When reason comes into play, the issue of practicality has to be addressed.
The armed forces obviously must be good at fighting. If your religion requires you to wear something that prevents you from fighting well, for example, a special hat that stops you from wearing a helmet, then it's absolutely right for the armed forces not to allow you to wear that hat.
It then becomes your choice whether to serve and forgo your special hat, or to find some other occupation less affected by choice of headgear. Or it may be possible to find a compromise solution.
In the case of the sikh turban, there are various compromises. One is the cammo or plain black turban that makes a smart substitute for the usual cap, another one is a special mini-turban worn by UK forces sikhs under helmets.
Baxx wrote: How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?
This is the question that comes up in every single one of these religious exemption threads, and it basically boils down to "what if it became impossible for human beings to apply sense or reason?"
Fortunately humans are still capable of such. We can make an assessment between something that is dictated by the religion, and something that individuals in the religion simply like to do. This doesn't mean that all humans everywhere will always agree on every decision, there will be an inherent level of subjectivity, but the idea that we cannot do it at all is basically to reject the human capacity for reason.
So there is sense and reason for women to wear hijab because an omnipotent being said so 1300 years ago?
I expect you would give men wanting to wear hijab the same right?
And there is sense and reason in allowing muslims to wear their religious clothing while denying others?
Every single religious requirement is something that individuals simply like to do. And anyone is free to choose a religion which requires them to wear whatever they want. This is the resaon in it.
Because of practicality, I expect anyone to be able to wear anything similar to sikh's turban if they so wish.
When governments can't deny pastafarians to wear pasta drain on their heads while taking driver's license photo, I think you see where we are going with this.
Major world religions with a long history and millions of faithfu are not the same as you deciding that today you want to wear a pink top hat and tomorrow you want wear a purple bowler hat.
So there is sense and reason for women to wear hijab because an omnipotent being said so 1300 years ago?@
That's not why muslim women wear a hijab.
I expect you would give men wanting to wear hijab the same right?
Have any muslim men asked for permission to wear a hijab?
Do you expect any to do so?
And there is sense and reason in allowing muslims to wear their religious clothing while denying others?
There is sense in assessing the requirements of different religions on their own merits, due to every religion having different expectations of their followers.
Every single religious requirement is something that individuals simply like to do.
That's not how religion works. There are any number of things that some people are bound to by their religion that they would rather not do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for pastafarians, more recently than that drivers licence photo, we've had a US court rule (correctly, as far as I can see) that Pastafarianism is a work of satire, not an actual religion. I expect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had his day in the sun.
Major world religions with a long history and millions of faithfu are not the same as you deciding that today you want to wear a pink top hat and tomorrow you want wear a purple bowler hat.
I don't see the difference. Age and numbers are factors making islam less important than celtic religion. Some religions start out small, so they need more members to get clothing rights?
As for pastafarians, more recently than that drivers licence photo, we've had a US court rule (correctly, as far as I can see) that Pastafarianism is a work of satire, not an actual religion. I expect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had his day in the sun.
And other religions are not satire? I speak to religious people every day saying things like "the pope is the antichrist" or "these muslims are false" or similar nonsense.
Christianity or Islam is just as big a joke as any other, perhaps darker even.
Have any muslim men asked for permission to wear a hijab?
Do you expect any to do so?
Now I have served in the military and there was not allowed to wear hijab or religious clothing. But should I come in a similar situation today where religious clothing is allowed to be worn with a uniform, I'd be the first one to convert and wear a hijab.
Major world religions with a long history and millions of faithfu are not the same as you deciding that today you want to wear a pink top hat and tomorrow you want wear a purple bowler hat.
I don't see the difference. Age and numbers are factors making islam less important than celtic religion. Some religions start out small, so they need more members to get clothing rights?
As for pastafarians, more recently than that drivers licence photo, we've had a US court rule (correctly, as far as I can see) that Pastafarianism is a work of satire, not an actual religion. I expect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had his day in the sun.
And other religions are not satire? I speak to religious people every day saying things like "the pope is the antichrist" or "these muslims are false" or similar nonsense.
Christianity or Islam is just as big a joke as any other, perhaps darker even.
Have any muslim men asked for permission to wear a hijab?
Do you expect any to do so?
Now I have served in the military and there was not allowed to wear hijab or religious clothing. But should I come in a similar situation today where religious clothing is allowed to be worn with a uniform, I'd be the first one to convert and wear a hijab.
Which is why it is a good thing we have regs to go by instead of the opinion of those like you.
The fact comes down to this is a military uniform for a college. The purpose especially during the freshman year is to make everyone look as same as possible. There isn't room for expressing oneself inside the uniform. The people who voluntarily sign up for the military or to go to this military college know whats expected of them before they sign up. If it is a hassle for them not to have their religious garb then they don't sign up.
Is this student going to this school? We don't know. This woman was admitted to the school, and simply asked a question. I spoke with a Citadel student who is in my crew this past weekend at drill about this, apparently the only reason this even made headlines is the president of the school is getting the boot and wanted to make a stink about it to get back at the school. Aside from him, the vote from every ranking member of the school who got one was a unanimous no. Thus he leaked it out to make bad press. The actual question made far less waves in the school than the president being an intentional ass, again apparently.
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.
Baxx wrote: Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.
In this thread, the line gets drawn at what accommodations to legitimate religious attire the Citadel and US military must make.
So, pretty much none of your anti-religious ranting has any place in the thread to be honest.
As for your claim " Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too?". Fantastic, cite the court's decisions as to how that backs up your (as of this point emotionally driven instead of fact based) opinion.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
Baxx wrote: Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.
In this thread, the line gets drawn at what accommodations to legitimate religious attire the Citadel and US military must make.
So, pretty much none of your anti-religious ranting has any place in the thread to be honest.
As for your claim " Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too?". Fantastic, cite the court's decisions as to how that backs up your (as of this point emotionally driven instead of fact based) opinion.
I don't disagree with your points Jake but I think Baxx has a valid take that it's reasonable and defensible for the Citadel to take the position that no religious clothing or icons can be visible while in uniform (at least that's how I interpreted the later part of Baxx's post). There's no way for the Citadel to defend a position that it's ok for a female cadet to wear a hijab but still not ok for other cadets to have a visible crucifix or rosary or any other religious clothing or icon. If visible expression of private individual relgious beliefs while in dress uniform is ok for one cadet of one particular religion than the same justifications make it ok for all cadets with invidual religious beliefs to also do so, and that opens Pandora's box. In this instance the subjective quality of a given religion is irrelevant because any religious expression while in uniform creates the same counter productive attitude to the conformist espirit de corps required for an effective military.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?
Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.
Cue...
Spoiler:
\m/
Slayer's 'Mandatory Suicide' fits too. Great tune.
Baxx wrote: Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.
You're saying all religions are a satire. That is extremely rude and I am saying that as a moderator.
Baxx wrote: Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
Why don't you tell us, since you seem to have such a deep, well-rounded and nuanced understanding of world religions and their various theologies and practices?
Kilkrazy wrote: When reason comes into play, the issue of practicality has to be addressed.
The armed forces obviously must be good at fighting. If your religion requires you to wear something that prevents you from fighting well, for example, a special hat that stops you from wearing a helmet, then it's absolutely right for the armed forces not to allow you to wear that hat.
It then becomes your choice whether to serve and forgo your special hat, or to find some other occupation less affected by choice of headgear. Or it may be possible to find a compromise solution.
I absolutely agree with everything you’ve posted there. What you’ve written strikes the right balance between fairness and practicality. And fortunately it is the solution in place in almost all circumstances.
As such, the only time there seems to be a problem with this is when someone decides that people can’t reason an acceptable middle position. So we get arguments of ‘if they say yes to one thing, then they have to say yes to everything, because reason cannot possibly be applied’.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baxx wrote: So there is sense and reason for women to wear hijab because an omnipotent being said so 1300 years ago?
You’ve missed the point. There is no expectation for anyone to show reason in their clothing. There is no reason in any kind of clothing expectations, it’s just social standards that have become what they have over time.
The expectation of reason is one we put upon administrators and courts, who are expected to draw a line between fairness and practicality. It’s a fairly simple standard, and the only argument against it is this very strange one that somehow humans might somehow be incapable of applying reason when considering individual cases.
That's the point right there Sebster, there is no individual in uniform, nor individual cases. Uniform is the antithesis of individual. The uniform is the same for everyone, that is the most fair and equal as you can possibly get. Going into that situation you are no longer an individual, you are part of a unit with everything that entails.
There are several Christian religions that are pretty hardcore that say women shouldn't wear pants. Should they be allowed to wear a skirt even though the uniform for everyone is a pair of pants?
Again, voluntary association, going into it you know what the requirements are beforehand. Under no circumstances should you expect to be treated differently because of your beliefs.
Kilkrazy wrote: He thinks everyone in a unit should wear the same uniform. Segregating religions is a possible way of allowing all Sikhs to wear turbans, and so on.
I don't want to speak for him, but I assume he thinks everyone in a service (like the Army) should wear the same uniform, not by unit.
From a practical perspective you cannot field units by religion, no way to get the correct MOS mixture in the correct numbers. It would entail a complete reworking of the promotion and other personnel actions and there would be no benefit to warfighting capability. It would be silly to have different uniforms by religion. Frankly, just a crap idea for the US at this point in history.
Col. Dash wrote: That's the point right there Sebster, there is no individual in uniform, nor individual cases. Uniform is the antithesis of individual. The uniform is the same for everyone, that is the most fair and equal as you can possibly get. Going into that situation you are no longer an individual, you are part of a unit with everything that entails.
There are several Christian religions that are pretty hardcore that say women shouldn't wear pants. Should they be allowed to wear a skirt even though the uniform for everyone is a pair of pants?
Again, voluntary association, going into it you know what the requirements are beforehand. Under no circumstances should you expect to be treated differently because of your beliefs.
Baxx wrote: Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.
You're saying all religions are a satire. That is extremely rude and I am saying that as a moderator.
He does have a point, though. What makes a set of beliefs different than another (including atheism) ? The number of believers and how old that particular set of beliefs is ?
Nobody is questioning which beliefs have merit and which don't. Nobody actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a work of satire created to poke fun at religions.
People can pretend to believe in whatever they like. People can completely genuinely believe in things that seem ridiculous to other people.
That's why the advice on uniforms can't give people a right to wear whatever they like, but it can give them a right to have their professed beliefs considered by the authorities.
Col. Dash wrote: The fact comes down to this is a military uniform for a college. The purpose especially during the freshman year is to make everyone look as same as possible. There isn't room for expressing oneself inside the uniform. The people who voluntarily sign up for the military or to go to this military college know whats expected of them before they sign up. If it is a hassle for them not to have their religious garb then they don't sign up.
Is this student going to this school? We don't know. This woman was admitted to the school, and simply asked a question. I spoke with a Citadel student who is in my crew this past weekend at drill about this, apparently the only reason this even made headlines is the president of the school is getting the boot and wanted to make a stink about it to get back at the school. Aside from him, the vote from every ranking member of the school who got one was a unanimous no. Thus he leaked it out to make bad press. The actual question made far less waves in the school than the president being an intentional ass, again apparently.
Most people dont care about proper regulation if it conflicts with their feels. Everybody wants to be a special snowflake these days.
Baxx wrote: Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.
Where do you draw the line in all this?
It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.
You're saying all religions are a satire. That is extremely rude and I am saying that as a moderator.
He does have a point, though. What makes a set of beliefs different than another (including atheism) ?
That you could or could not condemn a religious official under the About-Picard Law...?
Col. Dash wrote: That's the point right there Sebster, there is no individual in uniform, nor individual cases. Uniform is the antithesis of individual. The uniform is the same for everyone, that is the most fair and equal as you can possibly get.
Applying random rules to an absolute standard with no consideration of reason is the opposite of fairness.
Again, voluntary association, going into it you know what the requirements are beforehand. Under no circumstances should you expect to be treated differently because of your beliefs.
Except it’s very stupid for an organisation to apply a pointless and arbitrary rule that excludes some people that it might want to have in its organisation. In order to operate as best it can, an organisation wants to be able to select from a candidate pool as wide as possible. Removing potential candidates from that pool for the sake of an arbitrary rule is stubborn minded nonsense.
Of course many rules exist for good reason. Not every preference should be considered, some exceptions create safety and performance issues, and in general too many exceptions will create a mess to administer. But that doesn’t mean no exceptions, where a work around or allowance can be made that isn’t inconvenient, why wouldn't you do it?
sebster wrote: Except it’s very stupid for an organisation to apply a pointless and arbitrary rule that excludes some people that it might want to have in its organisation.
You're assuming the military wants the sort of people who will pitch a fit and threaten a lawsuit over not being allowed to wear a hijab after voluntarily entering a school where they know going in they won't be allowed to wear a hijab. I think that may not be a wise assumption.
Seaward wrote: You're assuming the military wants the sort of people who will pitch a fit and threaten a lawsuit over not being allowed to wear a hijab after voluntarily entering a school where they know going in they won't be allowed to wear a hijab. I think that may not be a wise assumption.
Logic fail. The people who are willing to drag this to court are already coming in – they have to be in to file the suit. The ones you miss out on are the people who’d like to take part but see they’re not accommodated and then go and do something else instead.
LethalShade wrote: He does have a point, though. What makes a set of beliefs different than another (including atheism) ? The number of believers and how old that particular set of beliefs is ?
No, he really doesn't have a point. All religions are false beliefs about the world and many religious beliefs and practices might seem absurd to an outside observer, but not all religions are satire. The term "satire" has meaning, and it isn't "false" or "absurd", as he seems to be using it. Here is the correct definition of "satire":
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
A belief, no matter how ridiculous you think it is, that someone holds with absolute sincerity is not satire. They aren't saying something because they're exaggerating or using humor to make a point, they're saying it because they believe it is true. And it is indisputably true that most people believe in their chosen religion (or lack thereof) sincerely, even when other people think "WTF, how can you believe that?". Attempting to claim otherwise, by labeling all religion satire, isn't just needlessly insulting, it's obviously not a true statement.
Now, in relation to this thread, the issue IMO is when we put the courts in charge of deciding if someone's beliefs are sincere or not. When we say, for example, that someone who claims Pastafarianism as a religion is not sincere in their beliefs about the world we're essentially saying "this is so ridiculous that nobody could really believe it". And the almost-inevitable result of that is turning religious rights into a popularity contest, where "mainstream" religions get full rights and everyone else has to persuade the court that they have a valid religion.
The thing is there are situations in which lines have to be drawn. For example, it doesn't matter what religion you are, in your passport photo you have to obey the international regulations that state a full face shot with uncovered hair and so on. Otherwise passport photos would be useless.
There are other situations in which the wearing of a religious artifact may be possible but it still needs to fit into some existing structure like army uniform. When considering someone's supposedly deeply held belief that entitles them to consideration of having an exemption to the normal rule, the existence of a wide-spread religion of long tradition supporting them is a good clue that they may actually be genuine. Unlike some who gets up one day at boot camp and declares that his god told him in a dream to wear luminous condoms on his ears, please can he have an exemption. (One can only imagine the reaction of a Roman centurion who one day was told by a soldier he had got Christianity and no longer wanted to attend parades of worship of the Imperial cult.)
Presumably religions either fail or gradually grow towards greater respectability, as did Christianity, becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire over the course of several centuries.
sebster wrote: Logic fail. The people who are willing to drag this to court are already coming in – they have to be in to file the suit. The ones you miss out on are the people who’d like to take part but see they’re not accommodated and then go and do something else instead.
And if their desire to serve is overwhelmed by their desire to wear a hijab, oh well. The military will manage without them. Even the Sikhs who wound up with exemptions didn't get them at the start of their service - they shaved and didn't wear their turbans until they were approved.
It was only in 1981 that the top command of the armed forces decided to ban sikhs from wearing a beard and turban.
Recently, though they have had a change of heart and want the armed forces to grant exemptions where appropriate, and that is why sikhs have been applying for and getting permission to wear a beard and turban.
One reason for this change of policy was an appreciation that diversity was a valuable factor when units were being posted to diverse foreign locations, and was being hurt by the blanket ban on religious items like turbans.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is there are situations in which lines have to be drawn. For example, it doesn't matter what religion you are, in your passport photo you have to obey the international regulations that state a full face shot with uncovered hair and so on. Otherwise passport photos would be useless.
This is kind of the point I was getting at. I have no objection to blanket rules like "passport photos must show the entire face" that have legitimate reasons behind them. Obviously the state has a legitimate security interest in ensuring that identification documents can actually be used to identify a person, and having the person's face visible is an important part of that. What I'm objecting to is the idea that the state gets to decide which religions deserve protection. For example, allowing {popular religion} to wear clothing items that cover their face in their passport pictures, but not granting {unpopular minority religion} the same right. Or deciding that {thing people from the unpopular minority religion} want is not acceptable even though there is no compelling reason not to allow it, because {unpopular minority religion} isn't a "real religion".
When considering someone's supposedly deeply held belief that entitles them to consideration of having an exemption to the normal rule, the existence of a wide-spread religion of long tradition supporting them is a good clue that they may actually be genuine.
It's a clue, but it's far from proof. Someone can claim to be a member of a particular reason if they want a perceived benefit, and the fact that the religion they're taking advantage of has a long tradition behind it doesn't mean that the individual's belief is sincere. Nor does the absence of a long tradition prove that the belief isn't sincere.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is there are situations in which lines have to be drawn. For example, it doesn't matter what religion you are, in your passport photo you have to obey the international regulations that state a full face shot with uncovered hair and so on. Otherwise passport photos would be useless.
This is kind of the point I was getting at. I have no objection to blanket rules like "passport photos must show the entire face" that have legitimate reasons behind them. Obviously the state has a legitimate security interest in ensuring that identification documents can actually be used to identify a person, and having the person's face visible is an important part of that. What I'm objecting to is the idea that the state gets to decide which religions deserve protection. For example, allowing {popular religion} to wear clothing items that cover their face in their passport pictures, but not granting {unpopular minority religion} the same right. Or deciding that {thing people from the unpopular minority religion} want is not acceptable even though there is no compelling reason not to allow it, because {unpopular minority religion} isn't a "real religion".
When considering someone's supposedly deeply held belief that entitles them to consideration of having an exemption to the normal rule, the existence of a wide-spread religion of long tradition supporting them is a good clue that they may actually be genuine.
It's a clue, but it's far from proof. Someone can claim to be a member of a particular reason if they want a perceived benefit, and the fact that the religion they're taking advantage of has a long tradition behind it doesn't mean that the individual's belief is sincere. Nor does the absence of a long tradition prove that the belief isn't sincere.
No, it's not proof, but it's the kind of thing you take into account when you will have to make a decision you might need to stand up for in front of your peers, superiors and even in a court of law. The status of Islam as a major world religion would be bound to carry more weight compared to pastafarianism, which most people regard as a joke.
Of course you've also got your English middle class parents moving near a good church school and joining the local church for enough years to get a letter from their vicar to allow them to apply to the church school for their children.
Kilkrazy wrote: It was only in 1981 that the top command of the armed forces decided to ban sikhs from wearing a beard and turban.
Recently, though they have had a change of heart and want the armed forces to grant exemptions where appropriate, and that is why sikhs have been applying for and getting permission to wear a beard and turban.
One reason for this change of policy was an appreciation that diversity was a valuable factor when units were being posted to diverse foreign locations, and was being hurt by the blanket ban on religious items like turbans.
That's certainly a way of interpreting it, sure. It wouldn't necessarily be an accurate one, much like how the recent push for 'diversity' in NSW applicants was attributed to operational need, an operational need that, according to NSW itself, didn't actually exist.
Civilian leadership pushes a lot of things on the military that the military doesn't need, whether it's more tanks or A-10s, or 'diversity.' That's civilian leadership's job, but it doesn't make them infallible or automatically correct.
And let's be real; claiming that Sikh turbans will help us out in the areas we've been operating in and will likely continue to be operating in for the foreseeable future is pretty absurd. Muslims aren't going to be fooled by Sikhs.
LethalShade wrote: He does have a point, though. What makes a set of beliefs different than another (including atheism) ? The number of believers and how old that particular set of beliefs is ?
No, he really doesn't have a point. All religions are false beliefs about the world and many religious beliefs and practices might seem absurd to an outside observer, but not all religions are satire. The term "satire" has meaning, and it isn't "false" or "absurd", as he seems to be using it. Here is the correct definition of "satire":
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
A belief, no matter how ridiculous you think it is, that someone holds with absolute sincerity is not satire. They aren't saying something because they're exaggerating or using humor to make a point, they're saying it because they believe it is true. And it is indisputably true that most people believe in their chosen religion (or lack thereof) sincerely, even when other people think "WTF, how can you believe that?". Attempting to claim otherwise, by labeling all religion satire, isn't just needlessly insulting, it's obviously not a true statement.
Now, in relation to this thread, the issue IMO is when we put the courts in charge of deciding if someone's beliefs are sincere or not. When we say, for example, that someone who claims Pastafarianism as a religion is not sincere in their beliefs about the world we're essentially saying "this is so ridiculous that nobody could really believe it". And the almost-inevitable result of that is turning religious rights into a popularity contest, where "mainstream" religions get full rights and everyone else has to persuade the court that they have a valid religion.
And that exactly was my point. The numbers and age argument, the one religion is satire while another isn't and so forth.
I'm still new to the notion that describing or criticising religion can be rude. I thought that was long past.
Baxx wrote: And that exactly was my point. The numbers and age argument, the one religion is satire while another isn't and so forth.
Except, again, that isn't what "satire" means. The word has a definition, and it is not "something I think is ridiculous or false". Christianity (for example) is not a satire because the people who believe it do so sincerely, not as an exaggerated or humorous commentary on an issue. It has nothing to do with how old it is or how many people believe it.
I'm still new to the notion that describing or criticising religion can be rude. I thought that was long past.
Of course criticizing religion can be rude. If you post "everyone who is {religion} is a ing " then that is rude, and you can expect moderator attention. Criticizing religion in an objective manner is fine, as you can see from the fact that my "all religion is false" comment is still there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The status of Islam as a major world religion would be bound to carry more weight compared to pastafarianism, which most people regard as a joke.
And this is a problem. It creates a situation where "mainstream" religions get special privileges, while new or unpopular religions don't. The legal status of a religion should not be influenced by whether or not people who are not members of that religion consider it a joke.
Kilkrazy wrote: The status of Islam as a major world religion would be bound to carry more weight compared to pastafarianism, which most people regard as a joke.
And this is a problem. It creates a situation where "mainstream" religions get special privileges, while new or unpopular religions don't. The legal status of a religion should not be influenced by whether or not people who are not members of that religion consider it a joke.
Of course, in the case he used, pastafaraianism, the members themselves see it as a joke (because it is), so if others do as well it should not be a big deal
And that exactly was my point. The numbers and age argument, the one religion is satire while another isn't and so forth..
Numbers and age are nothing to do with whether or not a 'religion' is real or satire.
Pastafarianism is no more a real religion than the Onion is a real news outlet. I don't say that because it's new, or because it falls under some magical attendance threshold. I say it because it's a work of satire, that was created in response to a school district electing to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, in an attempt to point out to everyone how silly the writer felt this idea was.
The fact that some people aren't familiar with the story behind it and so assume that the people claiming to be adherents of Pastafarianism are genuine (if slightly odd) doesn't make it a religion...
And that exactly was my point. The numbers and age argument, the one religion is satire while another isn't and so forth..
Numbers and age are nothing to do with whether or not a 'religion' is real or satire.
Pastafarianism is no more a real religion than the Onion is a real news outlet. I don't say that because it's new, or because it falls under some magical attendance threshold. I say it because it's a work of satire, that was created in response to a school district electing to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, in an attempt to point out to everyone how silly the writer felt this idea was.
The fact that some people aren't familiar with the story behind it and so assume that the people claiming to be adherents of Pastafarianism are genuine (if slightly odd) doesn't make it a religion...
And the 'source' of the religion doesn't mean that someone can't have a genuine belief in it. The 'source' or intent of a religion has no bearing as to whether it's a religion or not.
insaniak wrote: The fact that some people aren't familiar with the story behind it and so assume that the people claiming to be adherents of Pastafarianism are genuine (if slightly odd) doesn't make it a religion...
And here's where your explanation goes wrong. If people genuinely believe in Pastafarianism then it becomes a legitimate religion for them. Perhaps you could think of it as two separate but very similar beliefs: the original satire, and the new religion that just happens to be very similar to it.
Peregrine wrote: If people genuinely believe in Pastafarianism then it becomes a legitimate religion for them.
That isn't how religion works. People in asylums genuinely believe all sorts of things but that doesn't make it a religion. Usually it is those that think they are smarter than they actually are that confuse Pastafarianism for actual religion. It is a useful tool for pointing out the problems of religion but that doesn't make it an actual religion anymore than using a hammer to build a home makes that hammer a house.
skyth wrote: Actually that'EXACTLY how religions work. Just some get special unearned bonuses.
Actually just belief alone isn't how they work EXACTLY. It is more complex than that, but I guess if we want to boil it down to a simple, false definition so it can be argued against I guess that works to.
Of course criticizing religion can be rude. If you post "everyone who is {religion} is a ing " then that is rude, and you can expect moderator attention. Criticizing religion in an objective manner is fine, as you can see from the fact that my "all religion is false" comment is still there.
Criticizing religion can be rude because criticizing religious people can be rude?
Everyone who is this and that is this and that sounds like statement about people, not religion.
Crazyterran wrote: If I believe in Sigmar, can I carry a big hammer to hit people with?
How about the Holy Light from Warcraft - the Light's followers hit things with hammers as well.
Nope. The government has a compelling interest in keeping you from hitting people with hammers against their will regardless if it is a valid religious belief.
Baxx wrote: Criticizing religion can be rude because criticizing religious people can be rude?
Everyone who is this and that is this and that sounds like statement about people, not religion.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between criticism and insulting? I said it before, but I'll say it again: the comment I made about "all religions are false" is still there, and that's just one of the many things I've said that are extremely critical of religion. It is clearly possible (and permitted by forum rules) to criticize religion without crossing that line.
skyth wrote: My religion is what I say it is. The tenets of my religion are what I say they are. It doesn't matter what someone else's beliefs are.
And to the law and the people who are not you it doesn't matter if you define religion in a simplistic manner or call a carrot a turkey leg. Having a personal belief isn't really an issue or a point of contention.
Seaward wrote: And if their desire to serve is overwhelmed by their desire to wear a hijab, oh well. The military will manage without them.
Of course it will get on without them. This isn't an existential issue to the army. The point, once again, is that every organisation does better when it can select who it wants from as wider a pool of candidates as possible. 'Getting by' is not the same thing as 'doing better'.
So it becomes a simple matter to realise that if defence has a reg that causes some people to not want to join, and waiving or finding a compromise position on that reg causes no performance issue, then it makes no sense to insist that reg must continue to be applied in an absolute manner.
But of course, this whole debate has pretty much nothing to do with how a large organisation would operate best. It's about the same old ideological nonsense. The same people who fight every single request from any special interest will fight this one, because that's just what they do. The same people who want to fight for the little guy will do so again, same as always. And the people who want to complain about religion getting any kind of recognition in any way will complain, same as they always do.
The military (US) does not approve religions. It recognizes religions but it does not approve what is and what is not a religion. I think I got that right...
Jihadin wrote: The military (US) does not approve religions. It recognizes religions but it does not approve what is and what is not a religion. I think I got that right...
IIRC, the military "approves" the recognition of religion for the purposes of official dog tags. I know of plenty of guys in my old MOS who had "Jedi Knight" on the religion line of their tags, but those weren't supposed to be used for official verification (honestly, never understood why verification included tags... or rather, the explanations given to me never put 2 and 2 together).
I also recall that the VA has a similar process for gravestone markers, and just a couple years ago approved the "Thor's Hammer" icon for those who follow Asatru or other forms of Northern Heathenism.
IIRC, the military "approves" the recognition of religion for the purposes of official dog tags. I know of plenty of guys in my old MOS who had "Jedi Knight" on the religion line of their tags, but those weren't supposed to be used for official verification (honestly, never understood why verification included tags... or rather, the explanations given to me never put 2 and 2 together).
Certain religions have different requirements for how a body is handled (and some have things like Last Rights). The dog tags help identify the requirements for a particular body.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between criticism and insulting? I said it before, but I'll say it again: the comment I made about "all religions are false" is still there, and that's just one of the many things I've said that are extremely critical of religion. It is clearly possible (and permitted by forum rules) to criticize religion without crossing that line.
I honestly did understand what you said, but where was I insulting? How can you say religion is false without being insulting, while I can't say religion is satire without being insulting?
But of course, this whole debate has pretty much nothing to do with how a large organisation would operate best. It's about the same old ideological nonsense. The same people who fight every single request from any special interest will fight this one, because that's just what they do. The same people who want to fight for the little guy will do so again, same as always. And the people who want to complain about religion getting any kind of recognition in any way will complain, same as they always do.
Certainly I can fight for all little guys, not just the little guys from one specific religion. Go ahead give religious recognition, but not only to one single religion. Don't allow special requests from one group while denying all others and justify that with "diversity".
In my Will. I have it stated and the money set aside to help. I am to be cremated. My wife and father will have a boat maker build a Viking Long boat about the length of a row boat. Once built their to load it with oak and pine wood. Gallon of gas should provide a good soaking on the wood. Pour my ashes over the gas soaked wood pile. Push out into water. Shoot a flaming arrow it.
Do you honestly not understand the difference between criticism and insulting? I said it before, but I'll say it again: the comment I made about "all religions are false" is still there, and that's just one of the many things I've said that are extremely critical of religion. It is clearly possible (and permitted by forum rules) to criticize religion without crossing that line.
I honestly did understand what you said, but where was I insulting? How can you say religion is false without being insulting, while I can't say religion is satire without being insulting?
How about you take it up via PM with the mods? No answer given here is going to make you happy.
ing 
