In a surprising twist to absolutely no one, a lot of people don't like when their deep-seeded beliefs are openly mocked, and few more explicitly exemplify this than those whose religions are made farce by parody religions.
Once again, I'll be focusing on Pastafarianism, though this time it's simply because they make it too easy for me. Some of the hate-mail that is sent to Mr. Bobby Henderson (founder) is published on their official website (linked below). A certain Kevin B was quoted saying "Please do not delude yourself that people of real faith are not interesting themselves in where you and the other FSM assholes live, and where your loved ones attend school or work or etcetera. I'm not making any threats of any kind, as I am a non-violent Christian. However, all of the people with my beliefs are not so willing to tolerate your silliness. My advice is to shut down this pathetic folly before people far less tolerant of your mockery of their spirituality take an active interest in your membership on a very personal level." Kevin clearly states that he isn't making a threat, that this is an advisory, but that is doubtful at best considering his first sentence. An advisory says "Be careful because you're in danger," while a threat states "You're in danger, bub, so you'd best tread lightly. In fact, don't move at all," and this letter falls firmly in the field of the latter. To be fair, Mr. Henderson did take this opportunity to simultaneously mock Kevin B and be the bigger man by making the statement that this threat isn't subtle and that he should have left an anonymous note, even going so far as to grade Kevin B's letter at a C, but meanwhile stating that he should be given the benefit of the doubt, that maybe he's just had a day of it, and that he just needs the noodly love of the FSM. As someone who delights in getting a rise out of people, I can confidently state that such is exactly what Mr. Henderson is seeking in his response. It would be repetitive to quote all the other hate-mail Mr. Henderson has received and posted, because they almost all go along the same lines. Some are more in-depth or misinterpret principles of quantum physics, but they're pretty much all the same. No other parody religion has picked up as much steam as Pastafarianism, nor has any made their hate-mail as public, but it is a reasonable assumption that all or most of them have had similar or equal backlash as Pastafarianism. https://www.spaghettimonster.org/category/hate-mail/
2 Comments
Naturally, free speech is protected, even in discriminatory or hateful situations. Being racist, though unethical, is perfectly legal, as is being Islamophobic or Antisemitic or prejudiced of any other religion. However, just like with race and sex, religion has some legal protections, arguably more when you factor in the first amendment.
According to a detailed page from the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), not only must employers not fire, hire, or elect not to hire based on religion but they also must accommodate people for any religious practices that do not cause "undue hardship" which is defined as "more than a minimal burden on operations of the employer's business." That means that unless it affects productivity, infringes on other employees' rights, or would cause any excess of workplace hazard, be it in the individual themselves or their coworkers, the employer legally must accommodate an individuals religious beliefs. For instance, the EEOC gives a few examples. A Sikh who doesn't cut or trim their (facial) hair is allowed to do so even if it is in violation of the dress code, as is a Rastafarian who wears dreadlocks or a Jew who wears a yarmulke. Of course, if having long hair puts one in danger and there's no way around it, not even a hair net, then they can be required to cut their hair or stop working in the hazardous location. That's a general example, the principle applies whether it is hair causing the issue or something else. It applies if the issue is danger or productivity or equal treatment of other employees. Furthermore, a person doesn't have to be a practicing member of a religion or regularly attend a service or really even provide any proof that they believe in a religion. They don't even have to practice an legally recognized religion or anything formal. Someone could have a personal moral philosophy, design a religion around that, give it a few rules that help you abide by the philosophy, and your employer can't question it. It is your religion, and they have no authority to tell you otherwise, which can also be found on an EEOC page, though a slightly different one. All religious practices, well-known or just invented, are legally protected from employers. You're also protected from harassment and segregation, of course. Your employer cannot assign you to a non-customer position because of a real or perceived "customer preference." Your employer also cannot abide coworkers, supervisors, customers/clients, or anyone else harassing you for your religious beliefs. Harassment, it must be clarified, does not include singular instances of offhanded remarks but does include repeat offenses that create hostile work environments or result in negative consequences for the victim, like being fired or otherwise having punitive measures employed upon them. If you're not a fan of the EEOC, all the same information can be found all over the place. It isn't hidden, these are laws that you're supposed to know so you don't accidentally break one and so that you can protect yourself with them if someone breaks it in relation to you. All of the information comes initially from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, generally abbreviated to Title VII. The bite-sized adaptations of Title VII I used can be found at: https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-religious-discrimination There is a frankly shocking number of so-called "parody-religions," all of which are very humorous if you have the temperament for them. Most don't have enough limelight to have any discrimination, but there is value in knowing about them and their perceptions because they also all make reasonable statements about the nature of religion from an outsider's perspective. I'll be giving you the run-down of what some of the more prominent ones are and what they're saying about religion, so brace yourselves. Full disclosure: some of these are deliberately crude and go out of their way to be insensitive towards religion. There will be a lot of sacrilege discussed moving forward. Seriously. A lot.
Perhaps the most prominent is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), also called Pastafarianism, which basically saw all the different things the other parody religions were doing and put them all together. The basics are that the invisible, intangible Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and all things in it in the meatball shape much as it is today with the deliberate and mysterious design to appear billions of years old instead of the thousands that it really is. A pirate named Mosey was blessed with a vision of the FSM after being fed under-cooked pasta. He then spread his religion, setting up shop somewhere east of Europe. Over time, various denominations broke off of the main denomination (including Nin-jah, or ninjas). The full history of the religion is both way more in-depth and unimaginably funny. The purpose of the religion is to point out flaws in reasoning in other religions or their rhetoric. For instance, if you replace the word "God" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" in any passage of the bible, it will sound ridiculous to think someone might believe that, even though it is functionally no different. It also pokes holes in some of the arguments that defend his existence, basically making the FSM another version of Russell's Teapot (an unfalsifiable object that one claims to exist, believing that because no one can disprove the unfalsifiable statement, it must be true). Basically, if God is invisible and intangible, you can't prove he doesn't exist, so he must exist. The same logic applies to the FSM. It also uses satire to argue against the connection between causation and correlation, stating that because pirates became less common over time and global average temperatures were rising simultaneously, pirates must have been keeping the global environment in balance. This, among other things, were argued for at the religions inception in a letter to the board of education at a university in Kansas from Bobby Henderson, a student at that university who didn't believe creationism should be part of the curriculum for a scientific class. Perhaps theology or philosophy, but not science. He argued that if creationism were taught, it should be the "true" one outlined in that letter. It is important to understand that the religion never admits to being satire, although it is most obviously nothing but that. In fact, that's what the defining characteristics of parody religions are: satire about religion. Learn more about Pastafarianism at their website spaghettimonster.org. Look around. It's an infuriating web design, but you'll live. Others exist of course. The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is a similar satire about the existence of God using the same logic as the FSM and Russell's Teapot (no, I won't source that, it isn't that relevant, you can fight me). Dudeism (which you'll learn about at dudeism.com) is like Pastafarianism in that it takes an existing belief system and modernizes it. Where Pastafarianism modernizes and satirizes Christianity, Dudeism modernizes and satirizes Daoism. Last Thusdayism mocks creationism assuming it can discern anything true about the world. For instance, the statement that the world was created last Thursday exactly as it was then with only the illusion of having existed for billions of years is exactly as believable as God creating the world a few thousand years ago and used dirt to create Adam and one of Adam's ribs to create Eve. Googlism makes an argument that Google is more suited to be God than any traditional deity at churchofgoogle.org. None are as all encompassing, however, as the Church of FSM, so we'll be focusing on that next week when we look at their reception. Unless we don't because there just isn't anything interesting there. We'll see when I get around to researching it. Imam Bachir of Islamic Center of the Quad Cities fame may have been lucky enough to not have experienced any discrimination or severe prejudice for his religious belief. That, sadly, is not a shared experience for all Muslims in the country.
An article from the National Public Radio (NPR), O'Hare International, for example, has seen an increase in reports of discrimination targeted towards the Muslim-American communities since the Supreme Court upheld President Trump's travel ban from early in his presidency. In fact it was a 25% increase in Chicago, which, I might add, has a one of the largest Muslim communities in the nation. But that’s nigh nothing when compared to the cities Dallas and Atlanta have seen an increase by 50% and 70% respectively. That same article cited a report from ISPU (don’t ask who ISPU is) reported that Jewish and Hispanic people were the least likely to hold Islamophobic views and that white evangelicals were the most likely. It also found (hold your breath) that people who hold Islamophobic views probably don’t know any Muslims themselves. All that can be found at www.npr.org/local/309/2019/05/03/720057760/study-shows-islamophobia-is-growing-in-the-u-s-some-say-it-s-rising-in-chicago-too The Associated Press also reported on a series of seminars hosted by Greenville Avenue Church of Christ in Richardson, Texas, not far from Dallas, whose advertisement flyers referred to several dangerous “isms,” including some religions like Judaism, Atheism, and Islamism, as well as alcoholism, liberalism, and emotionalism. While few would argue that alcoholism is dangerous, it is itself dangerous to refer to any belief systems, including religious beliefs, as dangerous. The leader of the congregation did apologize for the phrasing, though he did not claim fault for the interpretation but instead said it wasn’t his intention to offend anyone and that anymore words carry much meaning and one must be very careful when saying something. Take that as you will, that he was simply unaware of his words’ effects on others or that he doesn’t feel responsible for what was said. The AP article is linked here: apnews.com/article/2faab89bdf3d440387f3413395f1df5f |
AuthorThat's me! Archives
April 2021
Categories
|