Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Don't be disingenuous, cupper. This post is total BS. There is no way on earth that a..hole was a sincere believer in the FSM . . . and you know it!! Stop pretending it is remotely comparable to genuine religious expression. Your credibility rides on it.
My point is where does one draw the line? As I stated, yeah, I think Pastafarianism is one whacked out following, but again, how is that different from Jim Jone's followers or David Koresh's or the whack jobs that run Scientology?
That Pastas of course are making a mockery of other religions, but do not most religions mock others? The SDA church sure gloats in calling Catholics, "Papists", and not meaning it nicely at all. Extremist Muslims.. well, we all know that story.
I really don't care who calls themselves a religion, as long as your not hurting any one else, I don't care. But either the rules are the same for everyone, or for no one.
If you start picking and choosing, who decides where religious freedom starts and stops?
Don't be disingenuous, cupper. This post is total BS. There is no way on earth that a..hole was a sincere believer in the FSM . . . and you know it!! Stop pretending it is remotely comparable to genuine religious expression. Your credibility rides on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
My point is where does one draw the line? As I stated, yeah, I think Pastafarianism is one whacked out following, but again, how is that different from Jim Jone's followers or David Koresh's or the whack jobs that run Scientology?
The difference is that the others were sincere in their whackiness. The FSM's are not!
Quote:
That Pastas of course are making a mockery of other religions, but do not most religions mock others? The SDA church sure gloats in calling Catholics, "Papists", and not meaning it nicely at all. Extremist Muslims.. well, we all know that story.
I really don't care who calls themselves a religion, as long as your not hurting any one else, I don't care. But either the rules are the same for everyone, or for no one.
If you start picking and choosing, who decides where religious freedom starts and stops?
Bogus comparison. Of course we pick and choose who is sincere and who is not! That is what I mean by the legal profession creating a climate where pretense of neutrality among obvious nonsense ignores the difference between mockery and legitimate sincere beliefs. It is a false neutrality that is disingenuous and sick.
As I understand it, Pastafarians (they are the FSM worshippers right?) do not for a moment believe in the reality of the FSM, and they are actually atheists using a spoof religion to demand the same rights and privileges and exceptions from law that members of the other religious demand.
Disigenuous is not the issue at all and 'sick' is only the opinion of those who, not being atheists, fail to understand the point and take their own religion far too seriously. As being factually true, for example.
For those of us who see it as anything but, looking out for any attempt to get legal advantages needs a swift reponse.
Peddling one religion in the administrative field, like taking tracts to school - we have atheist tracts taken along as well.
Ten commandments on the Townhall steps. We have a statue of Athe put up as well.
Demand that religious hats be kept on in an 'Official' phote or in class - then Pastafarians can keep on the pirate hat or the pasta colander.
The result has always been that it shows up why it is practically wrong to allow religious exemptions from law, even if that it constitutionally wrong escapes these people, And we hopefully get back to a level playing field for all religions or none.
I think it's hilarious. As for those who think he should not be allowed because they don't think he actually believes what he is claiming to believe. Where do you draw the line? Do we make every person who applies for a religious exemption see a psychiatrist so a judgement can be made on what they REALLY believe? It would be a lot more easy and fair to just not allow religious exemptions at all. No religious headwear for anyone. Everyone pays taxes. You want to send your kid to a public school then they get vaccinated. You make expetions for some belief systems then it has to apply to the others.
The difference is that the others were sincere in their whackiness.
That's actually irrelevant and here's why:
I remember when I was getting my undergrad degree in secondary education - and one such course dealt with the varying rules and restrictions some school districts place on their teaching staff, especially concerning appropriate dress. (Some schools are far more casual than others).
The professor at some point started talking about how some schools forbid male teachers from growing a beard or mustache and, in fact, men have to keep themselves clean-shaven every day. The reason for this prohibition, according to the respective school districts, is because facial hair can cause students to be distracted from their work.
Huh? Really? I went to school with bearded males before and I wasn't sitting there staring at his beard during class - every class. Even as a prima facie argument, it was stupid.
But then came the coup de grâce to logic and reason. The professor went on to say that such districts who forbid facial hair have an exception - that if wearing beards and mustaches is part of your religious expression, then you are exempt from the prohibition.
Again, huh??
Men with facial hair is either a distraction ... or it isn't.
If the goal of the facial hair prohibition is to protect the students from distractions, then facial hair is going to cause distractions whether it is for religious reasons or not. The handbook might as well tell students that they are prohibited from talking during class - unless you're talking about your religion in which case you can babble on from the start of class to the bell if you want and the teacher has no authority to shush you.
In other words, the school had some goal in mind when enacting the prohibition. Allowing religious exceptions only serves to undermine that goal and cause the very problems they're trying to solve.
This logic can be applied to any exception to a rule or law that exists for a non-pragmatic reason such as religion, including covering one's face for an ID photo. It doesn't matter if a religious belief is genuinely held. If a school thinks facial hair is a distraction, then it's going to be a distraction regardless of the reason why someone has a beard. If covering your face conceals your identity and thus presents a security concern, then covering your face will conceal your identity regardless of the reason for the concealment. Can a person with horrible, disfiguring burns get an exception? Probably not, so why should a Muslim woman, knowing that her license could be passed around to anyone in a burkha/hijab and the cops or ID checkers would be none-the-wiser, be able to conceal her identity?
Several new and re-emergent "dead" religions, such as Wicca and Asatru, have in recent years been able to prove that their adherents are true believers thus legitimizing their religions sufficiently to give them exceptions in regard to legal prohibitions on behavior.
If this guy wants to convince the relevant authorities that the Pastafarian faith is as real to him as any other religion so he can wear a colander in a government issued ID, the path has been paved. Of course those other religions are usually founded on something deeper than "You know what would drive Christians insane? If we worshiped conscious spaghetti!!!"
A surrey, b.c. Man is straining the limits of british columbia’s id guidelines, saying it’s his religious right to wear a colander on his head for his driver’s licence photo.
Obi canuel, an ordained minister in the church of the flying spaghetti monster, says the insurance corporation of british columbia is denying him the right to wear his religious headgear for his driver’s licence photo. The icbc told canuel he couldn’t wear the colander for the photo last fall, when he tried to have his licence renewed. church of the flying spaghetti monster minister denied driver's licence photo in british columbia | ctv news
Really? You don't see the difference between earnest, if asinine religious affectations and the mockery thereof?
Why do you consider this to be mockery? Perhaps these people are sincere in their reasons for doing such a thing. It would appear to be you who has trouble with this concept.
BTW, as long as it does not reduce the recognizability of the individual, what does it matter? The reason for the pictures is to aid in identification.
Oh come on Cupper . . . common sense. there is no big problem discerning mockery from genuineness. This is so like the legalistic mindset perpetrated by the legal profession that has so corrupted normal human discourse.
And your refusal to recognize that others do not agree with you is fully acceptable?
Who are you to judge the population of this planet?
Don't be disingenuous, cupper. This post is total BS. There is no way on earth that a..hole was a sincere believer in the FSM . . . and you know it!! Stop pretending it is remotely comparable to genuine religious expression. Your credibility rides on it.
And just what is your proof of insincerity? Because you say so? Not good enough by a long shot.
As for credibility, statements like the one quoted show why many believe you to have none.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
