Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

alarmingrick wrote:
I got to ask, what's "C of E"?

I assume Church of England.

Albatross wrote:Oh, and no-one got my Smiths reference.


I am disappoint.

If someone isn't harming any one I have no problem with them listening to the Smiths.

What about if they're harming themselves?

Albatross wrote:What about if they're harming themselves?

Then we'll stop them, even if it harms them.

assultmarine wrote:this is going no where good...
but, as a former atheist and evolutionist and im now a christian, i find this a bit OTT. im all good with muslims wearing the turban and such. this was really quite uncalled for

But that is the point, why do Muslims or other Religions not have to follow the rules just because they have different beliefs. Separation of church and state should go both ways. The government should not be forced to go out of its way for some peoples beliefs. We will keep the government out of your religion if you keep your religion out of my government. Tat should be the deal.

I love how they had to have him get certified mentally competent. Could you imagine if they made every Muslim that wanted to wear a Burka or Hijab in their photo take a mental aptitude test, law suits would follow. I'm Catholic, if I showed up wanting to wear a popes hat, I would assume I would get denied, as I should be.

A hijab is a recognizable garment worn by the members of a certain religion.

A spaghetti strainer... well... isn't.

Technically 'pastafarianism' isn't a recognized religion and other certain religions aren't allowed to practice their faith to an extent. The Amish have to let their kids go to school for a certain amount of time despite the fact that the Amish faith would have them leave two years earlier.

Albatross wrote:Yes, but surely there's a better way of highlighting the issue. Secularism is important. VERY important. It deserves to be treated seriously, not used as an excuse to take the piss out of the religious. I have no interest in that. I believe passionately in individual choice - if someone wants to live their life a certain way, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, and as long as they accept that religion has no place in politics or governance, then they should also have the right to be free from insult and abuse. It's crass and childish, more than anything. We are supposed to be taking people with us, because I believe that history will ultimately place us on the side of right. The whole 'pastafarianism' thing cheapens our struggle and reduces it to childish joke. We will not take anyone with us like that, and I think the fact that even I, as a 100% commited secularist, am growing increasingly weary of this 'joke' bears that out.

I think you've got some excellent points. That being said, while I do find it a bit dweeby, I find that I support the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing for a couple of reasons. Albatross, I will apologize in advance as I think I'm going on a bit of a rant here, and I don't want you to feel like I'm lecturing or talking down. I know you're a smart dude; I just want to go into this in a little detail.

1. It employed humor and logic to excellent rhetorical effect in the Intelligent Design debate. Pointing out that the devout may (and probably do) find the beliefs of some other devout people to be absurd and laughable, and that it's not just a binary choice between being non-religious and being whatever denomination of Christian is overrunning your local school board. The world is bigger than Christian and non-Christian, and the FSM helps us religious people recognize how our beliefs can seem silly or outre from the outside. Their dogma about the reduction in the number of pirates worldwide leading to global warming also made a fun and valid point about correlation not equalling causation.

2. I think a cornerstone of free expression is the ability to make jokes (and be able to take a joke) about anything. Heinlein wrote that laughing is what we do when it hurts too much to cry. Humor can help us cope with pain, it can artfully skewer social conventions and hypocrisy, it can challenge assumptions and express defiance in the face of oppression. And yes, sometimes it can just be dumb and crass and offensive. But much of this is a matter of taste. And you can't legislate taste. What I find insightful and trenchant may be tired and lame to you. What I find hysterical after a few beers may seem dumb to me in the sober light of day, for that matter. But I think all people of all religions (or none) must be prepared to accept their religion being mocked by private individuals. Because my religious freedom does not give me the right to gag you. There have historically been (and is now in some more fundamentalist quarters) religious groups which respond violently to humor about or any representation of their religion they dislike. I think these groups deserve to be and must be mocked. Their adherents need to be shown that modern religious tolerance also includes being able to take a joke. Or even a hateful comment; without responding violently. And as long as such people and groups exist, I think mocking religion is a worthwhile thing. Even if you want to mock mine.

Monster Rain wrote:A hijab is a recognizable garment worn by the members of a certain religion.

A spaghetti strainer... well... isn't.

Yeah, but the way I see it the government should have regulations that are governmental not religious. Saying you can't wear headgear for a drivers license photo is not discriminatory as you are not letting anyone wear it, no matter what religion they are or are not. Thems just the rules. If you object then that is your decision, but it is yours not the governments. The government will still allow you to get a license and is offering you the same rights, privileges and opportunities as anyone else, you may not accept them, but they are there.

If your religious beliefs are in conflict with a non secular government then I'm sorry but you lose!

Oh, I don't support wearing face coverings in ID pictures, I just don't put a hijab and a collander on the same level.

The root of the argument, as I see it, is that thousands of years ago, some people wanted to introduce law and order into society, but their efforts to appeal to peoples' innate logic and morality failed, so they started going around telling people "It's not me telling you how to act, it's an all-powerful super-being that created you and did lots of other extremely impressive, if implausible stuff". People fell for it back then because they were ignorant. What's the excuse now? There will always be people who take their religion not as a right, but as an obligation, and have absolutely no sense of humor. It's sad, but apparently nothing can be done about it.

1. The origins of religion and supernatural belief (for those of you who don't believe the gods actually are out there) are more generally held to be attempts at explaining the world in understandable terms, rather than purely cynical attempts at control.

2. Things can be done about it. We mock those people, and make laws protecting freedom of expression.

Mocking something is always a good way to endear it to your point of view.

This will never result in the opposite effect of, you know, resentment and violence.

This reminds me about that issue they had in france about the islamic garb.

This is past a joke if you ask me.

al dente know why you would subject us to such a strained joke, chibi.

for shame.

(oh god, that's even worse)

and HEY PESTO
the puns begin

looks like this could be a can of vermicelli.

No need to get saucy, guys.

Besides, I thought we were past the religious politics and onto legalizing marinara.

Platuan4th wrote:No need to get saucy, guys.

Besides, I thought we were past the religious politics and onto legalizing marinara.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a bit of spice to heat up a discussion.

lol. pasta religion. reminds me of a class from that one game...pastamancer.

Epic Trolling at it's finest, I say.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Epic Trolling at it's finest, I say.

Someone trying to mess with your noodle?

Why not show off your pastafarianism by wearing a bow tie?

Monster Rain wrote:Why not show off your pastafarianism by wearing a bow tie?

I personally don't support pastafarianism, I'm just making puns for the sake of making puns.

Cheesecat wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why not show off your pastafarianism by wearing a bow tie?

I personally don't support pastafarianism, I'm just making puns for the sake of making puns.

i ate my bow tie

I'm here to talk about the unfair and bigoted profiling of hats.....

Lordhat wrote:I'm here to talk about the unfair and bigoted profiling of hats.....

Amen brother!

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yes, but surely there's a better way of highlighting the issue. Secularism is important. VERY important. It deserves to be treated seriously, not used as an excuse to take the piss out of the religious. I have no interest in that. I believe passionately in individual choice - if someone wants to live their life a certain way, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, and as long as they accept that religion has no place in politics or governance, then they should also have the right to be free from insult and abuse. It's crass and childish, more than anything. We are supposed to be taking people with us, because I believe that history will ultimately place us on the side of right. The whole 'pastafarianism' thing cheapens our struggle and reduces it to childish joke. We will not take anyone with us like that, and I think the fact that even I, as a 100% commited secularist, am growing increasingly weary of this 'joke' bears that out.

I think you've got some excellent points. That being said, while I do find it a bit dweeby, I find that I support the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing for a couple of reasons. Albatross, I will apologize in advance as I think I'm going on a bit of a rant here, and I don't want you to feel like I'm lecturing or talking down. I know you're a smart dude; I just want to go into this in a little detail.

1. It employed humor and logic to excellent rhetorical effect in the Intelligent Design debate. Pointing out that the devout may (and probably do) find the beliefs of some other devout people to be absurd and laughable, and that it's not just a binary choice between being non-religious and being whatever denomination of Christian is overrunning your local school board. The world is bigger than Christian and non-Christian, and the FSM helps us religious people recognize how our beliefs can seem silly or outre from the outside. Their dogma about the reduction in the number of pirates worldwide leading to global warming also made a fun and valid point about correlation not equalling causation.

2. I think a cornerstone of free expression is the ability to make jokes (and be able to take a joke) about anything. Heinlein wrote that laughing is what we do when it hurts too much to cry. Humor can help us cope with pain, it can artfully skewer social conventions and hypocrisy, it can challenge assumptions and express defiance in the face of oppression. And yes, sometimes it can just be dumb and crass and offensive. But much of this is a matter of taste. And you can't legislate taste. What I find insightful and trenchant may be tired and lame to you. What I find hysterical after a few beers may seem dumb to me in the sober light of day, for that matter. But I think all people of all religions (or none) must be prepared to accept their religion being mocked by private individuals. Because my religious freedom does not give me the right to gag you. There have historically been (and is now in some more fundamentalist quarters) religious groups which respond violently to humor about or any representation of their religion they dislike. I think these groups deserve to be and must be mocked. Their adherents need to be shown that modern religious tolerance also includes being able to take a joke. Or even a hateful comment; without responding violently. And as long as such people and groups exist, I think mocking religion is a worthwhile thing. Even if you want to mock mine.

Oh, I agree with everything you say, it's just that I believe that the best way to approach this debate is by taking the high road. Which, for me, is a shocking turn of events, I know!

There is a legitimate argument about freedom of expression here, but I just don't think it is properly advanced by dorks baiting religious people just for the sake of baiting them. One man's opinion.

Quite clearly this thread is putting a strain on everyone's minds

Personally, I am more impressed that the guy in the report sat down and made all the effort to put penne to paper and get the whole idea approved



Shall I just leave now?

biccat wrote:
I like the system we have here in the States. You can believe whatever crazy gak you want. But if you want us to recognize your belief we will consider whether it's a sincerely held belief. I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't meet that requirement.

At which point the belief becomes, wait for it, officially recognized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:The root of the argument, as I see it, is that thousands of years ago, some people wanted to introduce law and order into society, but their efforts to appeal to peoples' innate logic and morality failed, so they started going around telling people "It's not me telling you how to act, it's an all-powerful super-being that created you and did lots of other extremely impressive, if implausible stuff". People fell for it back then because they were ignorant. What's the excuse now? There will always be people who take their religion not as a right, but as an obligation, and have absolutely no sense of humor. It's sad, but apparently nothing can be done about it.

I think that, if you were to take an honest look at why you believe in conspiracy theories, you would find you answer.