Judging The Infallible FSM

spagetti

The US District Court of Nebraska has denied a prisoner’s right to practice Pastafarianism by ruling the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or FSMism, is not a religion but a “parody.”

Stephen Cavanaugh, a prisoner in a Nebraska state penitentiary, sued the state in 2014 seeking $5 million in damages for “deep emotional, psychological, and spiritual pain” over the alleged breach of his right to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster or “His Flying Noodliness.”

He claimed he was not allowed to dress in “full pirate regalia,” which is required by his faith, although those practicing recognized religions were allowed to wear their necessary attire.

He also said prison officials were stopping him from holding religious services for his deity.

District Judge John Gerrard ruled Tuesday in a 16 page decision that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was not a religion and that Cavanaugh’s claim was not plausible under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or under the state or federal constitution.

“It is, rather, a parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education.”

“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.”

Source: Federal judge rules the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a God

Advertisements

One comment on “Judging The Infallible FSM

  1. A gross miscarriage of justice on part of judge Gerrard to deny Mr. Cavanaugh his constitutional right to exercise religion of his choice. The judge brushed off Mr. Cavanaugh’s legitimate claim on flimsy grounds by calling Pastafarianism a “parody”. Who gave Mr. Gerrard the power to pass such judgements on sacral matters? Would the judge call any other established creed or cult a “parody”, only because it doesn’t adhere to his own preconceptions?
    I see his decision as gross violation of religious freedom act, that could set dangerous precedent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s