• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

South Australia: Church of the FSM loses bid for legal recognition

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm not surprised, but I wonder what the legal basis is for the government to determine which religions are valid.
I can't think of a reasonable way to do it, but if a government decides to dole out benefits or privileges on the basis of religion, they'll have to figure out how to do it somehow.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster loses bid for legal recognition as incorporated entity - ABC News Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster not a legal entity but a 'sham religion', tribunal rules

Apparently the tribunal appears to have considered it a parody religion rather than a sincere religion.
There were some pretty poor arguments in that decision. One of the judges was clearly irritated because his ox was gored by Pastafarianism. Too bad that he did not realize that the same arguments that he used to call Pastafarianism a "sham religion" could be applied to any of the Abrahamic religions at the very least. The Bible and Quaran both put down the beliefs of other religions just as Pastafarianism does. That is not an adequate reason to judge a religion to be a sham.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Rightly so.

I would agree that the designation of it as a parody religion is accurate, although I know some would disagree with me.
I do get a little more concerned about our courts deciding which 'religion' is valid. I think it would be simpler if legalities weren't tied to the 'religiousness' of a group.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Apparently the tribunal appears to have considered it a parody religion rather than a sincere religion.

I'm not surprised, but I wonder what the legal basis is for the government to determine which religions are valid.
A Parody Religion might be sincere in mocking others, but not in the Spiritual Quest Religions are sincere about.

Hence I understand their decision
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I'm not surprised, but I wonder what the legal basis is for the government to determine which religions are valid.
IF a cow would claim to be a human, there would be no need for a legal basis to determine the claim is invalid
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Atheism is asking for legal recognition as a religion now? I don't think so.
I just replied to a claim "gullible people fall for Religion"

With "gullible people also fall for Atheism"

So it was about 'being gullible" when choosing stuff:D
. Both in Religion AND in Atheism there are gullible people, or do you disagree?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I would agree that the designation of it as a parody religion is accurate, although I know some would disagree with me.
I do get a little more concerned about our courts deciding which 'religion' is valid. I think it would be simpler if legalities weren't tied to the 'religiousness' of a group.
:cool:

The key is "parody" in this case. If they would stick to their own religion, it would have "flown":D in court

Similar on RF "You're free to tell you love your religion so much". The moment you smear, belittle, demean (etc) others (and/or their feeling, religion or lack thereof) you risk a first warning, and when continued you risk RF court 'veto' you.

And I fully agree with this RF Rule, as do I agree with the court's ruling, though I agree with you that normally (when sticking to your religion, operating within Dharmic country laws) courts should not be needed to interfere
@stvdvRF
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
I would agree that the designation of it as a parody religion is accurate, although I know some would disagree with me.
I do get a little more concerned about our courts deciding which 'religion' is valid. I think it would be simpler if legalities weren't tied to the 'religiousness' of a group.
It is what the courts are for: to interpret the laws regarding specific cases. And in this case, they did so appropriately. As they usually do.
 
Top