Worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion, court rules. Believing in Pastafarianism is not a constitutional right.

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Apr 15, 2016 7:41 PM GMT
    Worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion, court rules

    Believing in Pastafarianism is not a constitutional right.



    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/pastafarianism-is-satire-and-not-protected-religion-court-rules/



    icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2016 1:29 AM GMT
    This ruling is absurd. The judge is saying that only the insane must be accommodated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2016 6:38 AM GMT
    mindgarden saidThis ruling is absurd. The judge is saying that only the insane must be accommodated.




    "US District Judge John Gerrard ruled that "FSMism" isn't a religion like the ones protected under the Constitution"


    The ruling is absurd because the US constitution DOES NOT list all specific religions. Only the word "religion" is used which could mean just about anything.

    This judge is bias in how he interpreted the first amendment, much like all bible thumbing screwballs do icon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    A parody religion? What is that? I can say the same dam thing about christianity, which is a known 'parody' about the equinox's, spring, summer, fall, winter and of course, "the greatest lie parable ever told" icon_rolleyes.gif


    The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian), a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion,[3] it is generally seen by the media[4][5] and a Federal court decision[6] as a satirical parody religion
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 16, 2016 12:20 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    mindgarden saidThis ruling is absurd. The judge is saying that only the insane must be accommodated.




    "US District Judge John Gerrard ruled that "FSMism" isn't a religion like the ones protected under the Constitution"


    The ruling is absurd because the US constitution DOES NOT list all specific religions. Only the word "religion" is used which could mean just about anything.

    This judge is bias in how he interpreted the first amendment, much like all bible thumbing screwballs do icon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    A parody religion? What is that? I can say the same dam thing about christianity, which is a known 'parody' about the equinox's, spring, summer, fall, winter and of course, "the greatest lie parable ever told" icon_rolleyes.gif


    The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian), a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[3] Although adherents describe Pastafarianism as a genuine religion,[3] it is generally seen by the media[4][5] and a Federal court decision[6] as a satirical parody religion


    Seems to me this means that we can then teach FSMism in public school.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2016 2:20 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

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


    I find that to be mostly reasonable because FSM is an acknowledged parody. That doesn't mean it would apply to Raëlism or some other craziness which is not an acknowledged parody.

    But then what if even an acknowledged parody becomes a religion? What if Christianity was really a creation taken from various elements of other religions & myths and actually began as parody of those but then transformed into what we see today?

    At what point does it become protected?
  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Apr 17, 2016 8:08 AM GMT
    They just had their first wedding, in New Zealand.