Look, we all know that Pastafarianism—the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster—is a faux religion like Dinkoism, a “faith” constructed merely to show how silly real religions are. So I’m not surprised that the District Court of Nebraska just ruled that Pastafarianism is a satire, not a religion. (You can read the full Cavenaugh v. Bartelt et al. decision here.)
Why, you ask, did this wind up as a federal court case? Because a prisoner sued (from the decision):
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEPHEN CAVANAUGH,Plaintiff, vs. RANDY BARTELT, et al., Defendants.4:14-CV-3183
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERThe plaintiff, Stephen Cavanaugh, is a prisoner in the Nebraska StatePenitentiary. Cavanaugh says he is a “Pastafarian,” i.e., a believer in the divine “Flying Spaghetti Monster” who practices the religion of “FSMism.” His suing the defendants, who are all prison officials, because of their refusal to accommodate his religious requests. The defendants move to dismiss his claims.
And the key finding by Judge John M. Gerrard:
This case is difficult because FSMism, as a parody, is designed to look very much like a religion. Candidly, propositions from existing case law are not particularly well-suited for such a situation, because they developed to address more ad hoc creeds, not a comprehensive but plainly satirical doctrine. Nonetheless, it is evident to the Court that FSMism is not a belief system addressing “deep and imponderable” matters: it is, as explained above, a satirical rejoinder to a certain strain of religious argument. Nor, however, does FSMism advocate for humanism or atheism, which the Court acknowledges have been found to be “religious” for similar purposes.Those belief systems, although not theistic, still deal with issues of “ultimate concern” and take a position “on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.”
The judge was not without humor:
Cavanaugh’s contention seems to be that denying him a pirate outfit prevents him from evangelizing about FSMism. 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.” 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.
The satire argument is flimsy. Lots of people do view FSM as satire, but I’m not sure how that disqualifies it as a real religion. True Believers make up a small proportion of mainstream religions as well — the difference is that Pastafarians are more honest when they don’t hold a literal view of their religion.
And the prisoner is, I think, a True Believer of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I get the impression he’s a troubled guy, so I am nervous about his interest in our Church, but I don’t for a second doubt his sincerity. I don’t believe he’s fighting the prison system out of boredom or as some sort of stunt.
It’s time to get over this and move on. Anybody can have the pretense that Pastafarianism is their faith, but I doubt that anyone who requested a driver’s license picture with a colander on their head was really serious in the same way a Catholic, Muslim, or observant Jew are serious.
h/t: Aneris
What is the difference between religion and satire? Anyhow? I get it: religion is satire that kills.
Exactly. If some pastafarian wants to receive real acknowledgement as a religion, all he would have to do is to fly a plane into a building.
+1
Mark: Best comment yet!
I believe the problem here is with laws and regulations that give special privileges to the religious. If that is to be the case, who is to decide what qualifies as a “real” religious belief? If governments didn’t enact laws to privilege the religious, they wouldn’t have to worry about this.
Is anyone really impressed with the judge’s comment about “deep imponderable matters”? Do we really think that this is a sensible way for the law to distinguish between citizens?
How about if I formed the Church Of Deep Imponderables? Presumably this would then be a valid religion?
Another prisoner should profess an abiding faith in The Church of Deep Imponderable Matters and demand special privileges in prison. After all, the court has now set a precedent for that church.
Even better…declare a schism within Pastafarianism…say, the First Deeply Imponderable Cheesy Sauce Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Monster isn’t noodly; rather, it’s macaroni-shaped. And it Imponderables Deeply.
b&
>
May the angel haired one strike you down for your blasphemy! That really gets my sauce simmering.
Yes, perfect!
True religions have schisms, and true schisms are full of angst and vitriol.
More blathering from the old-fart non-cheesy shallowly-ponderable so-called Pastafarians! All hail the new-and-cool deeply-imponderable True™ Pastafarians!
b&
>
I am watching my calorie intake. Does vitriol come in a diet version?
Yes! Vitriolite, now with all the angst and half the calumny!
b&
>
There’s nothing like a good, bloody schism to establish a religion’s bona fides (“bona” in Polari, not Latin). Though as a matter of taste, Pastafarians would use grog or ketchup trans-substantiated to the Sauce of the Monster, and not vertebrate circulatory fluid.
Some excellent suggestions here, which all demonstrate the problems withe the judgement, or more properly with the principle of legislating differently for religions versus non-religious citizens.
Thanks. I take it that I can still think deviously and low-enough for politics.
“trans-substantiated”
Is there such a thing as “cis-substantiation”?
Hmm. A challenge.
Try this. End product is human blood (leaving aside the god crap). cis-starting product would then be
■■■ SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES MAY NEED A VOMIT-PROOF RECEPTACLE BELOW (ain’t I considerate?)■■■the fluid drained from a blister, being a fair approximation to lymph, or blood plasma.
I think I ought to add a “sick-bag” warning up above that?
The court might take a DIM view of that.
/@
I don’t think you’re exactly right. Humanism is recognized under the 1st amendment. Pacifism is recognized as getting you out of military service, and I would bet other similar “life-guiding ideologies” would be recognized too. Religion is the predominant form of these sorts of ideologies, so its involved >90% of the time the first couple clauses of the 1st amendment are invoked.
I have no problem with a prisoner being allowed to wear a specific hat if its required by his sincere ideology (so long as its not a safety or security concern). But i agree with the courts on this case, that this looks more like an insincere attempt to game the system than it does a deeply held ideological conviction.
And yes, I’m aware we can’t truly know what’s in this guy’s mind, and sincerity is hard to judge. But the courts do it all the time. They have to do it to judge the difference between self-defense and the various degrees of murder. They have to do it every time the question of ‘con man or legitimate nonprofit” comes before them. It is a regular part of their job to assess people’s motives, and while I’d agree they don’t do it perfectly, I have no problem with them taking on the job in cases like this, where they have to judge sincerity of ideological belief when it comes linked to a special material benefit a person would not otherwise get.
Argh, correction needed. I meant to say pacifism gets you out of certain types of military service. The point is, again, that the legal recognition of the importance of a person’s deeply-seated ideology goes beyond just mere religion.
Obviously the FSM doesn’t represent a real religion.
The one true religion is Tarvuism.
I’m a bit conflicted over this one.
On the one hand, yes, I think it’s probably a safe bet that the guy was just using Pastafarianism to get some special privileges and to tweak some noses.
But, you know what?
I guarantee you there’re huge numbers of professed Christians in the exact same prison this guy is in who don’t believe a word of Christianity, and are only using their religion to get special privileges and to try to convince parole boards they’re deserving of early release.
So what I would advocate for is that all prisoners should be granted the same privileges, and it’s up to the prisoner to decide how to use the privilege and for what purpose.
If Christian prisoners have the right to assemble weekly with a priest, then all prisoners should have the right to assemble weekly (on whatever day) with some sort of authority figure. If Jews have the right to wear yarmulkes, then all prisoners should have the right to wear some sort of hat. If Muslims have the right to pray to Mecca seven times daily, then all prisoners should have the right to take at least seven breaks a day.
And if some prisoners want to have Cousin Bob show movies for the weekly meeting instead of going to church, fantastic. Others want to wear baseball caps or colanders or top hats or whatever, go for it. Some group wants to play rock-paper-scissors for five minutes at a time seven times a day, wonderful.
But the privileges need to be universal and not dependent on faith. Those who wish to use their privileges for faith are welcome to do so, but faith cannot be a requirement for granting of privileges.
Cheers,
b&
I am afraid religious people wouldnt agree with you. They love their privileges and dont like them to be squandered for non religious purposes.
Actually, the reasons for objection are likely much more pedestrian and nefarious. Exclusive privileges are a fantastic recruitment tool.
“Want to escape from prison for an hour or so once a week? Join our church….”
b&
>
Most smokers are happy to accept as many comrades on their smoke breaks. I think smoking is disgusting, but smokers, though fewer in number than they were, are usually willing to be inclusive.
Smoke breaks are also ways to get out of doing work. This is in contrast to religion where the faithful have commitments they must fulfill that are, in many ways, the antithesis of freedom.
Just watch all the church goers pass me by when I get to make my yard look awesome and they have to go waste their time on a beautiful Sunday morning. I love the feeling of making others feel like their lives are inefficient and misguided.
Obviously you’re on the right track on the privileges and nose-tweaking front. But that just means that we in the Church need to get the answers off pat, to make it harder for (say) one of the monotheistic evolutionary radiation (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism) to pass without FSM (SBUI) also passing. That is in the purpose of parody.
I want To start a religion of happiness that asks its adherents to have Friday off and all days with nice weather.
…and in which the sacrament is giving katsuobushi as a dessert to cats…and maybe give them meals of saikyo yaki tara on special occasions.
b&
>
And occasional cheesecake for hoomans.
Sign me up!
b&
>
I think you’d like Camelot-ism.
Hmmm, the Church of King Arthur sounds much more appealing than that of King David.
But Camelot ’tis a silly place! 😛
This is a good opportunity to note the REAL reason for higher levels of tolerance on religious issues: the moral and intellectual failings of the religious. We have learned that while laws on which side you drive or whether unions can enforce dues or zoning etc provoke disagreement they don’t provoke killing sprees. We have learned just the opposite with religions.
Religious toleration grew out of the 30 years war.
There is the problem. Some people are serious, no matter how outrageous the dogma becomes. Unfortunately we can not just sit back and laugh at them, because we must take them seriously due to them being dangerous.
They may not be serious in the same way, but they are comical in a very similar way.
This is why religious “exceptions” in the law (anywhere) are so onerous – how does one tell what is “serious” and what is just an attempt to game the system?
For example, I’d say that there should be no such thing as a special case for *religious* charities in the tax law. If a religion wants to run a soup kitchen, great, but let it be another organization. This is especially true, in spades, about property taxes. I have no problem with property tax exemptions or reductions for charities. But *demonstrate that the organization is one*, first. (This is presumably objective at least in some sense.)
Does that imply that US law doesn’t have a registration system for charities?
No. Only that it doesn’t have one for religions. And claiming to be a religious organization gets the same tax benefits, with additional social ones, without the hassle and oversight of a charity.
This is regularly abused by businesses, as well (ref: Hobby Lobby, getting the tax benefits and liability protections of a corporation, while getting religious exemptions from the duties to society that the corporate protections nominally come with)
Enl is right. Essentially, all charities (religious and non-) are supposed to follow the same rules. However the IRS reporting requirements are different, and less onerous for religious organizations.
I agree with enl that that should change. As he says, it’s okay if the government wants to give charities and non-profits a tax break. But its not okay that only the religious ones don’t have to do the reporting to demonstrate that they’re following the rules for charities.
The word “religion” needs to be deprecated as the popular and legal term describing a personal belief system. The top tier should be something more generic and universal, like lifestance (or some equivalent term). The rights and privileges at the top level should be universal.
Religion should be depreciated as the preferred umbrella term. It should equated with any other personal choice about a mental framework for understanding and interpreting the world. No special place, rights, or privileges.
The true test of religion: does it make money?
His Bobbyness, First Prophet of The Pasta, has a day job. Some sort of programmer, last time I contacted him.
The general principle in Free-Exercise Clause cases is that a court will not inquire into the validity of the claimant’s religious beliefs, only as to the sincerity with which the claimant holds them. On first blush, it appears Judge Gerrard got this case right.
The legal argument here was as weak as overcooked linguini. Judges reject such claims unless presented al dente.
It seems rather incoherent that people can get dispensations if they practise silly things but other people cannot get such dispensations if they practise different silly things. The criteria to separate these two classes of people is that the former BELIEVES silly things but in the second case the people are suspected of NOT believing in the silly things they profess to believe in.
Very good! 😀
And what should we say about most western non-Orthodox Jews?
Most are not particularly observant. Most don’t believe in God. Many, if not most, do not attend synagogue regularly.
Most do not think about “deep and imponderable” issues based on their religion. Most Conservative and Reform rabbis do not even give sermons about “deep and imponderable” things – sermons are usually a badly tortured allusion to some ill-fitting verse as a launching pad for living one’s life according to Secular Humanism precepts.
By Judge John M. Gerrard’s standards, I am not sure non-Orthodox Judiasm qualifies as a religion either.
Huh? Sincerity of belief /= adherence to a different sect’s practices. Claiming a non-orthodox Jew must be insincere in their belief if they don’t keep orthodox practices is like claiming Lutherans must not be sincerely religious because they don’t go to confession.
No, Eric. I’m Jewish. Maybe every Jew I have ever met in my life is an aberration – but Jews are not believers. Not since the Holocaust, anyways.
A friend of mine grew up in a Conservative household. As far as I can tell, theism (in a generic sort of way) and “belief in belief” were the two real doctrines his father abided by consistently. The household kept kosher, but I got the impression that was more of his mother’s doing. (I was around when he brought home non-kosher yogurt once and explained that it was cheaper and tastier – “two out of three”.)
Only Orthodox Pastafarians wear pirate regalia for religious ceremonies. If you’re Reform Pastafarians you just have the colander to wear on your head for ceremonies, like I did last year when I officiated my sisters wedding. I also work on Fridays.
The judge is also wrong when he claims that Pastafarians don’t have a take “on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics”. Has he not heard of the 8 I would rather you didn’ts? It also definitely has a take on the existence and importance of a supreme being.
If one group of peoples made up nonsense gets them special treatment, then an other group of peoples made up nonsense should do the same. Otherwise it’s discriminatory.
My guess is if you ever went to jail, citing your officiating at religious ceremonies as a pastafarian would get you a colander. As several people have said (including me), the legal question is really about sincerity of the believer seeking the benefit, not the reasonableness of the scripture they cite.
I think that you are missing the point a bit. Pastafarians in general admit that their religion is made up nonsense. Pastafarian honesty about this is causing discrimination against us versus less honest religions that don’t acknowledge that they are also made up nonsense. And a judge decided that honesty should be punished. Why should the delusional receive more benefits?
By the way, Pastafarians do have an actual bible called The Loose Canon in addition to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We’re like any other religion, only more honest.
hmmm, so the court now can tell which religions address “deep and imponderable questions” and which do not?
it is evident to the Court that FSMism is not a belief system addressing “deep and imponderable” matters”
How is that done? And how does one ponder, aka think, about an imponderable subject? That by definition is impossible, so all religions are satire or at best, bullshit.
One person’s parody is another person’s sincerely held belief. Sure, I laugh about my framed Pastafarian ordination certificate I have and consider it to be a joke (just like my Church of the Subgenius one next to it.) I have even battered a few overly zealous religious folk with my ‘beliefs’ and demanded that they respect it. But, I cannot discount someone actually holding onto the idea of the FSM as an ideal ‘higher power.’ Its a decent, far more inclusive, benign entity and, if taken at face value, you have the makings of a better religion than most of the established ‘true’ religions out there.
Until we have an empirical way to judge sincerity of beliefs, it must me taken in the same way as any other ridiculous belief.
I think the judge was right in practical terms, Pastafarianism is a satire not a religion.
What really needs addressing is why *any* ‘religious’ aspects should be given any privileges at all. If the religious can take time off for their superstitious mumbo jumbo then, as Ben said, all prisoners should get equal free time to do with as they wish.
cr
Maybe everyone should have the same privileges in this regard, and as a matter of policy I would be inclined to agree. The problem is, the First Amendment of the US Constitution has a clause guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, but no clause guaranteeing a general right to free time. If citizens think that’s unfair, their remedy is to amend the constitution. In the meantime, judges are obligated to construe the constitution as written.
I agree. The judge got it right in legal terms. Frequently judges have to make rulings they don’t personally like (though I’m not saying that’s the case here).
cr
“…denying him a pirate outfit prevents him from evangelizing about FSMism”
I may be out of date, but I thought His Noodliness would really rather His adherents refrained from evangelizing. Does this prove that the judge is a believer?
It’s FSM working through the judge.
If Scientology didn’t have billions in real estate holdings and tens of thousands of adherents, would the judge assume it too was an insincere parody?
How do you judge sincerity? Was evidence of his insincerity entered?
I mean, there’s obviously no question that Pastafarianism is a parody if you know about it’s history, but that was kind of the entire point – to single out the special treatment of religion.