When I read the story of Stephen Cavanaugh, a prisoner who was denied certain rights by prison officials and sued for being denied those rights, I took the time to read the judge's decision (PDF). I decided that I needed to write a letter to the judge after wondering if such a thing was even possible. It might not be but that isn’t going to stop me from putting my 49 cents worth of respectful dissent in the mail in an attempt.
As I finished the letter I decided that I would share the letter with you here on DailyKos. So here it is:
April 21, 2016
To: The Honorable Judge John M. Gerrard
586 Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508
From:
RE: Cavanaugh v. Bartelt
Your Honor,
I am writing to respectfully disagree with your decision regarding Plaintiff Cavanaugh. In your decision Your Honor wrote "Because FSMism is not a "religion" for RLUIPA purposes, Cavanaugh has failed to allege a "religious exercise" was burdened."
Your Honor is correct, of course, that the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) was written as satire to vex a certain school board. Your Honor may be correct that Cavanaugh failed to show how he was substantially burdened; I did not see what evidence was presented in regards to that.
And yet also in Your Honor's decision Your Honor claimed, "It bears emphasizing that the Court is not engaged in—and has been careful to avoid—questioning the validity of Cavanaugh's beliefs. " And yet Your Honor goes on to claim that his beliefs are "satire" and "a joke." This may be viewed, indeed, as the very definition of questioning the validity of Cavanaughs beliefs.
If I explained Calothicism thusly, "the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree" then one might conclude that Catholicism is satirical and a joke. And yet there is church upon church with followers who fill these tax-free houses every Sunday.
I present for Your Honor's consideration the following dissent in the "Hobby Lobby" case (Burwell V. Hobby Lobby) which Your Honor cited in your decision, written by Justice Ginsburg:
There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the
courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits
of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2
(Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with
which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving
some religious claims while deeming others unworthy
of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one
religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment
Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision,
Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring),
by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would
confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations
formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily
in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged
. . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for
money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld,
J., concurring).
Justice Ginsburg's opinion here does not appear to be contradicted in any way in the majority opinion, even by the late Justice Scalia. It seems to me that it could very well be the majority of the Supreme Court could reverse Your Honor's assertion that FSMism is not a religion for the very risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.
Your Honor's decision was obviously well-crafted and perhaps more well cited than the claim Cavanaugh had presented merited. But could it be that his beliefs are indeed sincere and deeply held? His several tattoos, adornments that are permanent and painful to acquire, would seem to confirm it. Should it matter to The Court whether a belief is sincere, and can there even be a test? Can there be a test for any belief at all? If I told Your Honor that I believe gravity is a function of large objects warping the fabric of time and space, could Your Honor truly distinguish that I indeed believed that we are all held here on this planet by the Noodly Appendage of FSM? I posit that we must rely on what is professed by the mouths of the believers, even if we personally find them difficult to believe.
I am certain that I would have found, in Your Honor's position, as Your Honor did, only for radically different reasons. I am certain that the prison in question does not provide ceremonial robes for Christians, though they might allow yarmulkes for Jews, provided that the yarmulkes are provided from the outside, e.g., from family members. It could be, then, that I would be put in the admittedly absurd position of allowing a prisoner to wear a pirate outfit, provided prison officials did not deem the clothing as inherently dangerous, which is to say, it could theoretically be weaponized and therefore pose a danger to prison workers.
But I must respectfully disagree and protest Your Honor's assertion in a court brief that FSMism is a satire and joke. For a judge to come to that conclusion in a public document opens the floodgates of outrage and dissent from all sides of theism.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Respectfully yours,
I admit that I may have not fully understood all of the implications of the case and may not have fully understood the established case law surrounding it. But I am certain that I do understand my feelings regarding it.
An attack on this religion is an attack on all religions and I protest it, even as an atheist.
