PZ Myers reacts to the kid suspended from school for refusing to remove the eyepatch he was wearing as part of a pirate costume. Myers has the eminently sensible reaction that school officials should enforce dress codes and prevent disruptions regardless of any claimed religious significance.
If the school lets kids wear special religious garments or jewelry, or doesn't tell them to wash their face when they daub themselves with grime on Ash Wednesday, or any of the other pointless rituals of faith, then they shouldn't be punishing a kid for wearing an eyepatch — the pirate silliness is no more absurd than the crap the other kids are doing.
If this seems confusing, the religious connection is that the kid claims to be a Pastafarian, a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (often FSM), and dressing like a pirate is one of their sacraments. School officials have decided that parody religions don’t deserve the same deference as “real” religions. And I suspect that the ACLU won’t be picking up this case anytime soon.
I’d mostly let the issue drop except for this one comment:
Unless you seriously believe that the kid who came to school dressed as a pirate actually believes in the FSM, you should admit that the principal is exactly right to say that the kid wasn't being disciplined for his religious beliefs -- because the kid doesn't have any religious beliefs (at least none that he was expressing by dressing up as he did). Rather, the kid was making an anti-religious joke. […] Until there are pastafarian assembly halls where people actually attend regularly, donate a large portion of their income to support the activities of the religion, support various charitable activities, participate in initiation ceremonies, care deeply about the FSM, etc, etc, it is simply silly to claim that pastafarianism is a religion.
I think this rather misses the point. Some things can be parodies and still retain the important essence of the original. A parody of a painting is still a painting; a parody of a song is still a song. While a parody of science isn’t science and a parody of a textbook isn’t a textbook (although it is still a book), a parody of a news show can still be a news show. I think religion, dealing more with aesthetics and emotion, might retain its character as religion even in parody form.
An underlying meta-doctrine of Pastafarianism is to highlight that only a strictly religiously neutral stance can allow us to treat religions equally in the public sphere. This means that followers of the FSM must perform their sacraments in public, and that the most faithful will ridicule through their actions the deference that “real” religions regularly enjoy. By this standard the kid with the eyepatch is indeed a true Pastafarian.
The commenter also complains that the kid doesn’t really “believe” in the FSM. Perhaps not, but there are also many Christians who go to church and sing the psalms because they love the sense of community rather than actually believing in the tenants of their creed. One also wonders how school administrators should determine if people genuinely believe in their deity before granting them religious deference. As for the act of worship being a joke – well yes, but as we’ve seen that’s the character of the Pastafarian faith. Assembly halls and initiations are likewise meaningless because they would not require deference from public officials or institutions. Many religions also don’t having tithing or charities, and again this would not be in line with FSM doctrine.
Basically the complaint is that the religion lacks gravitas. If we’re going to mete out public respect for religion based on this test I’d be all for it, provided that people take a sober look at all the other faiths too. If we as a society could withdraw official deference from any religion that makes ludicrous claims that would indeed be a glorious day, but I think we’re going to need a more objective measure.
This is really all about indoctrination. It’s the parents who care about instilling their children with the fear that if they dress wrong they’ll go to hell, or if they wear the proper magic talisman they will be protected from evil. It’s the parents who become indignant if even sensible school rules interfere with their indoctrination. And it’s to this right of dominion over child minds – which Dawkins perhaps rightly calls child abuse – which school administrators defer. If someone were to bring their child up as a Pastafarian and insist that the school allows them to dress as a pirate, then we would have a parody with teeth. Perhaps it’s fortunate that no Pastafarian parent would be that cruel.
Too bad people of other faiths don’t feel that way as well. RAmen.
- jack*
Comments