Poland is touched by His Noodly Appendage

[Econoline]

Pastafarians rejoice as Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is granted permission to register as a religion in Poland

A church that worships an invisible flying spaghetti monster can now apply to be registered as an official religion in Poland, after a 2013 court ruling was overturned on Tuesday.

A Warsaw court rejected a ruling by the Regional Administrative Court because the it had not allowed the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) a two-month extension for submitting outstanding documents, Polskie Radio has reported.

A group of Pastafarians who gathered outside the court shouting "pasta" during the hearing on Tuesday welcomed the ruling.

In January, Pastafarian minister Christopher Schaeffer was sworn into the Pomfret New York Town Council this week with a colander on his head throughout the ceremony to represent his unique religious beliefs.

As a movement, Pastafarianism parodies orthodox religion and opposes the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. For example, prayers end with the word ‘ramen’ instead of ‘amen’ – a nod to Japanese noodles.

According the FSM's website, the church existed in secrecy until 2005 when the publication of a letter, complete with a drawing of the spaghetti monster that had been sent to a school board in Kansas.

The website insists Pastafarianism is a real religion, whose followers believe that pirates were the original Pastafarians and "were peaceful explorers and it was due to Christian misinformation that they have an image of outcast criminals today."

[Lord Jim]

I see no reason why a satirical "comedy" troupe that exists for no purpose other than to mock, denigrate and sneer at sincere religious beliefs and those who hold them should have any right to be recognized as a "church"...

This is not a religion; it's just a bunch of atheists, (of the snotty and exhibitionist variety) suffering from delusions of cleverness, dropping their trousers and waving their fannies...

A "Pastafarian" is no more a religious believer than someone who writes for The Onion is a journalist...

[Econoline]

I'm pretty sure that's how Scientology got started...started out as a joke, morphed into a serious profitable religion.

[rubato]

It's all made-up bullshit and other than the Amish, and one or two others, the adherents are nearly all hypocritical mean-ass lying fuckers who are just trying to jump on someone else's shit and persecute them anyway.

The only fair way of dealing with it is to accept all of them equally. Just don't let them run anything important.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

One of the things I really like about rube's participation here, is the way in which he serves as a constant reminder to those intelligent and well meaning (albeit misguided) folks on the Liberal/Democratic Party side of the aisle, that ignorance, bigotry and stupidity are not the exclusive province of those on The Right...

Yeah, I may have some unseemly folks on my side...

But you lot own rubato...

[Joe Guy]

He's why I'm considering becoming a right-wing religious bigot.

[Gob]

But you lot own rubato...

What, like as a pet or something?

Rubato is as much a Liberal/Democrat as I a fried Norwegian Albatross sandwich called Humphrey.

[Crackpot]

hey Humphrey! Hows the fishing been?

[Gob]

You arse

[Big RR]

I see no reason why a satirical "comedy" troupe that exists for no purpose other than to mock, denigrate and sneer at sincere religious beliefs and those who hold them should have any right to be recognized as a "church"...

This is not a religion; it's just a bunch of atheists, (of the snotty and exhibitionist variety) suffering from delusions of cleverness, dropping their trousers and waving their fannies...

A "Pastafarian" is no more a religious believer than someone who writes for The Onion is a journalist...

Jim--while I agree with you assessment of the so-called pastafarians , I don't like the idea of embodying some governmental entity to decide what is a "serious" religion and what is not. I'd rather let these guys rant and rave and get it out of their systems.

[rubato]

"...

The only fair way of dealing with it is to accept all of them equally. Just don't let them run anything important.


yrs,
rubato

Wisdom. Even if I did say it.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

EDIT:

It's all made-up bullshit and other than the Amish, and one or two others, the adherents are nearly all hypocritical mean-ass lying fuckers who are just trying to jump on someone else's shit and persecute them anyway.

The only fair way of dealing with it is to accept all of them equally. Just don't let them run anything important.

yrs,
rubato

A kernel of wisdom. Even if was embedded in a post by rubato.

[Lord Jim]

Jim--while I agree with you assessment of the so-called pastafarians , I don't like the idea of embodying some governmental entity to decide what is a "serious" religion and what is not. I'd rather let these guys rant and rave and get it out of their systems.

Well, the government determines all the time whether or not a "religion" is sincere in it's intent when it decides whether or not to grant it tax exempt status, and other legal rights that a "Church" enjoys. (Which I don't believe these bozos have been granted in the US, nor should they.)

I'm certainly not questioning their free speech rights, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to be an asshole. (We have an example of the way that works pretty much daily on this board; in this very thread in fact.)

But I don't believe they have the right to be officially recognized as a "Church" with all the legal rights and privileges in our society which that conveys.

I believe in treating "them all the same" when the "them" we're talking about is a group of sincere believers of some sort, whether or not I agree with the tenants of that faith. (I have no problem with pagan groups or even Satanists being treated legally as a "religion" for example, though obviously I'm not a big embracer of their philosophies.) I personally wouldn't even have a problem with an Atheist organization receiving "religion" status, since Atheism is clearly a faith based philosophy, (whether it's adherents care to admit that or not.)

But this isn't a "religion" of any sort. It's a joke. It's intended to be a joke. It's not a particularly clever or funny joke, but it's certainly an obvious joke.

Apparently they put one over on the Poles, (hardy har har) but that doesn't mean we're obligated to also fall for it...

[MajGenl.Meade]

LJ - move it to 13:30 (and enjoy!)

[Sue U]

Well, the government determines all the time whether or not a "religion" is sincere in it's intent when it decides whether or not to grant it tax exempt status, and other legal rights that a "Church" enjoys.

That is emphatically untrue. The first principle of the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause is that it is none of the government's business what people might believe or whether those beliefs might be viewed by others as sincere or preposterous (as if there were some way to measure sincerity to begin with). See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944). Obtaining tax exempt status as a church has nothing to do with what an organization professes to believe, but only with what the organization actually does and whether it is exclusively organized for such religious or charitable purposes. See 26 USC s 501(c)(3). "Sincerity" of belief can be relevant in the context of the IRS assessing whether it may disallow a purported charitable deduction for "religious benefit" from one's income taxes because it is not truly a charitable gift but a tax dodge; yet even a church's sincerely held religious belief in not paying taxes will not qualify its members for an exemption from tax laws. See Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 US 680 (1989). Religious conviction is also sometimes relevant in determining whether state action violates the Free Exercise clause, as the constitutional protection applies only to "beliefs rooted in religion" and not to "purely secular views." See Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989). But as a general rule, the government is broadly prohibited from inquiring into the sincerity of religious belief, and is clearly barred in toto from "determin[ing] all the time whether or not a 'religion' is sincere in it's [sic] intent."

[Joe Guy]

Well, the government determines all the time whether or not a "religion" is sincere in it's intent when it decides whether or not to grant it tax exempt status, and other legal rights that a "Church" enjoys.

...Obtaining tax exempt status as a church has nothing to do with what an organization professes to believe, but only with what the organization actually does and whether it is exclusively organized for such religious or charitable purposes...

When deciding on tax exempt status, when the IRS assesses what an organization does, how could what it intends to do not be relevant?

[Sue U]

When deciding on tax exempt status, when the IRS assesses what an organization does, how could what it intends to do not be relevant?

By changing the wording you are losing the meaning. The question is whether the government can make a determination as to whether a purported church is sincere in its beliefs (or the religion's "intent," as Jim put it). It cannot. However, it can determine whether it is an institution "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable . . . or educational purposes, . . . no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office," as specified in 26 USC s 501(c)(3). See the difference?

[Rick]

Sue does a purely "religious" entity have to apply for 501(c)(3) status as many other "nonprofits" have to.

This has nothing to do with the existing conversation I'm just curious.

[Big RR]

Have to apply? No, but it is the only way for a church to assure that the donations given by its members will be tax exempt, so it is advisable to do so. The section is a safe harbor that shows that the IRS has looked into the organization and finds it deserving of that status.