While doing my daily routine of scanning religious freedom articles, I came across a rather striking headline: "'Pastafarian' Wins Religious Freedom Right to Wear Pasta Strainer for Driving Licence."
To save you the effort of reading the original story, essentially a guy in Austria got the pasta strainer head piece in his official photo identification on grounds of religious freedom. Pastafarianism, according to Wikipedia, is known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which was founded in 2005 "when Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson wrote an open letter about a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution." But what happens if his pasta strainer became a yarmulke or a hijab?
This raises a very interesting question about what constitutes absurdity when it comes to religious freedom. Obviously, putting a pot on your head and claiming allegiance to a hovering pasta dish best described as a punch-line to a joke doesn't warrant religious freedom protection. While religious freedom is an essential component to a democratic and free society, most would find this to be too ridiculous to warrant protection.
"But isn't all religion absurd?" Even if my opinion is a clear "no," the diversity of perspectives blurs the line between sanctity and silliness. The slightly older faith tradition of Rastafari (whose adherents prefer not to be referred to with "-ism") apparently crosses the line of what's protected under religious freedom. Rastas, numbering only in the hundreds of thousands, recognize Haile Selassie I as God incarnate, and believe that marijuana is a gateway to spiritual enlightenment. Yet, this practice is not protected under religious freedom, limiting the religious practice of this community. While one can recognize the pragmatic aspects of rejecting a religious exemption, including the likelihood of every pothead in America claiming Rastafari observance, this still should trouble us that a religious practice can be prohibited even when practitioners are not hurting themselves or one another.
So then religious drug use is out, right? Then why was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1994 passed? This law allows the use of peyote, mescaline rendered from cactus, to be used by Native Americans in their ceremonial traditions. Clearly psychedelics are considered higher class drugs than marijuana, so why are freedoms granted to one religious community and not the other?
Constitutionally, we value diversity of opinion in America, and everyone -- from conservative to liberal, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and non-religious -- cherishes the protections we each have to dress, act, think and speak differently. If we must err in one direction between absurd and restrictive, I would have to embrace the absurd. Regardless of how I feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I know that even if everyone considered my own faith tradition as inane, I would demand my right to express my faith freely.
Few would argue that religious freedom should protect the ability to hurt others, ourselves or society at large. As an example, no one can get away with murder by claiming that human sacrifice is part of their religious expression. But what about practices which could be considered by outsiders as ludicrous, and even illegal? While intention plays a significant role, I question whether a governmental body effectively can and ethically should rule on what is fair game for religious freedom. In the short term, I think that means I'll need to put up with more kitchen wear apparel in official identification cards.
Follow Frank Fredericks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frankiefreds
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy and Akbar Ahmed: Islamophobia's Implications for the United States
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC News - Austrian driver allowed 'pastafarian' headgear photo
Boing Boing: Pastafarianism: Flying Spaghetti Monster cult grows
Austrian Man Wins Right To Wear Pasta Strainer In License Photo ...
Niko Alm -- 'Pastafarian' -- Wins Right To Wear Colander On Head ...
Atheist Wins Right to Wear 'Pastafarian' Headgear in License Photo ...
--- 'Obviously, putting a pot on your head and claiming allegiance to a hovering pasta dish best described as a punch-line to a joke doesn't warrant religious freedom protection.'
Yeah, because older religions make SO much more sense.
I'm sorry, but your definition of 'sanctity' over silliness appears to stem entirely from what you, personally, find ridiculous.
As someone who places empirical evidence and science in much higher standing than religion (and with that, the concept of not believing in the supernatural 'by default' until proven false), all modern religions are also ridiculous to me, and more than a little offensive.
Drug use is drug use. Hats are hats. Allow them, or do not, but leave the supernatural out of it.
Where do I sign up? And, do I get to wear a spaghetti strainer on my License picture here in the US?
Governments should leave religion alone. If headgear interferes with identification too much, then prohibit all headgear from ID photos. If exceptions can be made for the religious, then there is obviously no need for the requirement in the first place, so allow headgear for all, with nothing but a stated required percentage of the face showing.
There is no line between sanctity and silliness; it is a continuum so that no matter how far you go in either direction there is both a measure of sanctity and a measure of sillies in all such observances. It is just the proportions that change.
You must be a virgin. Otherwise, Jack would not be pleased.
I don't think you can force people to be more sensible, which is the mistake made by Leftist leaders from Robespierre to Pol Pot, the favorite atheist boogymen of those believers who believe that we have to believe in order not to be wicked. You can only try to persuade others to look at things in a more rational way.
I'm not sure whether you, Mr Fredericks, really get the joke. You, and billions of others. And that is so sad that I have to be on the side of the Pastafarians, even though they are just as annoying as a joke I've heard 5.000 times.
Maybe it's the other way around: maybe it's very difficult to embarrass some religious people, because they're incapable of taking a step back from their mores habits and preconceptions and examining them objectively.
As for your interpretation of RFRA (which was deemed unconstitutional, but nevermind), it's very simple - because of the first amendment - no act which is deemed criminal to the general populace can be deemed non-criminal to a select few based on beliefs. It's really that simple.
Is there objective criteria or is just your subjective view?
However, when we are talking about religious freedom we are talking about what can be considered a religious belief under the law; an objective standard. Pastafarianism I don't think could be, anymore than PETA or Greenpeace. The Supreme Court relies on what is called the Sherbert Test;
-whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
-whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
The original ruling has been somewhat mollified over the years, but the basic tenets still hold. Does a Pastafarian sincerely believe in the FSM? Probably not. If a Pastafarian does sincerely believe in the FSM do they believe that its imperative to wear a pasta strainer in an identification photo? Unless you prove to me that this gentleman wears the pasta strainer at all times, I think we can satisfactorily say no.
Oh, I get that your a religionist, and that it offends you when people make fun of your religion. The whole tone of your article, while trying to play nice with the idea of religious freedoms is one of disdain for it. You even end this with "In the short term, I think that means I'll need to put up with more kitchen wear apparel in official identification cards."
Also, in a non-legal sense, no matter how silly I find something, someone can easily call an aspect of my faith silly. I ought to acknowledge that.