A woman in Massachusetts is causing a stir on the Internet after a photograph of her wearing a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo have been circulating the web — all in the name of freedom of religion.
On Friday, Nov. 13, Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Mass., told the Associated Press that she “absolutely loves the history and the story” of Pastafarians, a religious group that is otherwise known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
PHOTOS: 2015's biggest viral Internet celebrities
She opted to wear a strainer on her head as part of her religious observance, she added, much the same way that other religions have their own headwear of choice.
According to the Pastafarian website, the the religion has existed “in secrecy for hundreds of years,” but “came into the mainstream just a few years ago.”
PHOTOS: Internet sensations of 2014
“Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment or satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, just a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools,” an explainer on the site reads. “These people are mistaken — The Church of FSM is legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.”
PHOTOS: Funniest celeb memes
A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles told the AP that though head coverings and hats are not allowed in license photos, exceptions are made for religious reasons.
In all seriousness, I think it utterly ridiculous that some religions are allowed to violate head gear rules for government ID cards, but others aren't. She just proved the idiocy of all of it.
Chongara wrote: If somebody really wants to telegraph that they're probably an insufferable neckbeard on their driver's license, more power to them I guess.
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
As far as the Massachusetts DMV is concerned, it's a real religion.
It's just a way for atheists/pastafarians to bring attention to what they may believe are absurd privileges to religious communities- such as wearing hats during driver's license photos.
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!
If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!
If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!
If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?
Well if that isn't intolerance, I don't know what is.
Chongara wrote: but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.
Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.
EDIT:
Just to be clear. I think it's good they let her in with her idiot strainer. The government shouldn't be in the business of judging what is or isn't a legitimate matter of faith and how sincere they are. However as private citizen whose opinions holds no government power I certainly feel free to come down publicly as saying her "beliefs" are definitely an obvious farce.
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
We live in a nation where this is a real thing:
Yet somehow wearing a colander on your head is a mockery of religion. Yeah.
Chongara wrote: but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.
Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.
And yet when someone exercises their right to wear something in an official picture based on their religious beliefs you say it is in poor taste?
You don't know what intollerance is. In fact I specifically state that everyone should be treated the same regardless of their beliefs. Never mind how silly or valid they may be to others.
Chongara wrote: but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.
Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.
And yet when someone exercises their right to wear something in an official picture based on their religious beliefs you say it is in poor taste?
Why is your religion more valid than theirs?
She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.
I like the fact that people claim it should be allowed because of religious freedom, but at the same time, the entire spaghetti thing was invented to mock / ridicule people protected by religious freedom.
Guess saying "You're an idiot!" in a nice way is somehow more acceptable.
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Chongara wrote: but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.
Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.
And yet when someone exercises their right to wear something in an official picture based on their religious beliefs you say it is in poor taste?
Why is your religion more valid than theirs?
She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.
You don't get to dictate what her beliefs are. Also let's not forget:
Chongara wrote: She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.
Wow, you are able to judge a person's depth of belief? :O
Have you tried lottery numbers?
Again, what makes her faith any less valid than yours? Or that of anyone else?
Do I like that Pastafarianism mocks aspects of my religion? Nope, but it's legal and I can take the criticism.
Do I agree that Pastafarianism points out areas where members of my religion have gone off the deep end (like young earth creationism)? Yup.
Do I agree with Pastafarians who use Pastafarianism to push back against laws that give religions, including mine, special rights and privileges? Damn straight.
Chongara wrote: She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.
Wow, you are able to judge a person's depth of belief? :O
Have you tried lottery numbers?
Again, what makes her faith any less valid than yours? Or that of anyone else?
Repeating the same 3 sentences over and over again doesn't help your argument.
Sigvatr wrote: The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactical_Spam wrote: Repeating the same 3 sentences over and over again doesn't help your argument.
Perhaps a counter argument from yourself would help move things along?
Sigvatr wrote: The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?
Chongara wrote: She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.
Wow, you are able to judge a person's depth of belief? :O
Have you tried lottery numbers?
Again, what makes her faith any less valid than yours? Or that of anyone else?
I can judge anything I want and I might be right or I might be wrong. For example I can tell you that I'm picturing a tasty chicken sandwich in my head right now and that would be a lie, because I am in fact picturing a pair of big ol' boobies. You have no way for certain of knowing if I'm telling the truth about the chicken sandwich thing short of being a mind reader, but you'll use experience and context to make some reasonable assumptions about it. Similarly she can tell me she has a heartfelt belief in the FSM and I'll concede it's possible that statement is being made in good faith. However experience and context tell me that's a lie and a lie told with the specific intent of satisfying the need to feel like she's got one over on people who actually do have heartfelt religious beliefs. Certainly the possibility exists that I'm wrong and there isn't any way to know without psychic powers.
However anyone who takes everything that every person says at face value no matter what is a fool. If I have no reason to assume someone is doing something in bad faith I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. However everything about the history of the FSM and all associated guff has given plenty of reason to suspect bad faith with a level of certainty that makes her being genuine a small enough possibility in my mind as to be discounted entirely.
Keep in mind the personal judgements I make are different than the powers I want the government wielding.
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Sigvatr wrote: I like the fact that people claim it should be allowed because of religious freedom, but at the same time, the entire spaghetti thing was invented to mock / ridicule people protected by religious freedom.
Guess saying "You're an idiot!" in a nice way is somehow more acceptable.
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Originally, it was a means to point out why teaching 'intelligent design' in science classes was a poor choice-slash-cynical move by people who think creationism should be taught in schools. Because why couldn't said intelligent designer be a flying spaghetti monster? There's no proof otherwise.
Now, granted, it's also enabled stuff like this to happen, and a high percentage of people who wear strainers or eyepatches in official photographs because of Pastafarianism have annoyingly smug expressions, but like others have said, there's no real way for the government to say 'knock it off' without judging the sincerity of her faith. And that's not really something I want the government doing.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Well, if Scientology becomes the main religion of this world and you ask someone in 2000 years whether or not it was built upon solid foundations, this person would answer "Absolutely, yes".
Sigvatr wrote: The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?
Exploit religious status = Wearing a sacred "hat"
This is your best argument. Very sad.
Mormons get to wear sacred underwear. See, even established "real" religions sound silly in a vacuum. Just think about the persecution that Mormons faced when John Smith showed up and said an angel gave him some gold plates to translate and Jesus was walking around N. America after he died. kind of the "Savior World Tour"; I'd buy a t-shirt for that one.
And yet that same "sincerity of belief" and "burden on belief" tests are employed over and over again when deciding exemptions and other things.
It seems that you are agreeing that it would be far easier and fairer to treat eveyone the same and either give everyone the same extra rights and protections, or remove them fron everyone.
A mad person may well have a devout belief in pixies that live in people's toes. That doesn't mean his beliefs are valid or in any way based on reality. Or indeed any more or less valid than the devoutly held beliefs of anyone else. Having a large number of people who all believe similar things does not make it any truer.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.
Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Well, if Scientology becomes the main religion of this world and you ask someone in 2000 years whether or not it was built upon solid foundations, this person would answer "Absolutely, yes".
Ask any scientologist that now and they would say yes.
The same kinds of people who have been building up cults of personality based around religion or quasi-religions didn't just spring up in the last 100 years. People have recognised the excellent value religion has at gaining and keeping power and control and have used it to do so for tens of hundreds of years.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.
Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.
The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
So you need an invisible, and imaginary being or beings to be a "real religion"? and how many years does it take to establish a "solid foundation"?
You do know that judaism says jesus didn't fulfill any of their prophocies, nor is there any evidence he really lived. the bible was written hundreds of years after the events it supposedly covers. And that is what you would call a solid foundation?
Just curious though, where does Buddhism fall on your chart?
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
So you need an invisible, and imaginary being or beings to be a "real religion"? and how many years does it take to establish a "solid foundation"?
You do know that judaism says jesus didn't fulfill any of their prophocies, nor is there any evidence he really lived. the bible was written hundreds of years after the events it supposedly covers. And that is what you would call a solid foundation?
Just curious though, where does Buddhism fall on your chart?
Yom Kippur (I probably spelled that wrong) was actually fulfilled by Jesus when he died and lots of old testament prophecies were fulfilled when Jesus came
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.
Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.
The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf
Sure, after you offered your child up for sacrifice or he killed most of humanity in a flood or killed all the first born sons in a city..
I like this from Exodus:
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations"
Sure, I'll forgive you, after I punish your unborn children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for something that you did that ticked me off.
The story of jesus was cobbled together from many, many previous myths specifically to fulfil prophesies. You can actually see pretty much word for word copy pastas (sorry ) from earlier religious and non-religious works in order to do this.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.
Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.
The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf
Sure, after you offered your child up for sacrifice or he killed most of humanity in a flood or killed all the first born sons in a city..
I like this from Exodus:
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations"
Sure, I'll forgive you, after I punish your unborn children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for something that you did that ticked me off.
He gave Jonah and Ninivah a second chance, and Moses and David and several other people. Don't pick quotes out of the book without substantial context added to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: The story of jesus was cobbled together from many, many previous myths specifically to fulfil prophesies. You can actually see pretty much word for word copy pastas (sorry ) from earlier religious and non-religious works in order to do this.
I'd like to see that proof so I can not believe it and go about worshipping my God while you revel in your pasta
Of course you can worship your god, your jesus or whatever. You're (fortunately) free to do so.
Just don't think of it as more legitimate than any other god or messiah (or absence of it).
LethalShade wrote: Of course you can worship your god, your jesus or whatever. You're (fortunately) free to do so.
Just don't think of it as more legitimate than any other god or messiah.
I don't think that's how it works. Believing in my God requires me to only believe he is God and there are none other. Using liberal equality logic, I should do like you say, but I'll just keep believing mine is the only one and let you guys believe whatever you want to.
LethalShade wrote: Of course you can worship your god, your jesus or whatever. You're (fortunately) free to do so.
Just don't think of it as more legitimate than any other god or messiah.
I don't think that's how it works. Believing in my God requires me to only believe he is God and there are none other. Using liberal equality logic, I should do like you say, but I'll just keep believing mine is the only one and let you guys believe whatever you want to.
Because that wouldn't fulfill the end times prophecies.
Edit: The article is interesting, but the Author doesn't understand the sheer amount of metaphorical meaning in the Bible and took it in a face value, literal way
Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.
Are they unwarranted though? If a religion calls for someone's head to be covered, ala Sheiks, what is so wrong in making reasonable accommodations for that belief? If a Muslim must pray at a specific time of day, is anyone really gonna be hurt by letting him walk out of the building for a few minutes to pray? We already allow smoke and potty breaks. Why not pray breaks? Obviously we cannot accommodate every religious belief. If your religion says you can't handle pig, maybe you shouldn't be working at a slaughter house? But I fail to see what the flaw is in taking consideration for beliefs people have when going about day to day life.
We all know the Pastafarianism, while hilariously good at pointing out the absurdity of trying to pass religion off as science, is not a real religion.
Of course at the same time, people being less than perfect, do we really want the government to decide what is a real religion? Really it just comes down to what qualifies as 'reasonable' with little judgement passed on the belief itself. As Chongara points out, we're not mind readers around here and maybe our subjective thoughts on what qualifies as a 'real belief' should be left out of making policy decisions.
Sigvatr wrote: The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?
Can we apply this to all groups that this applies to? That'd be a field day.
Sigvatr wrote: The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.
Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?
Can we apply this to all groups that this applies to? That'd be a field day.
Id really like to know what you people mean by "exploit religious status"
Edit: The article is interesting, but the Author doesn't understand the sheer amount of metaphorical meaning in the Bible and took it in a face value, literal way
So... literally being a dude sleeping with another dude is cool, as long as I don't metaphorically do it? Literally having tattoos are much better than metaphorical tats, gotcha.
On Topic, I think that, while wearing a colander is ridiculous, being allowed to wear other head coverings like turbans, burqa/hijabs and the like are just as ridiculous. It's a piece of Identification, not a statement of your religious beliefs. Just about the only head covering that I can see really being allowed in a government issued ID photo, is the yarmulka, simply for the fact that you really can't see it in most facial photos and it really does nothing to obscure the face/head.
timetowaste85 wrote: I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.
So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.
If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.
Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.
Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.
The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf
Sure, after you offered your child up for sacrifice or he killed most of humanity in a flood or killed all the first born sons in a city..
I like this from Exodus:
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations"
Sure, I'll forgive you, after I punish your unborn children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for something that you did that ticked me off.
He gave Jonah and Ninivah a second chance, and Moses and David and several other people. Don't pick quotes out of the book without substantial context added to them.
Yes, they were given second chances after they were suitably punished. The difference between the old testament and the new testament is the kinder, gentler God that came about after he had and lost a son. One could argue that we're more like God than many suspect; the hellraising of youth followed by the mellowness of middle age, after children.
I can pull substantial quotes from the entire volume (plural if you want to look at different versions, even Aramaic and Greek if you want that and can read it). My undergrad work was focused on ancient European history and I wound up taking several classes on comparative religion; not to mention being reared southern baptist has provided me with "exposure" to the hellfire and brimstone versions of the bible. I can also draw correlation between fledging Christianity and the Cult of Mythra as well as the Babylonian God, Tammuz, or Damuz before that as a Sumerian God, who actually is mentioned in Ezekial, 8:14-15.
Interesting stuff, religion.
On topic, I'm surprised a Satanist hasn't tried to wear a goat skin or something for a picture yet.
Mormons get to wear sacred underwear. See, even established "real" religions sound silly in a vacuum. Just think about the persecution that Mormons faced when John Smith showed up and said an angel gave him some gold plates to translate and Jesus was walking around N. America after he died. kind of the "Savior World Tour"; I'd buy a t-shirt for that one.
So, my underwear is holy, particularly the older pairs.
Are they unwarranted though? If a religion calls for someone's head to be covered, ala Sheiks, what is so wrong in making reasonable accommodations for that belief? If a Muslim must pray at a specific time of day, is anyone really gonna be hurt by letting him walk out of the building for a few minutes to pray? We already allow smoke and potty breaks. Why not pray breaks? Obviously we cannot accommodate every religious belief. If your religion says you can't handle pig, maybe you shouldn't be working at a slaughter house? But I fail to see what the flaw is in taking consideration for beliefs people have when going about day to day life.
I agree with some of this, but not all of it.
For instance, I strongly disagree with the recent court cases awarding several (IIRC, a couple hundred) thousands of dollars to people who are Muslim truck drivers working for an alcoholic beverage distributor, based on their "religious belief" against alcohol. To me, it's the same issue as you bring up regarding the handling of pigs. You shouldn't even apply for the job, knowing full well your religious "requirements" will run contrary to the job. Ohh, and in reality, the mainline Islamic belief regarding alcohol, is that it is not to be consumed... nothing against handling it.
But, I disagree with allowing "prayer breaks" because the majority of people's work involved economics; ie, they are sales people, or work in an office where things are done/made/moved in order to make the company money. In short, your job, most of the time is to protect and/or enhance the economic well-being of the company you work for. Having additional breaks for religious beliefs runs counter to this. Also, we don't really have smoke/potty breaks... At least in the US, you get a short break per a certain number of hours worked, plus a "lunch" break. What you do during those breaks is on you as an individual.
Edit: The article is interesting, but the Author doesn't understand the sheer amount of metaphorical meaning in the Bible and took it in a face value, literal way
So... literally being a dude sleeping with another dude is cool, as long as I don't metaphorically do it? Literally having tattoos are much better than metaphorical tats, gotcha.
On Topic, I think that, while wearing a colander is ridiculous, being allowed to wear other head coverings like turbans, burqa/hijabs and the like are just as ridiculous. It's a piece of Identification, not a statement of your religious beliefs. Just about the only head covering that I can see really being allowed in a government issued ID photo, is the yarmulka, simply for the fact that you really can't see it in most facial photos and it really does nothing to obscure the face/head.
If someone's is going to be wearing their turban 100% of the time they're outside it's not like a turban-less photo is going to be accurate. Even then it's a question of priorities. Is making everyone conform to government ID laws fully a higher priority than allowing people reasonable space to feel like their beliefs are being respected and that they can practice them unhindered? Well I'm in the camp that says that perfect adherence to photo ID laws is the reasonable thing to have as a lower priority.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
The headgear thing is a relatively minor procedural issue so I'm more than comfortable with the fact that government will let people wear whatever people say their religion demands they do.
(Still doesn't mean I'm gonna take that FSM stuff seriously)
I agree with some of this, but not all of it.
For instance, I strongly disagree with the recent court cases awarding several (IIRC, a couple hundred) thousands of dollars to people who are Muslim truck drivers working for an alcoholic beverage distributor, based on their "religious belief" against alcohol. To me, it's the same issue as you bring up regarding the handling of pigs. You shouldn't even apply for the job, knowing full well your religious "requirements" will run contrary to the job. Ohh, and in reality, the mainline Islamic belief regarding alcohol, is that it is not to be consumed... nothing against handling it.
What's the full story here, exactly? This sounds straight out of ForwardsFromGrandma
Yes, they were given second chances after they were suitably punished. The difference between the old testament and the new testament is the kinder, gentler God that came about after he had and lost a son. One could argue that we're more like God than many suspect; the hellraising of youth followed by the mellowness of middle age, after children.
He didn't lose a son. Jesus had to die to become the sacrifice the people of Israel needed to truly remove their sins.
can pull substantial quotes from the entire volume (plural if you want to look at different versions, even Aramaic and Greek if you want that and can read it). My undergrad work was focused on ancient European history and I wound up taking several classes on comparative religion; not to mention being reared southern baptist has provided me with "exposure" to the hellfire and brimstone versions of the bible. I can also draw correlation between fledging Christianity and the Cult of Mythra as well as the Babylonian God, Tammuz, or Damuz before that as a Sumerian God, who actually is mentioned in Ezekial, 8:14-15.
Interesting stuff, religion.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
On topic, I'm surprised a Satanist hasn't tried to wear a goat skin or something for a picture yet.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
They should be mandatory for everyone, that way the states don't need to keep passing laws to force people to pull their pants up and it keeps people from obsessing over yoga pants.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.
I can see both sides of that though. Since they wear the burqa whenever they're outside the home and that's likely the only time someone will ask to see their ID, the burqa would be a truthful representation of their appearance... slippery slope there.
middle school mode:
What about a woman in a burqa that has to wear an eyepatch? Then you only get to see one eye in the picture.
Frazzled wrote: This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?
Because I COMMAND IT!
Hats is serious bizniz
For instance, I strongly disagree with the recent court cases awarding several (IIRC, a couple hundred) thousands of dollars to people who are Muslim truck drivers working for an alcoholic beverage distributor, based on their "religious belief" against alcohol.
Agree. If the Muslim driver had issue with transporting alcohol (or the possibility), he should have negotiated higher pay before taking the job/after learning, or not taken the job at all/quit.
But, I disagree with allowing "prayer breaks" because the majority of people's work involved economics
Except jobs already largely allow smoke breaks, bathroom breaks, or fifteen minutes off. If we make an allowance for someone to huff a cig, why not an allowance for someone to pray for a few minutes? Of course, someone could just saying "gonna go smoke" and grab their prayer mat and come back ten minutes later saying "good smoke" with a really cocky grin on their face Anyway, my point is that many jobs already make exceptions that allow people to walk away for a few minutes to do certain things and honestly no business will ever convince me that losing Ali for ten minutes is going to hurt business. That's outlandish on its face when businesses can already cope with maternity leave, sick days, and vacation time.
Now for a serious one, how about the Kirpan? There have already been a number of court cases with schools and Airplanes concerning the practice of carrying the Kirpan, which is actually commanded in the Sikh faith. The New York education system reached a compromise allowing the Kirpan to be carried so long as the blade cannot be drawn, but the TSA has been steadfast in "no carry on Kirpans, sorry." Some Sihks have argued that a literal knife is no longer necessary and that the spirit of their faith can be fulfilled by something like a necklace or key chain item in the shape of a Kirpan.
Honestly arguing about whether a person can wear a hat is kind of silly to me. Some kinds of Turbans and head coverings can meet the religious needs of Muslims/Sikhs without obscuring the face at all, and it's not like we ban beards in photos or anything. Obviously a Muslim woman can't wear a Burqa. It would completely obscure her face and render the license moot.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.
That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.
That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.
This is actually a smart idea... Too bad nobody in the Higher-Ups has ideas like this...
Except jobs already largely allow smoke breaks, bathroom breaks, or fifteen minutes off. If we make an allowance for someone to huff a cig, why not an allowance for someone to pray for a few minutes? Of course, someone could just saying "gonna go smoke" and grab their prayer mat and come back ten minutes later saying "good smoke" with a really cocky grin on their face Anyway, my point is that many jobs already make exceptions that allow people to walk away for a few minutes to do certain things and honestly no business will ever convince me that losing Ali for ten minutes is going to hurt business. That's outlandish on its face when businesses can already cope with maternity leave, sick days, and vacation time.
Now for a serious one, how about the Kirpan? There have already been a number of court cases with schools and Airplanes concerning the practice of carrying the Kirpan, which is actually commanded in the Sikh faith. The New York education system reached a compromise allowing the Kirpan to be carried so long as the blade cannot be drawn, but the TSA has been steadfast in "no carry on Kirpans, sorry." Some Sihks have argued that a literal knife is no longer necessary and that the spirit of their faith can be fulfilled by something like a necklace or key chain item in the shape of a Kirpan.
Honestly arguing about whether a person can wear a hat is kind of silly to me. Some kinds of Turbans and head coverings can meet the religious needs of Muslims/Sikhs without obscuring the face at all, and it's not like we ban beards in photos or anything. Obviously a Muslim woman can't wear a Burqa. It would completely obscure her face and render the license moot.
1. That's kind of what I'm saying... if your job follows federal and state laws (at least in the US), you already get your 10 minute breaks, plus 30 minute lunches. What you do on those 10 minutes is on you the individual. I disagree with the notion that if a person is a smoker, and a Muslim/Jew/Christian whatever, that they should get their 10 minute smoke break AND a 10 minute prayer break.
2. Having known a handful of Sikhs, this is a tough argument to me. While I cannot think of a situation in which a Sikh would use their Kirpan in a terrorist act on an airplane or anything like that, there is some very tiny chance that someone else could. Is that tiny chance enough reason to keep them off planes? I don't know, but TSA thinks so. The other Sikh argument of having a "spiritual knife" or something in the shape of the Kirpan that isn't actually a knife is an intersting one, and not an argument that I've seen before.
3. Arguing from the government's stand point, I kind of see it as an all or nothing sort of thing. I agree that head gear that doesn't obscure, distort or otherwise alter the visibility of the face shouldn't be an issue. But I think that should extend to "regular" people as well. A good friend of my family's, whose DL that I saw, hilariously it was when he was still in HS... Now, he's a huuuuuge 49ers fan (we don't hold it against him, much), and in this photo was wearing his favorite adjustable 9ers hat, backwards in the photo... I dont know when it changed in Oregon, but by the time I got my license around 02, 03... I couldn't wear a hat at all.
So, while I personally dislike the wear of headgear for much of any reason, that the government does make some exceptions for religious beliefs, to me, means that the lady in the OP was rightly allowed to wear cooking utensils.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.
"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.
1. That's kind of what I'm saying... if your job follows federal and state laws (at least in the US), you already get your 10 minute breaks, plus 30 minute lunches. What you do on those 10 minutes is on you the individual. I disagree with the notion that if a person is a smoker, and a Muslim/Jew/Christian whatever, that they should get their 10 minute smoke break AND a 10 minute prayer break.
Yeah sorry. I'm not saying religious person get "ten more minutes than anyone else." Just that with all the breaks people have and are allowed by businesses and law, who cares if someone uses them to pray?
Definitely agree about Sikhs. Their spirit of duty to others is incredibly noble, and I admire it. The Kirpan is a symbol of that duty that I can respect, but a knife is a knife.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.
"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.
How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.
You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.
"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.
How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.
You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.
If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.
If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.
"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.
How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.
You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.
If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.
If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.
You seem way too attached to your beliefs to even consider a fictional postulate, which can be the first step of an intelligent discussion.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.
There is case law now in at least one state you have to show your face for the ID itself. This was held up under appeal IIRC.
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.
"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.
How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.
You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.
If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.
If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.
You seem way too attached to your beliefs to even consider a fictional postulate, which can be the first step of an intelligent discussion.
In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.
I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
That was basically my point. A drivers license is a government ID. It is used to "prove" that you are who you say you are. It is NOT a profession of faith or anything other than identification.
There is case law now in at least one state you have to show your face for the ID itself. This was held up under appeal IIRC.
I had a quick look online at the US Passport photo requirements. They don't forbid religious headgear, but they do force the wearer to move the headgear high enough so that the hairline is unobscured and creates no shadows across the face within the picture.
In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.
I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.
In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.
I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.
In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.
I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.
Isn't that interesting, of all the religions of the world, you were lucky enough to be born in the right area and to the right parents to be brought up in the right version of christianity. So now you can sit in judgement of all those other religions from your high horse.
Given that Catholics make up more than half of all Christians on this planet, we might want to back away from some of this Sith like absolutism
Most non-Catholics don't consider Catholics heretical. There was a popular trend, especially among American Protestants in the late 19th and early 20th century to demean and bemoan Catholics as 'not Christian enough' but that trend has largely died out save for the most hard core Fundamentalists.
In the context of Christianity, Catholicism is borderline heresy. They have idols and practice rituals which God didn't want because Christianity was never about a religion but a relationship. Anyone can go into a Catholic Church, stand up and down when they tell you, mumble along to the prayers they say every week, get my little ritual cookie and leave, not remembering any significance about why they praise God.
I'll take "you seem way too attached to your beliefs" as a compliment. You can probably look at every argument I've joined and say "This guy doesn't get the fictional postulate" because I don't really even consider it, although I'll listen to whatever you put out.
Isn't that interesting, of all the religions of the world, you were lucky enough to be born in the right area and to the right parents to be brought up in the right version of christianity. So now you can sit in judgement of all those other religions from your high horse.
No I just said that Catholicism is borderline heresy. I didn't go off and say anything about the others.
Luck is a human construct. I don't believe in luck.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.
That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.
This is actually a smart idea... Too bad nobody in the Higher-Ups has ideas like this...
Which is exactly why it would never happen.
The sad thing is that States already have a framework for this to work in the form of State ID vs Driver's License..
How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.
It's kind of hard to talk about how ridiculous one religion is if we're not allowed to talk about the cognitive dissonance presented by facets of other religions. Or is this a case of it being OK to make fun of other peoples' sincerely held beliefs but don't talk about mine?
If youh sincerely believe in the FSM when the creator of it has admitted to it being a farce, there isn't much hope for you. Pretty cut and dried.
"You", of course, being in general. People jokingly praying to it...yeah, I get that. People serious? Um...no. I think they've been out in the sun too long.
How the religion is formed is really irrelevant. If proof emerged from the vatican that Jesus & the new testament was just made up and none of it is real, that christians would just stop being christians? of course not, jesus himself could come down and tell them that Islam is the true religion and christians still wouldn't give up their beliefs. Religions don't need a creator, again back to Buddhism, a religion of man, based on human understanding is as real, if not more real, than any religion claiming some god figure.
You know what other fun religion that people take seriously has come about in the last few decades? Jedi, and it's officially recognized in some countries.
If the Vatican? Catholicism is borderline Heresy.
If Jesus came down, he wouldn't say Islam is the true religion trust me.
No, more likely he would say there is no true "religion" as long as you believe in god and love your fellow man. The guy was the first hippy on earth, the same man who said that it wasn't necessary to go to church because church is in your heart and fought against the power of the temple priests. Seriously, take church and priests out of the equation and you have a much more personal relationship with your creator; the label you put on it doesn't matter at that point.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.
That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.
This is actually a smart idea... Too bad nobody in the Higher-Ups has ideas like this...
Which is exactly why it would never happen.
The sad thing is that States already have a framework for this to work in the form of State ID vs Driver's License..
Let's also remember you are not required to have any piece of ID. They are completely optional.
If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.
You nailed it here. The "test" is does allowing the person to honor their expressed religious belief system place an undue burden on society; if the answer is no, they get a pass.
Brings up an interesting side-shoot of the conversation; what about burqas?
This is a bit tougher since total concealment is inherently at odds with any kind of identification both at the time you're trying to check (even if an ID card wasn't involved) and for record keeping purposes. In this case I'd be of the opinion that this cannot be reasonably accommodated under the current system, since "Totally exempt from any kind of identity verification" is an undue burden on society.
That said a more flexible system might find a compromise. For example granting two ID's. One with the total concealment that can be used for everyday non-security purposes like driving or buying cigs. One non-concealed ID used for security purposes, say at the airport that they can ask to have verified in private by a female officer when one is available. This might not be ideal for either side but it'd be better imo than than taking a hard-line stance either way.
This is actually a smart idea... Too bad nobody in the Higher-Ups has ideas like this...
Which is exactly why it would never happen.
The sad thing is that States already have a framework for this to work in the form of State ID vs Driver's License..
Let's also remember you are not required to have any piece of ID. They are completely optional.
It depends on what you're doing. If you're driving, you very much have to have a driver's license as driving is a privilege, not a right.
(though some argue that DLs aren't even required)
Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?
Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.
And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!
If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?
sirlynchmob wrote: [
Let's also remember you are not required to have any piece of ID. They are completely optional.
I suppose if you never want get on a plane, train or bus, rent an apartment, rent an appliance, register for college classes, buy a house, buy any R-movies, M-video games, buy an energy drink, buy Tylenol, pick up your prescriptions, see a doctor, sign your children up for day care, get a job, or go to a bar you're right.
There's plenty you can do without a ID as well. Like get on the internet and post things that don't consider at all any of the demands of real adult life.
There's plenty you can do without a ID as well. Like get on the internet and post things that don't consider at all any of the demands of real adult life.
The burn. Ouch. Shots fired.
Frazzled wrote: This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?
sirlynchmob wrote: [
Let's also remember you are not required to have any piece of ID. They are completely optional.
I suppose if you never want get on a plane, train or bus, rent an apartment, rent an appliance, register for college classes, buy a house, buy any R-movies, M-video games, buy an energy drink, buy Tylenol, pick up your prescriptions, see a doctor, sign your children up for day care, get a job, or go to a bar you're right.
There's plenty you can do without a ID as well. Like get on the internet and post things that don't consider at all any of the demands of real adult life.
I can do all that with my birth certificate and SSN, neither one has a picture on it. In fact it's those two pieces of ID that allowed me to get one with a picture. I joined the navy and they gave me my first photo ID.
Secondly, I know people with drivers licenses that don't have photo's on them and they're legal to drive with. In AZ Bruce Jenner could have gotten his DL at 16 with a photo, and that photo is good til he's 65. Imagine how much he's changed since being 16, and we can see that the picture is really irrelevant.
My doctor and pharmacy care nothing about my photo ID's, they want the health card, and guess what, no picture. I haven't shown an ID to get into a bar in ages, nor need one to bet in the football pool. with the internet it's all the free porn & adult games you care to watch/play. I'm done with school, only idiots rent appliances and I'm already in a place so I never again need to show my picture ID to anyone. Also if you move into a house with someone you again don't need one. I also do all of my banking online so no picture ID needed for that either.
But I suppose if you are really that paranoid about your identity, it's time to implement the mark of the beast. Put a transponder chip connected to your heart, so anytime someone wants to ID you, they just scan your chest, and done. If you don't have the chip, you don't exist. There now we know, you are you.
I have listed myself on the official census and other documents as a Pastafarian.
I am absolutely do not believe that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real thing.
However...
I do believe that my own belief in the teachings of Pastafarianism constitute a belief in a philosophy. Philosophy qualifies as religion. For example, you can be considered a Hindu if you believe in the teaching of Hinduism, but not in Brahma, Shiva etc being real. Same for Buddhism. It is only Judaism, Christianity and Islam that actually require belief i a supreme being to be considered devotees of the religion.
Further points - I do not feel that Pastafarianism is a joke. It makes jokes, but I feel it's overall point is incredibly serious. It's main point is that we should not take things seriously automatically just for being "religious".
I don't think it mocks anyone for being religious, it mocks people for lacking critical thinking skills, whether they be religious or not.
I feel it is important that people should not be allowed to use religion as a shield to protect themselves from being mocked. There are plenty of things that need to be mocked, and Creationism is one of them.That mockery is not because of believing in God, it is because of a failure to understand evolution.
Frazzled wrote: This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?
Religion. DakkaDakka. Mix. Explosion.
Unfortunately beliefs are an opinion that people happen to take far too seriously because they fail to realise they are just that.
Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.
Frazzled wrote: This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?
Religion. DakkaDakka. Mix. Explosion.
Unfortunately beliefs are an opinion that people happen to take far too seriously because they fail to realise they are just that.
Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.
I find that people, myself included, are sometimes incapable of accommodating differing beliefs/opinions. The difference is that a rational, thinking person should be able to eventually sort themselves out.
Frazzled wrote: This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?
Religion. DakkaDakka. Mix. Explosion.
Unfortunately beliefs are an opinion that people happen to take far too seriously because they fail to realise they are just that.
Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.
I find that people, myself included, are sometimes incapable of accommodating differing beliefs/opinions. The difference is that a rational, thinking person should be able to eventually sort themselves out.
That goes for me and almost everyone else as well. Unfortenately, Dakka does not seem to be able to sort itself out, seeing the number of threads on religion to get locked.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, unfortenately there are some people in the world who are not able to just let other people believe whatever the hell they want.
But then people who think they know more than they actually do would have trouble mocking others...especially online.
Tactical Spam, you said it was not luck that led you to be born into a region that would mean you were raised in the "correct" religion. You've also said that everything is part of God's plan?
Would you care to explain why he chose for you to be born in a region that you would be raised to believe in him the "right" way, and therefore benefit from his generosity, but he chooses that other people should be born in regions that believe in the wrong religion, and will therefore not benefit from his generosity? I mean, sure, those people could convert to the same religion as you, but it seems like you have been given an unfair advantage by not having to convert to the religion as you already follow it. Why?
Or will you be resorting to "We mortals cannot understand God's will. (But even though I don't understand God's will, I am know I am right about what his will is, and how to worship him. STOP ASKING ME DIFFIFCULT QUESTIONS!!!)"
That goes for me and almost everyone else as well. Unfortenately, Dakka does not seem to be able to sort itself out, seeing the number of threads on religion to get locked.
True. Much like anything else though, it appears to be a vocal, intransigent minority who cause such things, and those who just rejoice in causing chaos. I enjoy intelligent discussion, even with people who disagree with me, as long as things stay away from the nearly inevitable online mode of discussion then circular arguments.
Iron_Captain wrote: Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.
Not all belief is equal. A belief that scientific observation of the universe and appropriate experimentation and calculation can allow you to describe how things behave and then predict what will happen if you then do something is borne out by the success of science to find things out and use them to predict what will happen.
The belief that there is a monster that lives under the bed is not borne out because one can look under the bed and see that there is nothing there. One can observe and experiment all day but still not find any evidence that there is a monster under the bed. However, some people will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a monster under the bed. And they will insist that because you "cannot prove a negative" they are right. And monsters under the bed should be taught in schools because it is important to "teach the controversy" that they have entirely made up in order to cram their own unsupported delusions into education and attempt to cut down on the time given to teaching about actual reality.
Iron_Captain wrote: Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.
Not all belief is equal. A belief that scientific observation of the universe and appropriate experimentation and calculation can allow you to describe how things behave and then predict what will happen if you then do something is borne out by the success of science to find things out and use them to predict what will happen if you do something that they have figured out how it works.
The belief that there is a monster that lives under the bed is not borne out because one can look under the bed and see that there is nothing there. One can observe and experiment all day but still not find any evidence that there is a monster under the bed. However, some people will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a monster under the bed. And they will insist that because you "cannot prove a negative" they are right. And monsters under the bed should be taught in schools because it is important to "teach the controversy" that they have entirely made up in order to cram their own unsupported delusions into education and attempt to cut down on the time given to teaching about actual reality.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yes, unfortenately there are some people in the world who are not able to just let other people believe whatever the hell they want.
But then people who think they know more than they actually do would have trouble mocking others...especially online.
Speaking of mocking others, looks like this topic has been cooked enough no? Maybe we should stick it in the fridge for awhile. We can always reheat it later. Sometimes topics are even better then second day, after everything has marinated overnight.
Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?
Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?
Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.
Frazzled wrote: This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?
Religion. DakkaDakka. Mix. Explosion.
Unfortunately beliefs are an opinion that people happen to take far too seriously because they fail to realise they are just that.
Funny that you say that, considering that no human, including you, is without beliefs, and it is impossible to ever get rid of. So explain what is the purpose of this comment? Without further elaboration, it is kinda of a nonsensical, throw-away one-liner.
That was not the intention, nor do I say that I have no beliefs. Rather it was an attempt of making a point in a succinct manner by playing with the associations around two words which mean very similar things and trying to point out that if one might try treating one like the other.
Many seem take their belief(s) more seriously where they might not an opinion. It seems some are more willing to accept that their opinion could be wrong rather than what they believe, and those that do take it seriously tend to be less likely to accept that they may be wrong.
And yes I do have a few beliefs. I believe in belief for example but I cannot believe in any deities and find it curious that everyone refers to a binary Christian god or no gods which I find disrespectful to all the other people who live and have lived yet held different religious beliefs.
Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?
Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.
This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you!"
Resorting to name calling because you can't verbalize a response is trolling, buddy.
Are you then suggesting that a belief in something with no evidence for it in order to make yourself feel better about reality is in some way not a good thing?
Mmm. No, I am suggesting you are a troll, which you are.
This is the forum equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you!"
Resorting to name calling because you can't verbalize a response is trolling, buddy.
Engaging a troll in anyway besides ignoring him is technically trolling.
Whilst you may consider my posting style to be inflammatory, my comments have all been on topic (in so far as the topic developed), nor do I feel that I have said anything untrue. Given that you have in no way meaningfully responded to anything that I have said other than to call me "intolerant" when I suggested treating everyone the same regardless of their beliefs, to call me "sad" for suggesting that religions exploit their special legal status to exert undue influence over the lives of everyone, call catholics heretics - twice, sorry, three times, no... wait... four times, and then of course call me a troll... twice.
I feel that I must take my (trolling?) hat off to you sir. Well played
I guess it could be comforting to believe in fairies and unicorns if you can't cope with reality
Eh, I've seen fairies. I am no Pastafarian, but I endorse their tolerance of all beliefs policy- so as long as those beliefs do not involve people harming others. Really, they are the most tolerant folks on the planet. I love teaching their 'Open Letter' to my students to showcase satire, and allow them a safe space to question their own beliefs.
Whilst you may consider my posting style to be inflammatory, my comments have all been on topic (in so far as the topic developed), nor do I feel that I have said anything untrue. Given that you have in no way meaningfully responded to anything that I have said other than to call me "intolerant" when I suggested treating everyone the same regardless of their beliefs, to call me "sad" for suggesting that religions exploit their special legal status to exert undue influence over the lives of everyone, call catholics heretics - twice, sorry, three times, no... wait... four times, and then of course call me a troll... twice.
I feel that I must take my (trolling?) hat off to you sir. Well played
Edit: Stupid url tags
I really do find your comments inflammatory. I also find it funny how you site all these sources about things I've to prove something that isn't.
For instance, you claim I am intolerant because I think Catholics are borderline heretical. My claim is entirely true if you look at what the bible teaches about deities, whom the Catholics have a lot of. The intolerance point is entirely false, however. To be intolerant I would say hateful things laced with enough spite to kill nearby plants. I can sit around Catholics and have a normal conversation with them. That is what is tolerance.
The troll comment was again an accurate depiction of how you got me into this ridiculous argument. You said something stupid like, "So you agree then that your religion is bad for you." I find that false and that I never said a thing. I said that the world is a fickle, dark thing. Please try and find a valid argument to come at me with other than "Hurr Durr, your a religious nut"
SilverMK2 wrote: The belief that there is a monster that lives under the bed is not borne out because one can look under the bed and see that there is nothing there. One can observe and experiment all day but still not find any evidence that there is a monster under the bed. However, some people will continue to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is a monster under the bed. And they will insist that because you "cannot prove a negative" they are right. And monsters under the bed should be taught in schools because it is important to "teach the controversy" that they have entirely made up in order to cram their own unsupported delusions into education and attempt to cut down on the time given to teaching about actual reality.
QFT.
This is not trolling, it is a simple explanation of what non-religious folk think of the religious. We try as hard as we can to get you people to see the light, but no matter how many examples we use, you people just keep right on a believin'.
Tell me, what would you do if everyone around you actually thought that Santa Claus slid down chimneys on Christmas eve? That they actually believed that?
It's easy to say "oh, I'd let 'um believe anything they want." Sure. Sometimes. But that doesn't mean we have to stay silent all the time. If you beleive in Santa Claus, actually, honest to Gawd believe it, I'm going to redicule you. Sometimes.
We non-religious folk do believe stuff, too. Like quantum mechanics. Boy do I not want to believe in that. But the evidence is there, that it does work, somehow. I'm hoping that before my life ends some physicist will come up with a rational explanation that does away with all the quantum bullcrap, but I'm not holding my breath.
In the meantime, the strainer girl can go right ahead ridiculing religious folk. It just shows how you people look to the rest of us.
“Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment or satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, just a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools,” an explainer on the site reads. “These people are mistaken — The Church of FSM is legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.”
Tactical_Spam wrote: I really do find your comments inflammatory. I also find it funny how you site all these sources about things I've to prove something that isn't.
I'm sorry you are so conflicted reading my posts in that case
For instance, you claim I am intolerant
I don't recall claiming that at all...
because I think Catholics are borderline heretical.
Although now you mention it...
My claim is entirely true if you look at what the bible teaches about deities
And yet there is little if any evidence to suggest that anything in the bible is true. That aside, your own religious beliefs are considered heretical by the 999999999 other religions that have existed since the dawn of time. Nor, I am sure, do any catholics reading your posts feel that your inflammatory comments are particularly funny
To be intolerant I would say hateful things laced with enough spite to kill nearby plants.
My ability to keep plants alive is not an issue!
To be intolerant one simply has to be intolerant. I treat everyone the same (or at least attempt to). If someone presented poor scientific reasoning for why plants are really animals, I would attempt to demonstrate why they were wrong. If someone presents poor scientific reasoning for why there must be a god, I will attempt to demonstrate why they are wrong. If someone just claims something as utter truth with no evidence to support it at all when that claim then flies in the face of reality... well... I will attempt to demonstrate why that is not a particularly valid position to hold, generally through the medium of sarcasm and humour as at least that way the discussion is entertaining to read.
If however you wanted to present some good evidence to support your beliefs rationally, I would discuss them with you.
I can sit around Catholics and have a normal conversation with them. That is what is tolerance.
Not really if you then go home and talk about how stupid catholics are and how their beliefs are heretical...
The troll comment was again an accurate depiction of how you got me into this ridiculous argument. You said something stupid like, "So you agree then that your religion is bad for you." I find that false and that I never said a thing. I said that the world is a fickle, dark thing.
You got yourself into this rediculous argument by not even attempting to discuss things rationally.
Please try and find a valid argument to come at me with other than "Hurr Durr, your a religious nut"
Ok, I will go straight back to my first post in this thread: What makes your beliefs more valid and deserving of special protections than any other belief? Given that one can put forward any belief which may or may not be supported by more weight of (good quality) evidence, what then is the point at which one can say "This belief is reasonable" and what distinguishes it from an unreasonable one?
Insofar as I can see, religion(s) seem to like claiming that they deserve special treatment without demonstrating why, or that they have anything underpinning the claims they make in order to consider them "reasonable beliefs" and therefore better than whatever someone decides to make up out of whole cloth.
And if certain users cannot follow Rule #1, they may find their ability to post in the OT Forum, and possibly all of Dakka Dakka, becoming quite limited.
Well, as much as I am keen to hear your reply to my ernest question I am afraid I must head off to bed since I have to get up for work in not enough hours
I am sure I will be able to read it whilst making my breakfast however?
You have about 6 hours to make it really good as well
SilverMK2 wrote: Well, as much as I am keen to hear your reply to my ernest question I am afraid I must head off to bed since I have to get up for work in not enough hours
I am sure I will be able to read it whilst making my breakfast however?
You have about 6 hours to make it really good as well
Gitzbitah wrote: Lol, well, that's religious debate in a nutshell, Tactical_spam. Everyone comes in thinking they're right, and walks away thinking they won.
Gitzbitah wrote: Lol, well, that's religious debate in a nutshell, Tactical_spam. Everyone comes in thinking they're right, and walks away thinking they won.
Any religion, and athiesm, behaves in the exact same fashion.
"Everyone else is incorrect, now let me tell you why you are wrong and why you should believe as I do."
As it was, is, and forever shall be.
Ideally everyone should be able to practice their own beliefs and respect the belief systems of others. Unfortunately, as illustrated by many in this thread, this is an unachievable goal, but we should not cease to strive for it.
Gitzbitah wrote: Lol, well, that's religious debate in a nutshell, Tactical_spam. Everyone comes in thinking they're right, and walks away thinking they won.
Any religion, and athiesm, behaves in the exact same fashion.
"Everyone else is incorrect, now let me tell you why you are wrong and why you should believe as I do."
As it was, is, and forever shall be.
Ideally everyone should be able to practice their own beliefs and respect the belief systems of others. Unfortunately, as illustrated by many in this thread, this is an unachievable goal, but we should not cease to strive for it.
I can also draw correlation between fledging Christianity and the Cult of Mythra as well as the Babylonian God, Tammuz, or Damuz before that as a Sumerian God, who actually is mentioned in Ezekial, 8:14-15.
