidence of people not following the tenets in their 'holy' books but they 'believe' and are 'religious' yet theirs are protected while the church of the FSM is being called satire by those same people.

And that is the problem: no matter how ridiculous one may find a religion that does not invalidate the belief people have in that religion. Satire, joke, whatever, you can't know if someone is serious about it if you are not a telepath. Remember, the Mormons were literally drove out several towns because of their ideologies and yet, its protected now, so whats the damn difference?

[Elheru Aran]

Generally, time is the test of a religion. If a belief system manages to last a few decades at the very least, if not longer, then you can with a reasonable amount of certainty label it a 'religion'. Scientology, unfortunately, has managed to last long enough to pass muster on that front at least. Mormonism has similarly endured. Pastafarianism, on the other hand, is a product of the Internet age and explicitly a joke. (It may have pre-Internet origins, I think, never bothered studying it in depth)

[Simon_Jester]

And who is anyone to actually say what someone else believes? There is more than ample evidence of people not following the tenets in their 'holy' books but they 'believe' and are 'religious' yet theirs are protected while the church of the FSM is being called satire by those same people.

And that is the problem: no matter how ridiculous one may find a religion that does not invalidate the belief people have in that religion. Satire, joke, whatever, you can't know if someone is serious about it if you are not a telepath. Remember, the Mormons were literally drove out several towns because of their ideologies and yet, its protected now, so whats the damn difference?

You keep missing one of my key points.

One way you can identify whether a religion is 'real' is whether it has highly committed followers.

No this does NOT mean "every person who claims to be a member is very very serious about it." If I wanted to say that, I would have actually said it.

But a religion with no highly committed followers is almost certainly not a religion at all.

And if you're going to keep spamming this silly "how do you actually know they're committed" question, the answer is "by looking at what they do."

[Jub]

And who is anyone to actually say what someone else believes? There is more than ample evidence of people not following the tenets in their 'holy' books but they 'believe' and are 'religious' yet theirs are protected while the church of the FSM is being called satire by those same people.

And that is the problem: no matter how ridiculous one may find a religion that does not invalidate the belief people have in that religion. Satire, joke, whatever, you can't know if someone is serious about it if you are not a telepath. Remember, the Mormons were literally drove out several towns because of their ideologies and yet, its protected now, so whats the damn difference?

You keep missing one of my key points.

One way you can identify whether a religion is 'real' is whether it has highly committed followers.

No this does NOT mean "every person who claims to be a member is very very serious about it." If I wanted to say that, I would have actually said it.

But a religion with no highly committed followers is almost certainly not a religion at all.

And if you're going to keep spamming this silly "how do you actually know they're committed" question, the answer is "by looking at what they do."

Why should the religious get special treatment when an atheist like myself does not? A Muslim or a Jew can get special meals or get days off from work for their holidays, but I have no such ability. Should not something like the FSM cover people like me even if I don't believe in the same way that a religious person might?

[Zwinmar]

Its the same with smokers having a smoke break every hour at work while the non-smokers can't. That implicit double standard is ridiculous and undermines equality.

No committed followers? really? That right there is the metric? Then most churches in the U.S. would need to be shut down. Or are we going back to our puritan roots where if you don't go to 'their' church on the holy days then that person is evil and must be prosecuted? If you want to believe something silly then that is your business but when you try to elevate your silliness over others and try to persecute them for it, fuck off.

[Simon_Jester]

Why should the religious get special treatment when an atheist like myself does not?

In all sorts of ways, people can and do receive 'special treatment' of all sorts of different varieties.

What seems to be bothering you is that we're treating religious-based preferences as different from purely individual preferences. Well... most individual preferences.

And there's a good historical reason why we do that, which you may or may not comprehend, but it's still a good reason.

A Muslim or a Jew can get special meals or get days off from work for their holidays, but I have no such ability.

The Muslim or the Jew makes sacrifices in exchange for this. For instance, they get special meals because they are not allowed to eat certain things you have no trouble eating. They're not getting "special treatment" any more than vegetarians are.

Now, you might be enough of an ass to complain when vegetarians get 'special treatment,' but I assure you... if you do things like that, it is you being an idiot and a boor. It is not somehow you fighting for your rights.

Should not something like the FSM cover people like me even if I don't believe in the same way that a religious person might?

Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke. And you know it's a joke. It is not actually you deserving anything, it is simply you mocking the idea that someone else deserves anything for believing in supernatural entities.

And if you persist in mocking the concept of religion in the legal arena, the most likely outcome is that the religious will turn on you. Because they're defending a principle that they see as sacred, whereas you are attacking a principle you see as annoying. So they're more motivated to stand up for the principle than you are to attack it.

Besides which... bluntly, they are a lot better at persecution than you are. Do not provoke a war with them by insulting and abusing them when they are being harmless. They may retaliate, and you might not win.

Its the same with smokers having a smoke break every hour at work while the non-smokers can't. That implicit double standard is ridiculous and undermines equality.

Smoking is a habit which is objectionable in and of itself, because it creates toxins. Religious belief is not objectionable in and of itself. Moreover, unlike accomodations for smokers, accomodations for religious practice rarely actually wind up doing the religious practitioner any great favor. Being 'allowed' to interrupt their daily activities for prayer, or having access to clergy, or things like that... really aren't a luxury or a comfort, in the same sense that a nicotine fix is.

No committed followers? really? That right there is the metric? Then most churches in the U.S. would need to be shut down. Or are we going back to our puritan roots where if you don't go to 'their' church on the holy days then that person is evil and must be prosecuted? If you want to believe something silly then that is your business but when you try to elevate your silliness over others and try to persecute them for it, fuck off.

First of all, no one is getting persecuted here."Not receiving special privileges" is not the same as "being persecuted." If your complaint is that some people are getting prayer breaks because they can demonstrate their commitment to a religion which engages in regular prayers... your complaint is not that you are being persecuted.

As to the other, you persist in not getting what the "committed followers" thing means. That, or you do get it, and you're actively lying to make a rhetorical point.

Either way, I refuse to argue with you further about the fact that committed members exist in a wide variety of sects, denominations, cults, faiths, etc. throughout the world. You've adopted a very persistent broken record pattern there, and I'm not going to try to persuade you of something you're unwilling or unable to recognize for yourself.

[Jub]

In all sorts of ways, people can and do receive 'special treatment' of all sorts of different varieties.

What seems to be bothering you is that we're treating religious-based preferences as different from purely individual preferences. Well... most individual preferences.

And there's a good historical reason why we do that, which you may or may not comprehend, but it's still a good reason.

Yes, certain people do get special treatment, but that's usually for things like disabilities, illnesses and the like. I don't see why having a delusion about the way the universe works should count towards that.

There were good historical reasons for many things which we no longer bother with, why should protecting people who believe strongly in works of fiction be any different from those?

A Muslim or a Jew can get special meals or get days off from work for their holidays, but I have no such ability.

The Muslim or the Jew makes sacrifices in exchange for this. For instance, they get special meals because they are not allowed to eat certain things you have no trouble eating. They're not getting "special treatment" any more than vegetarians are.

Now, you might be enough of an ass to complain when vegetarians get 'special treatment,' but I assure you... if you do things like that, it is you being an idiot and a boor. It is not somehow you fighting for your rights.

Vegans, Jews, Muslims, and other's with voluntary dietary restrictions wouldn't be harmed by eating meat any more than I would be harmed by being offered a type of food I strongly dislike. In both cases, we either eat something we find distasteful or we go hungry. So, in the case of the religious specifically, why is their case any more important than mine?

What harm is done if a Muslim eats pork unknowingly? The answer is none, so why should we care that they have a delusion that causes them mental issues if they knowingly eat pork?

And sacrifices, don't make me laugh, they're just doing things willingly to give themselves peace of mind. If I decide that it's best for me to never drink again because it makes me feel better is that any different than a person giving up meat, or eating Kosher meals? If I choose to donate to a cause, is that really different than a person donating to their church? I'd argue that it isn't and that any sacrifice is being done either under threat of eternal punishment or to buy them peace of mind and that both are completely voluntary.

Should not something like the FSM cover people like me even if I don't believe in the same way that a religious person might?

Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke. And you know it's a joke. It is not actually you deserving anything, it is simply you mocking the idea that someone else deserves anything for believing in supernatural entities.

They don't deserve anything for their delusions, no matter how socially or culturally engrained those delusions might be.

To put it another way, how can people be anything approximating equal when the religious get rights above and beyond those that the non-religious, or worshipers of less popular religions, get? If life were fair, everybody would get to pick their own holidays to be treated as statutory holidays, choose dietary restrictions they wish to follow, were what symbols they wish to, and so on.

So why do you stand by the side of inequality just because I've chosen to side with science, logic, and evidence over faith, dogma, and myths?

And if you persist in mocking the concept of religion in the legal arena, the most likely outcome is that the religious will turn on you. Because they're defending a principle that they see as sacred, whereas you are attacking a principle you see as annoying. So they're more motivated to stand up for the principle than you are to attack it.

Besides which... bluntly, they are a lot better at persecution than you are. Do not provoke a war with them by insulting and abusing them when they are being harmless. They may retaliate, and you might not win.

Organized religion is a holdover from more primitive times. At best it's a crutch for those too weak to find their own morality and peace with life, at worst it causes wars and breeds extremism. The only good news is that the power the religious hold is weakening with each passing year and one day we may see privileges long held by organized religions striped away from them.

Its the same with smokers having a smoke break every hour at work while the non-smokers can't. That implicit double standard is ridiculous and undermines equality.

Smoking is a habit which is objectionable in and of itself, because it creates toxins. Religious belief is not objectionable in and of itself. Moreover, unlike accomodations for smokers, accomodations for religious practice rarely actually wind up doing the religious practitioner any great favor. Being 'allowed' to interrupt their daily activities for prayer, or having access to clergy, or things like that... really aren't a luxury or a comfort, in the same sense that a nicotine fix is.

Religious belief not objectionable? I'd certainly object if somebody tried to hold me to the laws laid down in the old testament due to their religious beliefs. I also object to the fact that religion is the primary thing holding back full on stem cell research, human cloning, and full rights for LGBT people. I object to the fact that religion creates hordes of single issue voters, extremists, and deaths due to things like preaching against contraceptives in AIDS stricken areas.

You may not feel that religion is a toxic thing, but if we look at the butcher's bill religion is on the hook for far more than smoking ever will be.

No committed followers? really? That right there is the metric? Then most churches in the U.S. would need to be shut down. Or are we going back to our puritan roots where if you don't go to 'their' church on the holy days then that person is evil and must be prosecuted? If you want to believe something silly then that is your business but when you try to elevate your silliness over others and try to persecute them for it, fuck off.

First of all, no one is getting persecuted here."Not receiving special privileges" is not the same as "being persecuted." If your complaint is that some people are getting prayer breaks because they can demonstrate their commitment to a religion which engages in regular prayers... your complaint is not that you are being persecuted.

Just like the LGBT community wasn't being persecuted by not being allowed to marry... After all, marriage is a special religious commitment in the eyes of a plurality of people worldwide. In a less extreme example, why should an atheist on death row be denied something like one last look at the stars to give him peace while a religious man gets a priest to set his mind at ease? Are they not asking for the same thing, with one of them lacking the protection of law to ensure they get it? Is this not the very definition of inequality?

Face it, Simon, you're being kind of a bigot against people who just want the same rights and freedoms that the religious get.

[Grumman]

Because we have to have some legal standard that separates "protected religion" from "non-protected personal opinion."

No, we don't. Secular thought and action is more deserving of protection than religious thought and action, not less.

[Simon_Jester]

Because we have to have some legal standard that separates "protected religion" from "non-protected personal opinion."

No, we don't. Secular thought and action is more deserving of protection than religious thought and action, not less.

Sorry, I should have completed the sentence:

"In a society where freedom of religion is a thing that exists, we have to have some legal standard that separates "protected religion" from "non-protected personal opinion." "

I hadn't realized that someone might not get the context that yes, we do live in societies with freedom of religion. It's because we have that, that we need some way to divide "religion" from "not-religion." This is a basic legal requirement; you can't establish a right without defining what it belongs to.

In all sorts of ways, people can and do receive 'special treatment' of all sorts of different varieties.

What seems to be bothering you is that we're treating religious-based preferences as different from purely individual preferences. Well... most individual preferences.

And there's a good historical reason why we do that, which you may or may not comprehend, but it's still a good reason.

Yes, certain people do get special treatment, but that's usually for things like disabilities, illnesses and the like. I don't see why having a delusion about the way the universe works should count towards that.

There were good historical reasons for many things which we no longer bother with, why should protecting people who believe strongly in works of fiction be any different from those?

The reason didn't go away: namely, that when society makes a point of aggressively denying freedom of religion, it results in massive ideological brawls. Freedom of religion exists to defuse what would otherwise be violent religious tensions, reduce the number of pretexts people have for tormenting and persecuting each other, and generally permit a secular civil society to exist.

Believe it or not, "make the state aggressively atheist" isn't actually a good way to reduce the net amount of persecution and state cruelty that takes place. "Make the state tolerant" is a good way to do that. It works. But that requires the state not to crap its pants with outrage every time a Muslim takes time out to pray or every time a Jew gets a kosher meal. I'm sorry for you, if you can't restrain your indignation that these things are 'tolerated' in a prison.

Vegans, Jews, Muslims, and other's with voluntary dietary restrictions wouldn't be harmed by eating meat any more than I would be harmed by being offered a type of food I strongly dislike. In both cases, we either eat something we find distasteful or we go hungry. So, in the case of the religious specifically, why is their case any more important than mine?

What harm is done if a Muslim eats pork unknowingly? The answer is none, so why should we care that they have a delusion that causes them mental issues if they knowingly eat pork?

Because tolerating them is better than not tolerating them and forcing them to fight with you over who gets to decide these issues.

No, seriously, that's what happens in a society that can't tolerate people whose behavior and opinions differ from the official line. There is a struggle for political dominance. Anyone who wants their ideas to be tolerated has to fight in the struggle. The winner gets to decide what is "objective" reality about politics, ideology, the supernatural, and so on. Then they get to oppress everyone who disagrees with them.

You cannot assume you will win such a struggle. For that matter, if you have any honesty at all, you can't assume it would be a good thing if you did. So don't force such a struggle by telling everyone that you're not going to tolerate their opinions when those opinions differ from your own.

Nearly all developed societies place religious opinions in a protected class, precisely because they are among the most likely to provoke this kind of struggle. How did you not learn this in civics or something?

Just about everything else you said is repetition of these first few paragraphs, and my response is the same:

1) Religious opinions do receive legal protection in modern developed societies, which means the courts have to comply with the fact that this is a legal right. They can't just ignore that this right exists.
2) The reason this right exists is because it is bad for the state to assert an intolerant position on issues where this is likely to lead to discord. Your position of "I have nothing but scorn for all religions, they deserve nothing" is indeed a very intolerant one. It is likely to provoke backlash and strife. But you are either not aware of that, or you are welcoming it. Either way, it is not in the public interest for a government to do as you wish... so they don't.
3) The privileges granted to people for the sake of free exercise of religion might reasonably be extended in analogous form to atheists insofar as they can be shown to be analogous. However, there are practical limits to this (e.g. the state can only provide so many different kinds of meals in a prison). Therefore, the claims cannot be made frivolously, and there must be some way to establish in each case whether the requested privilege meets a recognizable requirement in a defined, structured way.*

They cannot, however, be extended to people who facetiously claim adherence to fictional religions. This encourages frivolous claims against the state, which is a bad precedent. Both on this specific issue, and in the general case.
____________________________________

*This paragraph I added in response to your question about death row, which is one of the few non-repetitive things you said. I felt it deserved a more specific answer. Basically, in (3), I address this- I believe that analogous privileges to those claimed for the sake of exercise of religion can and should be granted, when it can be demonstrated that they are necessary and proper.

Vegetarianism is an example of this, because it represents a well-defined and cohesive set of beliefs that it is wrong to take animal life for the sake of a meal. Believing this is not inherently religious, and an atheist who believes it can reasonably be accomodated, and it does not represent a frivolous or fictional belief system invented for one person's convenience, so it should be accomodated.

Now, an aggressively anti-religious stance such as your own suggests its own variation on this. Suggesting a 'correct' attitude of a system that works according to your stance would be to deny the existence of any need that is being met. Since after all, it's all in your head. Your conviction that pork is unclean, or that meat in general is murder, is all in your head and has no objective reality. I submit that in a state which actually worked along the lines you suggest, no, said atheist does not get a last look at the stars. Or a last meal. Or anything else. Because "objectively" it doesn't matter, in the end you're dead whether you've made your peace or not. Making your peace is all in your head, therefore nobody gets that privilege, because the state is aggressively indifferent to any question of psychological welfare and aggressively denialist about all qualities of human existence other than the ones it can hold a ruler to.

[Lord Revan]

We should remember that you cannot force true secularity on a person, what you'll end up doing is forcing religions to go "underground" and creating feeling of bitterness, causing even the non-zealots to become radical.

[Zwinmar]

I honestly couldn't give a shit about yours or anyone elses delusions excepts as a mental exercise in philosophy, right up until you get some advantage from said delusions, or you harm another. In both cases it is the delusional nutcases who are taking advantage and persecuting others.

You want to believe in a zombie messiah? Go for it, however, if you building is tax exempt while my gaming parlor is not then there is a problem. You want a day off for observance of your special coolaid, great! as long as I can get that day off as well.

You say I am not persecuted, how do you know? I know there are veteran organizations I could join based off my service record, however, because of their religious dogma I can not ethically do so, the American Legion for instance. I have been denied a job because I have long hair and another where I was fired because I am male and turned 18, both on supposed religious grounds.

People who do not follow the specific delusions of another are branded as abnormal, they are denied the same rights, and in extreme cases they are murdered. Or have we forgotten WWII, the genocide in Kosovo, and so many others. All it takes is one ruling so that those people can be prosecuted, they are different, they didn't drink the coolaid, they are subhuman.

[Flagg]

There's a difference between 'false' and 'fiction,' Flagg.

You can reasonably argue that the Bible is false. You cannot, however, argue that it was written as a work of fiction. Or that it was intended that way, or that it is generally interpreted by its readers that way.

Whereas with the Jedi from Star Wars, or the Bene Gesserit from Dune, or from the church of the Seven in Game of Thrones, or from the beliefs promulgated by Michael Smith in Stranger in a Strange Land... One can argue exactly that.

It's fiction. The same way Homer's Iliad is fiction. The only difference is that one is better, and the other is still believed to be fact by idiots. And if you want to go all "B-b-but Troy is real!!!", well so is Jerusalem. It doesn't mean the parts where the Gods intervene in the Iliad are any more fictitious.

[Simon_Jester]

There's a difference between 'false' and 'fiction,' Flagg.

You can reasonably argue that the Bible is false. You cannot, however, argue that it was written as a work of fiction. Or that it was intended that way, or that it is generally interpreted by its readers that way.

Whereas with the Jedi from Star Wars, or the Bene Gesserit from Dune, or from the church of the Seven in Game of Thrones, or from the beliefs promulgated by Michael Smith in Stranger in a Strange Land... One can argue exactly that.

It's fiction. The same way Homer's Iliad is fiction. The only difference is that one is better, and the other is still believed to be fact by idiots. And if you want to go all "B-b-but Troy is real!!!", well so is Jerusalem. It doesn't mean the parts where the Gods intervene in the Iliad are any more fictitious.

The Iliad is false, but in the era when the Greek gods were worshiped, most of the people reading or listening to it didn't know it was false. Given how oral history and bardic traditions work, it iis an open question whether any one person ever actually created the stories in the Iliad out of whole cloth and could therefore say with any certainty that the whole thing was a work of fiction.

Even if they did know, it's irrelevant because the Iliad isn't actually the founding document of the Greek polytheistic religion. There is no such founding document, because the religion predated the introduction of writing to ancient Greece.

At most, worshippers of the Greek gods might interpret the Iliad as, shall we say, fanfiction written about real beings (Zeus, Aphrodite, and so on). Some did.

Now, if I created a religion from the ground up, based on the Iliad without reference to any other traditions outside of it, knowing that Homer's work was fiction... that would be a joke religion. But that's not what the ancient Greeks did.

[Khaat]

Religion is a recognized faith. Here, Pastafarianism was denied because the judge chose to believe the petitioner was acting in bad faith. Odd choice, since US prisons wouldn't have any Christians or Muslims in them, if they acted in good faith.

The Judge also had some dismissive things to say about origins of the faith (Pastafarianism) - things that can legitimately be said about all faiths.

If you, Simon, created a faith based on the Illiad, it would not be a "joke religion", it would simply be unrecognized as religion until tested successfully as one.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
- a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions ("the world's great religions")
- a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. ("consumerism is the new religion")

I don't see anything there about disqualifying a self-described religion because its actual purpose is to showcase the absurdity of religions altogether: if that's your "pursuit or interest" and you "ascribe supreme importance to it", it's a religion.
This judge has basically said a joke about the Internet can't be posted to the Internet.
[edit: fixed a tag]

[Channel72]

Argument based on semantic games using 4th entry in a dictionary? Oh stop.

[Khaat]

Well, the alternative is to accept Simon's "it has to have history and obscured origins implying authorial intent to be a religion" argument.

"If you want special considerations, jump through the hoops like every other cult did" would be more honest and direct.

[Channel72]

Well, the alternative is to accept Simon's "it has to have history and obscured origins implying authorial intent to be a religion" argument.

"If you want special considerations, jump through the hoops like every other cult did" would be more honest and direct.

Whatever. You're not going to find a convenient and neat definition of "religion". Generally, courts are likely to define religions as is practical - i.e. if enough people whine about their faith not being recognized to the point where they are too politically influential to ignore them, the courts will eventually recognize it as a religion with all the glorious tax exemption that goes along with that.

But right now we only have this one guy in prison complaining about his FSM religion not being recognized. Maybe if a few more hundred or thousand people do the same, the ruling would be different. Of course, it doesn't help that there are clear records indicating that FSM is just a parody created like a few years ago or something in response to the ID controversy. Then again, there are also pretty clear historical records indicating that things like Mormonism are based mostly on lies and shams, but again - it's not practical to deny Mormons recognition of their faith since there's millions of them, and they all vote, hold high political offices, and they're pretty serious about that Joseph Smith stuff.

[Khaat]

I posted this originally because of this very issue: while I can appreciate the judge familiarized himself (had Google to look it up) with the face of this cult, he also opened the door with some not-so-careful observations about religions in general.

Not "what does Pastafarianism have to do to be recognized?" but "why is it we recognize these others?"

[Simon_Jester]

Religion is a recognized faith. Here, Pastafarianism was denied because the judge chose to believe the petitioner was acting in bad faith. Odd choice, since US prisons wouldn't have any Christians or Muslims in them, if they acted in good faith.

You're playing games with the concept of 'in good faith.'

A person can claim to be a devout member of a religion, while being a criminal. Most world religions recognize the idea that a person can truly believe in them, and yet commit a crime, without being excommunicated from the religion.

What is distinctive here is that Pastafarianism is, by its very nature, a joke religion. It is literally a religion that was created to parody other religions, with the express purpose of casting mockery upon them. Now, the mockery is in my opinion well deserved (young-Earth creationists are a bunch of clowns). But the point is, Pastafarianism is a joke, it was created as a joke, its sole purpose and reason for catching on is that people liked to spread the joke.

To claim religious rights in the name of one's belief in a joke is inherently frivolous. It is a legal move intended purely to embarrass or harass an opponent (namely, people who receive religious rights in the name of things that, while perhaps false and unwarranted, are not jokes)

The law does not and cannot take a position on whether any given religion is true or false. It can, however, refuse to be party to frivolous claims made by people who know that the basis for their claims is a joke, and proceed anyway.

If you, Simon, created a faith based on the Illiad, it would not be a "joke religion", it would simply be unrecognized as religion until tested successfully as one.

No, it would be a joke... because it would be false, and I would know it was false, and I would be promulgating it as if it were true, even though everyone around me knows it to be false. If it catches on as an Internet fad because of, oh, my doing kooky parodies of well known televangelists... that doesn't help my case.

What distinguishes a 'real' religion from a joke one is the presence of a significant number of practitioners who are not, in point of fact, joking. They are not a prank; people claim and do things in their names, things which are not jokes.

Since the courts have a responsibility to prevent pranksters from using the courts as a weapon, they are entitled to judge when a plaintiff is joking, and deny his motions on the grounds that they are, as I said before, frivolous.

Your argumentum ad online dictionary does not change this.

...Of course, it doesn't help that there are clear records indicating that FSM is just a parody created like a few years ago or something in response to the ID controversy. Then again, there are also pretty clear historical records indicating that things like Mormonism are based mostly on lies and shams, but again - it's not practical to deny Mormons recognition of their faith since there's millions of them, and they all vote, hold high political offices, and they're pretty serious about that Joseph Smith stuff.

Thing is, the really critical point is the last one- "they're pretty serious about that Joseph Smith stuff." Mormons may believe ridiculous and obviously false things. The provenance of the 'divine revelations' at the core of their faith may seem utterly shady and absurd to an outside observer. But the Mormons are not joking. There are demonstrably committed Mormons who accept considerable cost, risk, and inconvenience to pursue their faith.

Therefore, when a particular person claims to be a Mormon and to therefore have certain special needs (I dunno, wearing special underwear or whatever Mormons do), there is precedent. There is valid reason to think that this particular absurd desire of theirs is one that an organized group of people sincerely believe is important to their spiritual well-being. Now, it might merit investigation whether this particular person is actually a Mormon as they claim to be. But the idea is not absurd on the face of it.

So far as I know, there is no similar precedent in the case of Pastafarianism. Unless I'm mistaken about that, then Pastafarianism is, quite simply, a joke. And the courts have no reason to grant special privileges to someone who claims them in the name of a joke. In fact, they have excellent reason not to.

So that is "why we recognize these other" religions. Because there is reason to think that the people who claim to have special needs as a consequence of adhering to those religions are (or at least might realistically be) making the claim seriously. There is no corresponding reason with Pastafarianism.

It also helps that there are meaningful guidelines we can use to determine if a Muslim needs this or that thing. We can literally look up which animals Muslims can't eat or when Mormons pray or things like that. We can't really do that for Pastafarianism, not even by finding some obscure cult leader in the middle of the Arizona desert or whatever.

[Zeropoint]

I don't see why religions need special privileges like tax exemption to be "free". I'm free to believe that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is the Best Thing Ever. I'm free to start a fan club that gets together to watch an episode, talk about how the lessons apply to our lives, and sing songs from the show every Saturday. I'm even free to buy a special building just for the club to meet in. My fan club, however, doesn't get tax exemptions . . . and I don't see why fan clubs of other works of fiction should, or how being forced to meet the same requirements as my pony fan club is somehow restricting their right to like their fiction and meet to talk about it.

[Terralthra]

I don't see why religions need special privileges like tax exemption to be "free". I'm free to believe that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is the Best Thing Ever. I'm free to start a fan club that gets together to watch an episode, talk about how the lessons apply to our lives, and sing songs from the show every Saturday. I'm even free to buy a special building just for the club to meet in. My fan club, however, doesn't get tax exemptions . . . and I don't see why fan clubs of other works of fiction should, or how being forced to meet the same requirements as my pony fan club is somehow restricting their right to like their fiction and meet to talk about it.

So, it's as Simon_Jester said, then. You've simply never had (or slept through) your civics classes at the point at which they were talking about why most western societies have a right to freedom of religion.

[Khaat]

You keep circling back to "it's a joke, so it can't have protection under the law", yet we have cults many see as jokes who have achieved that protection. We cannot presume those cult-leader's intentions (in most cases), yet we have Mormonism and Scientology and gods know what else, that many people look at and shrug. Eventually these cults rolled-on under their own momentum and achieved power and thus recognition and protection under the law. And entirely founded not on the teachings, or philosophy behind the faith (you know, "the religion"), but on the political, temporal power exercised by leaders and followers.

Yes, that's a reason, but it certainly isn't a good reason why one fairy-tale is "legitimate" while another isn't. Or a reasonable argument why religion should wear a frowny-face instead of a jester's mask. There is no "must be persecuted this much" category.

Pastafarianism's editorial of religion (initially specific to ID in Kansas schools) is just as valid as any other belief anyone can hold. If you agree with the observation put forward, it's no longer "just a joke", but a recognized face for your personal belief, originally delivered in jest, but arrived at none the less.

People self-identify as Pastafarians, not because it gives them a good belly-laugh (okay, maybe "not just..."), but because this is a face for their personal understanding of the world (i.e., "a light-hearted view of religion.") Is that not what a religion is?

[biostem]

I don't see why religions need special privileges like tax exemption to be "free". I'm free to believe that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is the Best Thing Ever. I'm free to start a fan club that gets together to watch an episode, talk about how the lessons apply to our lives, and sing songs from the show every Saturday. I'm even free to buy a special building just for the club to meet in. My fan club, however, doesn't get tax exemptions . . . and I don't see why fan clubs of other works of fiction should, or how being forced to meet the same requirements as my pony fan club is somehow restricting their right to like their fiction and meet to talk about it.

From my understanding, the tax exemption thing has to do with churches being legally required to *not* try and influence the political goings-on of the country - since they, (in theory at least), don't have any "representation", they don't suffer any "taxation". Of course, given how many churches *do* blatantly try to steer people's voting behavior, and given how many are basically run as for-profit companies, there has also been a push to force them to meet certain charitable requirements and transparency of bookkeeping, in order to retain their tax exempt status.