# Pastafarian denied rights **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 17, 2018, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777 "2018-08-17T12:04:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/41 "2018-08-17T21:15:36Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > If Bob shoots Mohammed because he’s Muslim, we don’t say, “That’s not a hate crime because Mohammed was shot because of his beliefs and not his race.” Do you think it is a hate crime if someone is shot for their political beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/42 "2018-08-17T21:18:25Z")
> [@ohiomstr2](#): > > I wasn’t trying to bash anybody’s belief system (ramain forgive!) Just trying to get some opinions on what constitutes sincerity and if it is the government’s right to determine it for someone. I’m of the opinion that the government doesn’t have the right to either dismiss an adherent’s claims of belief or to dismiss a religion on the grounds of it not being serious enough (especially since there’s _nothing_ as stupid as christianity). If I claim my religion is sleeping in, that should get full first amendment protections. If Joe says sacrificing virgins to Baal is his religion he should get full first amendment protections. First amendment protections for everyone! The government apparently doesn’t see eye to eye with me on this, though. ---
**Author:** ![ohiomstr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/82dd89/32.png) [@ohiomstr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ohiomstr2)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/43 "2018-08-17T21:27:43Z")
I guess you guys missed the tongue firmly in cheek part. I wasn’t trying to bash anybody’s belief system (ramain forgive!) Just trying to get some opinions on what constitutes sincerity and if it is the government’s right to determine it for someone. The CFSM, if I am reading it correctly, was founded to combat forcing a belief system on people. In my way of thinking, using parody is a valid and desirable way to accomplish this. From the Eight Condements: 1 I’d Really Rather You Didn’t act like a sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou ass when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in Me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject. ---
**Author:** ![ohiomstr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/82dd89/32.png) [@ohiomstr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ohiomstr2)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/44 "2018-08-17T21:39:12Z")
Ramin Sorry about the double post. Got distracted by some breaking news about spaghetti > **[Researchers Solve Mystery of the Universe, Break Piece of Uncooked Spaghetti...](https://www.livescience.com/63338-spaghetti-snap-machine.html)** > > It is near-impossible to break an uncooked spaghetti noodle in half. MIT researchers and their pasta-bending robot just found a way. Seriously, branding comedy as hate speech is pushing the envelope. The point Henderson (?) was making is that pushing a belief system on others is the problem. The idea was that believeing that a pasta God made the universe is just as valid as creationism or Intelligent Design. That he did so with humor is not hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/45 "2018-08-17T21:42:03Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > No, your use of the example “Muslim” is the problem with your argument here. I think it’s a misleading case because “Muslim” is not just a belief system, it encompasses a cultural/ethnic identity. And at this stage in history, it’s difficult to disentangle the two, in part because there are so few “secular Muslims”. (For Jews, the distinction is much clearer, since there are many secular Jews who retain their cultural/ethnic identity but are not religious believers.) > > This is why the word Islamophobia is troublesome. On the one hand, there is very real and widespread prejudice against a Muslims as a monolithic ethnic group, something that’s no different from any other kind of racism. On the other hand, the reality of this _racial_ prejudice is exploited by some Muslims to attempt to poison the well of any criticism of their _value system_ and tar it as Islamophobic racism. And it works: many people are extremely reluctant to criticize the tenets of Islamic ideology for fear of being branded racists. > > But all of this makes it _even more_ important to keep a clear head about the distinction between racism (including hate speech) and the criticism of freely chosen ideas & beliefs. The distinction is a qualitative one, it is not a question of the _tone_ of the criticismt. Ummm… Muslims aren’t a monolithic ethnic group. Not even close. Muslims range from Africans to Indonesians and everything in between. They have a wide divergence of ethnicities and beliefs. Malaysian forms of “secular Islam” are very different than Omani fundamentalists. Also, Arabs are not all Muslims, there are large numbers of Arab Christians. The idea that Islam is a monoculture of a single ethnicity strikes me itself as a very stereotyped idea with literally no basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/46 "2018-08-17T21:58:07Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Ummm… Muslims aren’t a monolithic ethnic group. Of course not. The “monolithic” part is a description of racism, not reality. But to the vast majority of Muslims, their religious beliefs and their (various) cultural identities are deeply intertwined - largely because the level of religiosity among Muslims is extremely high, the notion of a “secular Muslim” analogous to a secular Jew is rare. The fact that secular culture and religious belief have not been unbundled as they have elsewhere makes it particularly easy for criticism of ideas to be mistaken for racism. > **[Importance of religion by country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country)** > > This article charts a list of countries by importance of religion. > The table below is based on the global Gallup Poll in 2009 research which asked "Is religion important in your daily life?". Percentages for "yes" and "no" answers are listed below; they often do not add up to 100% because some answered "don't know" or did not answer. > General: ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2018, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/47 "2018-08-17T23:35:35Z")
> [@ohiomstr2](#): > > I still contend that sincerity is impossible to prove or disprove. A government entity does not have the right to question my beliefs. Or, conversely, to disregard everyone’s, rather than only disregarding someone’s. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/48 "2018-08-18T00:00:47Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > I don’t know that I ever called for laws against such things. I merely called it what it was-closer to hate speech than religious speech. I don’t like ‘hate speech’ laws. I’m completely against them. I more than recognize their potential for abuse. I favor letting people decide for themselves which ideas they like. > > I would also like to point out that the Civil Rights era didn’t come into being via mockery and ridicule. I would challenge you to find any socially progressive movement whose main method of fighting against in-grained beliefs consisted of mockery and ridicule. That’s a Trumpian view on social progress, not a civilized one. Satire, parody, and humor are ancient methods to poke at the powerful. They are not so-called Trumpian. And this idea that any sort of negative commentary is hate speech is as ridiculous as it is predictable. Honestly, the whole idea that mythology needs to be protected by the state is ludicrous. That said, a colander on the head is ludicrous as well. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/49 "2018-08-18T00:20:18Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > It’s not, as I said above. Hate speech is dehumanizing and denigrating. Pastafarianism comes close to this standard. Simply stating an opposing belief is not dehumanizing nor denigrating. Again, an example of fine speech would be to say, “Native Americans have a problem with alcoholism in their communities and we need to find ways to address that.” is no dehumanizing. Putting on a headdress and sitting on a porch stoop holding a 40 is. The first is an expression of one’s beliefs. The second is degrading and dehumanizing. I think the difference is clear. > > I’m not arguing with you there. I believe in a very broad definition of freedom of speech. They can say what they want and do what they want. I think Nazis should be able to march in Charlottesville too for that matter. I’m never a fan of stifling speech. As far as colanders on driver’s license photos, I’m not really sure what their point is. Is their point simply to stop Jews from wearing yamulkes in their photos? If so, that seems like a douche move to me. I don’t have any religiously subscribed headgear, but if a Muslim wants to wear a hijab and it’s still easy to see what she looks like from her photo, I think trying to stop her is kind of dickish. How exactly does it hurt them if someone else is wearing religious headgear in their license photo? What oppression exactly are they fighting? It seems to me that they are just trying to make others suffer for their beliefs and that’s kind of hate-filled if you ask me. You can disagree. Having your beliefs thoroughly and even unfairly ridiculed is not related to being hated. Hate speech means (perhaps among other things) threatening or inciting others to threaten. If I say all missionaries who proselytize are evil (which indeed I do say), then that’s my opinion. If I said we should all go out and shoot missionaries because of what they do (which I DON’T say), that would be hate speech. Example: The cartoons of Muhammad were not hate speech, but some people’s verbal reaction to them (conspiring to kill the artists or publishers) was hate speech. But if a certain Muslim said “Nobody ought to be hurt over this, but seriously, drawing this kind of pictures of the Prophet was wrong” - that’s not hate speech. A statement can be very bad without being hate speech. Even saying “That girl should have sat at the back of the bus” would not be hate speech - but saying “I’ll show her who’s boss” could be. And… The oppression that Pastafarians are fighting is a free speech issue. They protest against religion’s claims to being exempt from intellectual examination, criticism, and ridicule. Pastafarians believe that discussing religion should be as free as discussing football. Imagine if Chicago passed a bylaw making it illegal to question the decisions of the coaching staffs of the Cubs, the White Sox, the Bears, the Bulls, the Blackhawks, the Fire, the Red Stars, and the Sky, and illegal to make discouraging or disparaging comments about the teams or anyone associated. And further, that they had the influence to get this passed federally - no one in the entire country can ridicule the Chicago sports teams, everyone must speak of them with complete respect, and their decisions must be considered a priori correct, because they are Chicago sports teams - so of course their decisions are correct. Should Chicago’s city government pass such a bylaw? If yes, should it also pass federally? ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/50 "2018-08-18T02:10:17Z")
Obviously I missed the edit window, but as far as I’m aware, Pastafarians are not mostly focused on legal issues, but are focused on making it socially acceptable to question and criticize everyone’s religious beliefs including their own. That we all are qualified to judge, and all SHOULD judge, each other’s religions, without getting violent or threatening of course. That it’s your right to subject my religion to your logical and critical analysis, and my right to do the same with yours, and that we should exercise that right frequently and with gusto. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/51 "2018-08-18T02:20:37Z")
David, I think we might just be on different wavelengths if you think that telling a black person to go to the back of the bus is ok. I think that hate speech is many things besides just incitement. When Nazis were saying that Jews were inferior and needed to take themselves and their beliefs and leave Germany by your definition that wasn’t hate speech. I think that mocking and dehumanizing is certainly hate speech. If I get a fake nose and a yalmuke and sing the dreidl song with the lyrics changed to how i want to steal your money and take over the world, I’m not engaging in innocent satire based on a mutual disagreement about beliefs. I am denigrating Jews and dehumanizing them into mere caricatures and I personally think that that is certainly hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/52 "2018-08-18T04:49:00Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > David, > > I think we might just be on different wavelengths if you think that telling a black person to go to the back of the bus is ok. > > I think that hate speech is many things besides just incitement. When Nazis were saying that Jews were inferior and needed to take themselves and their beliefs and leave Germany by your definition that wasn’t hate speech. > > I think that mocking and dehumanizing is certainly hate speech. If I get a fake nose and a yalmuke and sing the dreidl song with the lyrics changed to how i want to steal your money and take over the world, I’m not engaging in innocent satire based on a mutual disagreement about beliefs. I am denigrating Jews and dehumanizing them into mere caricatures and I personally think that that is certainly hate speech. That’s an extraordinarily broad view and I’m glad that it’s held by a tiny majority. Think about all the costumes and roles people play that poke fun at someone else. Watch any of the Dave Chappelle where he puts on whiteface and pokes fun? Or where comedians such as Martin Lawrence dress as a woman and play to stereotype? Or how about Sasha Cohen’s characters Bruno, Straight Dave, and Borat? ---
**Author:** ![Warm\_blood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Warm\_blood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warm_blood)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/53 "2018-08-18T05:07:49Z")
Using sincerity as a benchmark for considering someone’s adherence to a faith as legitimate seems quite … messy to me. A metric fuckton of self-professed Christians and Muslims are insincere judging by how many of them fail to practice what they preach. I guess it should be legal for their religious practices to be disregarded? Legal authorities don’t want to admit that Pastafarians are actually correct on this point because of the massive backlash that would ensue. ---
**Author:** ![Filbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/filbert/32/3433_2.png) [@Filbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Filbert)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/54 "2018-08-18T07:34:24Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Of course not. The “monolithic” part is a description of racism, not reality. > > But to the vast majority of Muslims, their religious beliefs and their (various) cultural identities are deeply intertwined - largely because the level of religiosity among Muslims is extremely high, the notion of a “secular Muslim” analogous to a secular Jew is rare. The fact that secular culture and religious belief have not been unbundled as they have elsewhere makes it particularly easy for criticism of ideas to be mistaken for racism. > [Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country) 😕 Arguing that Islam is an ethnic group rather than a religion because there aren’t many secular members of the group is a bit of an odd argument. That would appear to be better evidence for it being a religion… ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/55 "2018-08-18T07:48:34Z")
> [@Warm\_blood](#): > > Using sincerity as a benchmark for considering someone’s adherence to a faith as legitimate seems quite … messy to me. A metric fuckton of self-professed Christians and Muslims are insincere judging by how many of them fail to practice what they preach. I guess it should be legal for their religious practices to be disregarded? > > Legal authorities don’t want to admit that Pastafarians are actually correct on this point because of the massive backlash that would ensue. That’s what it comes down to. Once there is a critical mass, regardless of how silly and anachronistic a particular religion is, society, in order to keep the peace, participates in the illusion. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/56 "2018-08-18T10:59:58Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > This might be reasonable if it were applied when a Christian came in and said s/he had a sincerely held belief that s/he should do or not do x. You shouldn’t be able to demonstrate sincerity by saying in effect, “Look this is a common religion; lots of people believe this.” How does that prove your sincerity? And if it does do so, how does that not effectively “establish” the given religion and not establish the other. But I would say that we can safely presume that Christians believe in Jesus etc. What oercentage of Pastafarians do you suppose literally believe in the FSM? Like, actually believe He exists? I’d say as a general guess, zero. ---
**Author:** ![ohiomstr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/82dd89/32.png) [@ohiomstr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ohiomstr2)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/57 "2018-08-18T13:47:35Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But I would say that we can safely presume that Christians believe in Jesus etc. > > What oercentage of Pastafarians do you suppose literally believe in the FSM? Like, actually believe He exists? I’d say as a general guess, zero. This is exactly my original point. How does one (or in this case a government) determine what is a _sincerely_ held belief? It is impossible to determine what an individual is actually thinking. It seems to follow that one cannot know if that person’s behavior is based on what they actually believe. Pastafarianism is, I think, a protest against fundamentalist ideas. Was Christianity a protest against judaeism or pagans, was Islam a protest against Christianity? Sorry to pick on these two religions, I am just more familiar with them. What we have not heard from hear are the view of any “genuine” Pastararians. Please feel free to weigh in if there are any out there. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/58 "2018-08-18T15:37:54Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > David, > > I think we might just be on different wavelengths if you think that telling a black person to go to the back of the bus is ok. > . Where did I even HINT that it MIGHT be OK? It’s an evil thing to say, and an evil opinion to hold. It’s not OK to say it, and never was. But it’s not hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2018, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/59 "2018-08-18T15:40:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But I would say that we can safely presume that Christians believe in Jesus etc. > > What oercentage of Pastafarians do you suppose literally believe in the FSM? Like, actually believe He exists? I’d say as a general guess, zero. I disagree with your first point. I think that’s part of Pastafarians’ point - that nobody could seriously believe that shit. And perhaps also that nobody DOES seriously believe that shit - that religion is 100% inherently hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![MarvinKitFox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@MarvinKitFox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarvinKitFox)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777/60 "2018-08-21T08:16:26Z")
Well, I used to be a staunch supported of Pastafarianism, but recently I’ve been diagnosed with gluten intolerance. . So, the Big Question is: Are HIS noodley appendages gluten-free, or not? . . . . And can one die of laughter-induced self-injury or not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastafarian-denied-rights/819777.md?page=4)