Pastafarian denied rights

I think if you were to move its context to race instead of belief it becomes clear how it’s comparable (I’m not saying that it IS a hate group, just that it is closer to a hate group than to a religious group.) It’s not a group dedicated to a proposition, but dedicated to showing how other propositions are ludicrous and ridiculous. Pastafarianism is not about celebrating the FSM or even about celebrating rationalism or secularism. It’s about blocking moves by other groups and attempting to culturally isolate and ridicule them. The focus is strongly on how the ‘other’ is bad. I would liken it to say a Slovak-American social club. If the focus of the club is on making Bacovsky Rezen and playing the fujara, it’s just a cultural club. If the focus is on stopping the agenda of every other racial group, it becomes a hate group. Of course, Pastafarians could counter that it’s justified and the other group started it first and their actions are simply defensive in nature, but that’s suspiciously like the language that white supremacist groups use as well. It doesn’t hurt that much of what they do is not original in nature, but a mocking derivative of other belief systems. I think that mocking derivatives that caricature other beliefs or cultures are pretty par for the course for hate groups. If I were to dress in black face and talk about eating southern foods in an exaggerated Gullah accent, you would likely say, “What the heck, man?! That’s seriously racist.” When a Pastafarian does it parodying say Judaism or Islam, is it really closer to a religious ceremony than to hate speech? Really?

Of course, it also has to be noted that Pastafarianism is not really a group or even a movement per se and much closer to simply a cultural ‘virtue signal,’ so in that
regard calling it a group of any kind is wrong.

But Scientology routinely attacks psychiatry without being labeled a hate group. And even if the CFSM is primarily a satire, adherents can still believe that this is “the Way.”

Can’t see the difference between this and believing that if you might be reincarnated as a fly or that failing to accept a savior will doom you to hell.

Fundamentalist Christians and Islamists routinely denounce and even attack abortion rights advocate (for one example). Does this make them a hate group?

I still contend that sincerity is impossible to prove or disprove. A government entity does not have the right to question my beliefs.

I would say that if a Christian pastor were to stand up, put on a fake beard and pretend to be a Muslim imam in a way which is directly designed to portray Islam as savage and worthy of destruction then that message is closer to hate speech than religious speech. If the majority of what his church did was this, then they are closer to a hate group than a religious group. (See Westboro Baptist)

Denouncing is not a problem. There are plenty of atheist groups that denounce Christian ideals without it treading into hate speech. Obviously, violence is never OK, but whether it is hate-based or not is probably depending upon the context. The problem is dehumanizing speech and actions designed to isolate and ridicule. It’s one thing to be an imam that says, “Christianity is wrong-headed and ultimately harmful to society. I urge Christians to repent and follow Allah.” It’s quite another to say, “Look at me, I’m a Christian who eats Jesus. I’m a cannibal.” and then holds up a doughnut hole and says, “Look, I’m eating the balls of Christ.” The first is a free exchange of ideas and a disagreement. The second is intended to denigrate and dehumanize. The first is fine and should be lauded in a free society, the second should be rejected by any clear thinking individual. The first is religious disagreement, the second is hate speech. I contend that Pastafarianism has far more in common with the second than the first and is thus closer to a hate group than a religious one.

The funniest bit of the judgement was when they said

I believe it was said with a straight face.

Still can’t see how opposing the teaching of creationism is hate speech.

I only know about these guys from looking at their website and wiki atricle but I still can’t see how their beliefs are any sillier than any other. In fact, since they seem to rely on science as a fundamental basis for their gospel, they make a good deal more sense than many religions.

My personal belief is that all religious thinking is counter productive and stifles self awareness and social progress. Simply questioning someone else’s beliefs and opposing the imposition of those beliefs on others by introducing them into science education is not hate speech. Perhaps insertjng a study of pseudoscience in a science class may be acceptable.

Parody or not, these guys have as much right to promote their agenda as anybody else. I find the CFSM to be kind of silly myself, but I feel that way about most “isms”.

It appears that failing to take something seriously is considered hate speech now.

The ridicule of ridiculous ideas is not hate speech. If you can’t grasp the distinction between mocking an innate characteristic such as skin color versus mocking someone’s freely-chosen beliefs, that sums up why “hate speech” laws are so dangerous to free speech.

Sure, being an persistent asshole about criticism might not make one a nice person. But sometimes mockery and ridicule is the only way to expose deeply-ingrained bad ideas. Sometimes mockery and ridicule is the only was to achieve social progress. And to suggest that the tone of criticism of ideas and beliefs is something that should be policed by hate speech laws is just woefully misguided. If you can’t see how that approach is headed for a disaster of arbitrary censorship where “hate speech” = “speech I just don’t like”, I have little recourse but to ridicule you.

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.

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.

Says you. I think your judgement of what is or is not acceptable is fit for yourself only. There is no-one I’d trust to make a judgement over what is acceptable speech regarding the mockery of religious beliefs.

Religions should be mocked. Loudly and often and done so in direct proportion to the ridiculousness and potential impact of their claims.

We have no problem in ridiculing political beliefs, exactly the same standard should apply to religions.

Don’t want your beliefs ridiculed? don’t hold ridiculous beliefs.

  1. But the government you would? Or only a government comprised and determined by you and like minded people only?

  2. And the proportion of mockery, ridiculousness, and impact is determined by you and like minded people only?

Ah yes…you have Science! and the Enlightenment on your side. Jacobin much?

Satire IS my religion! :smiley:

Well, if you don’t want to be misunderstood, I really think you should stop using the term “hate speech” if what you mean is “impolite and disrespectful tone”.

How can you possibly know the contribution of various factors to social change, and how do expect anyone to prove this? Anecdotally, mocking exposure of the preposterous ideas of biblical literalism certainly led me to question and ultimately abandon the entire Christian worldview of my family, with its typical accompanying bigotry toward LGBT people. In Europe at least, a large decline in religiosity in recent decades has been accompanied by an increase in tolerance. Proving causation is next to impossible, but my experience as a young person may not have been atypical. I agree that ridicule of ingrained ideas rarely gets people to change their views, if anything it may entrench them. But exposure of bad ideas to mockery may increase the likelihood that younger people examine the values of their forebears more critically. And progress is often a function of old bigots just dying off and being replaced by younger people with more progressive values.

This is a complete non sequitur to what Novelty Bobble said, fyi.

I remain unconvinced that anything pastafarians do comes within a hundred miles of being hate speech. I do not expect to convince you of this (or anything, really - this is the internet), but I suggest that you will do no better in convincing other people to agree with you.

no, there should be no restrictions placed on it by government. I thought that much was clearly implied.

You are assuming some objective standard. There isn’t one. No determination is needed. Each person is free to assess and ridicule any idea as they see fit. Religious, political, philosophical, artistic…whatever.

There really isn’t any other way for a truly free society to function and religion should not be given special treatment.

Science and The Enlightenment are good things, on balance I’m in favour. You?

Maybe, but I think I have a convincing argument. I think that most people would agree that if similar types of speech were aimed at a race rather than a religion that it would be hate speech. The only defense offered that I see that it isn’t hate speech is because it’s aimed at a belief system and not at a person with an ‘innate characteristic.’ That’s a fine counterargument, but it doesn’t hold water. 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.” I think that most of Western society has determined that a religious grouping can certainly be the victim of hate. So if you have speech that is hateful when directed against another group and it is speech directed against a group that we agree can be the victim of hate, then why exactly is it not hate speech? Because you agree with it and it’s funny? My drunk uncle can tell quite a few jokes about black people that are arguably funny, doesn’t mean it’s not hate speech, although I guess he would disagree.

There’s a qualitative difference between shooting somebody and mocking them because you think that wearing colanders on your head is dumb or that it’s stupid to worship a ball of spaghetti.

Hey, if it’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander - if mocking christianity is hate speech then so is failing to give proper respect to pastafarianism. The fact that the FSM was literally designed to be mocked is utterly irrelevant to that fact.

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.

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 criticism.