Colander Hats on IDs: Legitimate Religious Statement or Atheists Acting Childish?

[Willamena]

That depends greatly on where you are.

Here in Canada, where "blasphemous libel" is still a crime and where inciting violence against an identifiable group is legal as long as it's done in the course of expressing a religious opinion, religious individuals most definitely have a greater right to free speech than non-religious people.

Out of curiosity, do you have an example?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Out of curiosity, do you have an example?

Of what? Both of the things I referred to are in the Criminal Code. I can provide links if you like.

 

[Willamena]

Of what? Both of the things I referred to are in the Criminal Code. I can provide links if you like.

Of a case where " where inciting violence against an identifiable group is legal as long as it's done in the course of expressing a religious opinion."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of a case where " where inciting violence against an identifiable group is legal as long as it's done in the course of expressing a religious opinion."

It would be difficult to come up with an example of the police not charging someone, so I'll just give the relevant section of the Criminal Code:

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Criminal Code

 

[Willamena]

It would be difficult to come up with an example of the police not charging someone, so I'll just give the relevant section of the Criminal Code:



Criminal Code

Thanks. It's a defense, not an exception.

 

[YmirGF]

226 posts because of some morons wearing colanders. This world is doomed.

 

[Revoltingest]

226 posts because of some morons wearing colanders. This world is doomed.

It would only be doomed if they were mostly anti-colander.
And consider another aspect...would you really rather be
arguing over Israel v Palistinians or feminists v many men?
No, I didn't think so. So don a loopy hat, & pose for a pic!

 

[Sir Doom]

If it's clear, then you should have no trouble answering my question.

That's right. And I don't. A political group concerns itself with the alteration of public policy towards its agenda. A religious group may or may not do the same. See? Easy.

I'm not sure what to tell you. It was almost like scriptures by Wiki. Most people involved saw it as in fun; a few people took it seriously... though recognizing that since it WAS scripture by Wiki, a literalist approach wouldn't make much sense.

'Took it seriously' in what way?

Unfortunately, I can't point you to the Loose Canon, since it got deleted when Bobby Henderson decided to remove the message board from his FSM web site.

So, despite the fact that you can't seem to recall what it is that they were taking seriously... you are sure they were taking it seriously, whatever it was. Gotcha. I totally buy that, too. I don't know what it is that I'm buying... but I buy it.

I do remember that there were a few people who would dress up as pirates on Friday and eat spaghetti, and would follow their take on the "Pirate Code" (sort of like the Bushido Code but with more toleration of drunkenness ).

Is this an example of 'taking it seriously' ?

Their takes on the FSM itself varied, but I'd say they were roughly similar to the range of takes on God you'd find in a typical liberal Christian congregation.

I highly doubt that.

That's law, which is what we're talking about when we talk about freedom of speech.

So, if they change the law, you'll lose your rights? I don't find that to be true at all.

The Pastafarian movement is diverse. Its members have a spectrum of goals, some competing.

I doubt its very diverse at all. Sure, some competing goals likely exist. As in, should we have a parade or just a luncheon. As far as whether or not religious exceptions should remain or go away... I'd be shocked if any of them disagreed about that. Although, the way Luis is talking perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps there are people who, instead of wanting to get rid of religious exceptions, want to exploit those religious exceptions for their own ends. Naturally, that's a complete 180 degree departure from the entire purpose of the movement, but whatever. I guess I'm just too stupid to understand. Perhaps because I'm a stupid American. Perhaps because I'm a stupid theist. Take your pick, I suppose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's right. And I don't. A political group concerns itself with the alteration of public policy towards its agenda. A religious group may or may not do the same. See? Easy.

Except you didn't answer my question.

I asked "what would make a group a religion?" Telling me that a religious group may or may not "concern itself with the alteration of public policy towards its agenda" says absolutely nothing about what makes a group a religion.

'Took it seriously' in what way?

In terms of their attitude toward the FSM and Pastafarianism. They approached it with sincerity, not scarcastically or as a parody.

So, despite the fact that you can't seem to recall what it is that they were taking seriously... you are sure they were taking it seriously, whatever it was. Gotcha. I totally buy that, too. I don't know what it is that I'm buying... but I buy it.

Is this an example of 'taking it seriously' ?

No, it's an example of being confrontational for no reason.

Usually, you strike me as generally calm and level-headed. It seems like this issue gets under your skin for some reason. Why?

So, if they change the law, you'll lose your rights? I don't find that to be true at all.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you would assume I was.

I doubt its very diverse at all. Sure, some competing goals likely exist. As in, should we have a parade or just a luncheon. As far as whether or not religious exceptions should remain or go away... I'd be shocked if any of them disagreed about that. Although, the way Luis is talking perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps there are people who, instead of wanting to get rid of religious exceptions, want to exploit those religious exceptions for their own ends. Naturally, that's a complete 180 degree departure from the entire purpose of the movement, but whatever. I guess I'm just too stupid to understand. Perhaps because I'm a stupid American. Perhaps because I'm a stupid theist. Take your pick, I suppose.

I don't think you're stupid, but your posting style in this thread does suggest to me that your judgement may be clouded by emotion at the moment.

I can't climb into the head of this particular guy wearing a colander, but my hope is that he's trying to start a conversation about how the law should approach religion and whether granting rights and exceptions to religious beliefs on the grounds that they happen to be religious is a good idea.

It seems like you agree with my belief that merely claiming religion shouldn't automatically exempt someone from the normal requirements of the law. However, this opens the door to new big questions:

- should we grant religious exemptions from the law at all?
- if we do grant them, how do we filter exemption requests we'll grant from ones we won't if the filter isn't based on saying the word "religious"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sir Doom, your expectations of what a religious group should be like are IMO quite exagerated and unrealistic. And more than a bit vague, come to think of it. "Not always political" is less than matter-settling.

So, despite the fact that you can't seem to recall what it is that they were taking seriously... you are sure they were taking it seriously, whatever it was. Gotcha. I totally buy that, too. I don't know what it is that I'm buying... but I buy it.

That is alike more serious religions (yep, I am admitting that Pastafarianism is not very serious. It does not need to be to be legit) to such a degree as to be scary, come to think of it.

Is this an example of 'taking it seriously' ?

I can only assume your experience with religious movements isn't particularly wide. For quite a few recognized movements the whole point of certain ceremonies is to become inebriated in some way or another, with anything from ritual shouting to ayahuasca to peyote to cannabis.

I highly doubt that.

And I doubt he is wrong. If anything, he may be glossing over how hypocritical some congregations can be within their own ranks and towards their own members.

So, if they change the law, you'll lose your rights? I don't find that to be true at all.

I thought we were talking about the common (if naive) perception of rights as something that is enforced or given by laws. Am I mistaken?

I doubt its very diverse at all. Sure, some competing goals likely exist. As in, should we have a parade or just a luncheon. As far as whether or not religious exceptions should remain or go away... I'd be shocked if any of them disagreed about that.

Really?

Although, the way Luis is talking perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps there are people who, instead of wanting to get rid of religious exceptions, want to exploit those religious exceptions for their own ends.

Such as protesting against their existence? That is very much an established fact by now, isn't it?

Also, is there any point in having exceptions if they can't be exploited for people's ends?

Maybe your understanding of what exceptions are and what purpose they serve does not come all that easily to me.

Naturally, that's a complete 180 degree departure from the entire purpose of the movement, but whatever.

Nope, more like a 360 degree turn to expose the width of the absurd.

I guess I'm just too stupid to understand. Perhaps because I'm a stupid American. Perhaps because I'm a stupid theist. Take your pick, I suppose.

Apparently you are just offended without much of a reason, perhaps because you think we are not being reverential enough to some conception of what a religion is supposed to be.

 

[Sir Doom]

Except you didn't answer my question.

I asked "what would make a group a religion?" Telling me that a religious group may or may not "concern itself with the alteration of public policy towards its agenda" says absolutely nothing about what makes a group a religion.

My apologies, I expected that you were unable to differentiate between religion and a political group based on the way you asked it. Silly me. A religion is a philosophy based on metaphysical ideals.

In terms of their attitude toward the FSM and Pastafarianism. They approached it with sincerity, not scarcastically or as a parody.

But not literally... How'd they manage that? Like, did they actually expect that FSM boiled for their sins? Because I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain knows that's a parody of Jesus. How exactly would they sincerely approach that without taking it literally (since you already said they didn't do that)?

No, it's an example of being confrontational for no reason.

I'm just rejecting your false appeal to authority. You can't seem to describe what it was they were taking seriously, which makes it incredibly difficult to determine that they did, in fact, take it seriously. But I'm supposed to just take your word for it because you remember when there was a forum about it? Not happening.

Usually, you strike me as generally calm and level-headed. It seems like this issue gets under your skin for some reason. Why?

Its not the issue at all. Its the way its being presented to me. This ridiculous commitment to Pastafarianism as a religion is nothing but an act. Save it for court, I don't buy it and I don't have to.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you would assume I was.

Because of what you responded to and what you responded with. This is the implication of your statement. The freedom of speech is not granted to you by law. You have it. Period. That's why there is a law. One precludes the other.

I don't think you're stupid, but your posting style in this thread does suggest to me that your judgement may be clouded by emotion at the moment.

My judgement is focused by emotion. If you don't think I'm stupid, then stop treating me like I'm stupid. Specifically, stop putting on the act. You know it isn't a religion. You're just pretending to make a point. I got the point long before this thread ever popped up. So, now you can stop acting or you can keep treating me like I'm fooled by it. Your choice. I'll take my queues from there.

I can't climb into the head of this particular guy wearing a colander, but my hope is that he's trying to start a conversation about how the law should approach religion and whether granting rights and exceptions to religious beliefs on the grounds that they happen to be religious is a good idea.

That's what I would guess as well. Exploiting an ambiguity in policy to make a political statement. Not a religious statement. The statement is not, "I am a Pastafarian and you must recognize my religion." That's the farce. The statement is, "Religious exemptions are ridiculous." We don't have to climb in his head to know that.

It seems like you agree with my belief that merely claiming religion shouldn't automatically exempt someone from the normal requirements of the law. However, this opens the door to new big questions:

More or less, I do agree with that. I think due consideration of religious practices is warranted before laws are made, and a continued redress of the law in consideration of that should happen, as well.

- should we grant religious exemptions from the law at all?
- if we do grant them, how do we filter exemption requests we'll grant from ones we won't if the filter isn't based on saying the word "religious"?

It would have to be taken case by case, but as a general rule I'd say religious exemptions are poor policy. The law should change when its shown to violate someone's freedoms unnecessarily.

 

[Sir Doom]

Sir Doom, your expectations of what a religious group should be like are IMO quite exagerated and unrealistic. And more than a bit vague, come to think of it. "Not always political" is less than matter-settling.

Luis, respond to the post I directed at you. 9-10ths is more than capable of holding his end of the conversation without you.

PS: You don't have the first clue what my expectations are.

I'll respond to this, since I mentioned you:

Such as protesting against their existence? That is very much an established fact by now, isn't it?

A fine political goal. Not a religious goal at all. Do you understand the difference?

Also, is there any point in having exceptions if they can't be exploited for people's ends?

Yes.

Maybe your understanding of what exceptions are and what purpose they serve does not come all that easily to me.

Obviously not. Don't beat yourself up over it.

 

[Nakosis]

If someone wants to wear a colander on his/her head, then they can. It looks pretty silly, to me.

I suppose you are right.
It encourages religious diversity so I can't really complain.

I imagine most religious symbolism looks pretty silly when it first starts out...

I can picture the priest wearing their colander hats, cooking apron with the FSM embroidered on front waving a pasta spoon at the crowd.

They used to mock Christians too....

 

[ChristineES]

I suppose you are right.
It encourages religious diversity so I can't really complain.

I imagine most religious symbolism looks pretty silly when it first starts out...

I can picture the priest wearing their colander hats, cooking apron with the FSM embroidered on front waving a pasta spoon at the crowd.

They used to mock Christians too....

It's true, people's religious headgear can look ridiculous to others. I like to think I respect people's belief systems and customs. My faith wears no hat, I do wear a cross, a Christian fish, and a Star of David (I have Jewish ancestry and I support Israel): Those may well look silly to someone. We all have to not worry what others think of us, especially people whom we don't know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Luis, respond to the post I directed at you. 9-10ths is more than capable of holding his end of the conversation without you.

OTOH, it's a public forum and anyone is entitled to take part in the conversation. This isn't a one-on-one debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, respond to the post I directed at you.

You mean #218? I'm not all that disciplined in following threads, nor do I understand why you are so testy, but all right if that is what you want.

9-10ths is more than capable of holding his end of the conversation without you.

Of course he is. Then again, this is not an one-on-one thread and I am not aware of any particular discouragement from entering into these exchanges.

I may or may not consider your request to keep a separate thread. Let it be clear that it will not be because you asked in a very proper manner.

PS: You don't have the first clue what my expectations are.

Then I guess you will have to choose between living with that or trying to explain yourself to me.

And conversely, I will have to decide whether, how much and how long to care, won't I?

I'll respond to this, since I mentioned you:

A fine political goal. Not a religious goal at all. Do you understand the difference?

No. Are you proposing that there is any that is not completely arbitrary?

People have been trying to define religion with any consensus for at least a few centuries now. If you think you can help in solving that impasse, more power to you.

Yes.

Which would it be? (The point of having religious exceptions other than allowing people to exploit them for their own purposes)

Obviously not. Don't beat yourself up over it.

I usually give you a fair share of consideration, Sir Doom, but you just might indeed convince me to make an exception this once. You are too thin-skinned for reasons that I can't very well guess.

Fortunately, I am quite capable of dealing with unreasonable atittudes as well. They are sort of my blood legacy, you know.



Now about this answer to #218 that you seem to find so necessary:

Certainly, and I can testify for that. It is not really unusual for that to have worse consequences than if they took it serious or neglected it entirely, either.

Oh, that definitely happens quite a lot, too.

Please do testify to that. Show me a person taking their religion less seriously than they should, what 'damage' it causes and then compare that person to everyone who takes their religion 'seriously enough' and how much less 'damage' they cause because of it. Have fun making up those examples.

You mean recalling and denouncing, but okay. It will be fun in a breath-enabling kind of way.

I don't know about your personal experience, but I have met many a nominal Christian. Many of them are on it mainly because others expect them to, with not a lot of actual religious reflection. Quite often it becomes little more than a subject matter for bonding, and human nature makes it so that in so doing a "us vs them" mentality may easily take hold. As is only natural, really.

When people are isolated enough and immature enough, that usually leads to an unhealthy cycle of mutual encouragement and indoctrination based on the reinforcement of the idea that "outsiders" are just Not Worthy. A serious enough practicioner may learn to be on the guard for such obvious traps and to raise out of them. Or he may lose his way that much worse, obviously.

Nor is it a Christian exclusivity; you wouldn't believe how much worse it can be with Kardecists, although I don't know that I would call them religious people at all. But the law apparently would, much to my disappointment.

Pastafarianism only came to be due to a perceived need to point out certain contradictions and unreasonable expectations of religious groups.

In that sense it was created as taking itself far more seriously and more responsibly than those groups, and it is a safe bet that this still holds largely true.

It is no coincidence that Pastafarianism is also gloriously atheistic except by the most transparently nominal of criteria; rejecting theism avoids many of the worst frustrations and dangers of religion right out of the gate.

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson.

You're welcome. Too bad that you don't feel much like returning the favor.

And, is it unnecessary really? You don't seem to have a very good grasp of Pastafarianism at all.

Now answer the question.

I can give you more and better detailed examples. Do you want them?

Those too. But most often people who don't really care a lot either way and just go with the flow of the social expectations because it is more confortable than taking a stand either way.

Ah, so I am correct in assuming you favor religious extremism vs. religious moderation. Good to know.

Hardly. It is rather a matter of satire versus blind surrendering to unreasonable expectations created by arbitrary traditions and laws.

Indeed, I do mean those people.

For the same reasons why I am still considered a believer in the statistics of the Vatican, I assume.

So, you think that people who do not actual believe what they profess to believe are still believers because the Vatican says so?

Of course not. I do however know for a fact that those distortions are often brought up for purposes I disapprove of.

I find that hard to swallow, Luis. I don't give a good god damn what the Vatican does, and I highly doubt you do either.

I'm not quite enough of a fool not to notice that the Vatican has considerable influence over many people.

I'm asking YOU why YOU still consider those people believers.

Because Pastafarianism is a legit, reasonable and necessary cause from a religious standpoint, and I have no reason to doubt that many or most Pastafarians fully grab it.

Of course, it is definitely on the less serious end of the spectrum, but is that at all a reason to disqualify it as a religion? I don't think so, nor can I think of any reasonable criteria to attempt to.

Worse still, if you decide to do the attempt, you will have a very hard and difficult time trying to draw the line with such things as Thelema or the Church of Chaos.

Best of luck with that. You will need it. Worst of all, it will serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

And the same reasons why atheists are not exempt from a lot of the social expectations of largely Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities.

Not relevant. You are just soap-boxing. This has nothing to do with the question.

Are you serious?

Namely, and far as I can tell, because there is a misperception that it is somehow more respectful to assume belief until proof of its absence; and because some religious groups do expect to muscle people into quiet subservience to their expectations, out of various combinations of hubris, political ambitions, or good old-fashioned fanaticism.

But these people don't take their religion seriously enough... :thud:

Yep, that is exactly what I think. If they took their religion more seriously they would not feel so drawn to the confort of unthinking numbers.

Do you have a problem with that?

So Pastafarianism is demonstrably no less legit than any other religion, particularly when it comes to the demands it should be allowed to make to the larger society and how they should be handled.

You have demonstrated no such thing.

Not to you, apparently. Now I have to decide whether to care.

All you are doing is defending the right to speak, which has never been in question at all.

Says the one who has just attempted to curb my speech.

Do you honestly think that religions have more of a right to free speech than non-religions?

Of course I do.

Edited to clarify: I mean in practice, not as an inherent right.

They do not. Its all equal. But to say that the specific mockery of religion is actually a religion is just boneheaded.

Probably. Then again, so are many religions.

You are making a terrible case. The point is not to legitimize Pastafarianism as a religion, its to de-legitimize religious involvement in political affairs. Are you really that blind that you can't understand the difference?

I can understand the difference. I don't see a downside to joining the two goals. If anything, it is a secondary benefit.

Are you so committed to staying in character that you'll shoot yourself in the foot?

Apparently, by your view, I truly do. Still not having a good grasp of what you mean by that.

Do you not understand that by considering Pastafarianism a religion you are FAVORING religious exceptions, not protesting them?

No, not at all. I flat out disagree.

How is this so difficult to grasp? You are defeating the entire purpose.

Yours, not mine.

 

[Sir Doom]

OTOH, it's a public forum and anyone is entitled to take part in the conversation. This isn't a one-on-one debate.

Granted, but he also has taken part already. I'm not going encourage him to ignore that. There is stuff on the table he hasn't addressed. He can address it, or we have nothing to talk about. I'm quite satisfied with your answer to the post he just responded to, considering you are elaborating on what you meant, something he'd only be guessing at.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My apologies, I expected that you were unable to differentiate between religion and a political group based on the way you asked it. Silly me. A religion is a philosophy based on metaphysical ideals.

What I was trying to get at was how you differentiate between a religious group and a political group. You're the one getting upset that Pastafarians are getting exemptions reserved for religion. Personally, the distinction usually doesn't matter for me - not in cases of legal rights, anyhow - since I don't think that the question of whether a belief is held religiously should matter when we decide whether to accommodate it.

But not literally... How'd they manage that? Like, did they actually expect that FSM boiled for their sins? Because I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain knows that's a parody of Jesus. How exactly would they sincerely approach that without taking it literally (since you already said they didn't do that)?

I said that they didn't approach the "Loose Canon" literally.

I'm just rejecting your false appeal to authority.

What appeal to authority? I'm not trying to hold myself up as some sort of unassailable expert on Pastafarianism; I'm just recounting what I learned in personal encounters with actual Pastafarians.

You can't seem to describe what it was they were taking seriously, which makes it incredibly difficult to determine that they did, in fact, take it seriously.

I did a search - turns out that the Loose Canon actually did end up surviving: http://www.loose-canon.info/Loose-Canon-1st-Ed.pdf

But I'm supposed to just take your word for it because you remember when there was a forum about it? Not happening.

I was an active member at venganza.org back when it was very busy (and back when it still had a forum). If you want to talk to other former members to confirm, feel free. A bunch jumped ship and formed the Toadfish Monastery, so you can find many people to ask there.

Its not the issue at all. Its the way its being presented to me. This ridiculous commitment to Pastafarianism as a religion is nothing but an act. Save it for court, I don't buy it and I don't have to.

I don't dispute that it's appreciated satirically by most "Pastafarians". The number of people who sincerely believe in it are few and far between, but they do exist.

Because of what you responded to and what you responded with. This is the implication of your statement. The freedom of speech is not granted to you by law. You have it. Period. That's why there is a law. One precludes the other.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe you can try re-phrasing when you calm down.

My judgement is focused by emotion. If you don't think I'm stupid, then stop treating me like I'm stupid. Specifically, stop putting on the act. You know it isn't a religion. You're just pretending to make a point. I got the point long before this thread ever popped up. So, now you can stop acting or you can keep treating me like I'm fooled by it. Your choice. I'll take my queues from there.

Suit yourself. I've told you what I've experienced; you reject it. I'm not sure what I'd be able to say to get through.

That's what I would guess as well. Exploiting an ambiguity in policy to make a political statement. Not a religious statement. The statement is not, "I am a Pastafarian and you must recognize my religion." That's the farce. The statement is, "Religious exemptions are ridiculous." We don't have to climb in his head to know that.

Actually, we do. In my experience, the sarcastic Pastafarians usually don't take it so seriously that they'd insist on wearing a colander for a government ID photo.

Among the people who take Pastafarianism so seriously (either as a religious statement or as a political statement) to go to this extreme, the proportion of Pastafarians whose Pastafarianism is a matter of genuine religious belief goes up.

... as well as the proportion of mental illness, frankly, though mental illness and atypical but sincere expressions religious belief certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

More or less, I do agree with that. I think due consideration of religious practices is warranted before laws are made, and a continued redress of the law in consideration of that should happen, as well.

It would have to be taken case by case, but as a general rule I'd say religious exemptions are poor policy. The law should change when its shown to violate someone's freedoms unnecessarily.

Personally, I think that religion should be irrelevant to the law. OTOH, I think that matters of conscience (which often overlap quite a bit with religion) should be very important to the law. I care about how deeply a belief is held, not whether it's religious or not.

I also recognize that there are often several reasonable ways to achieve an objective. I don't have a problem with someone asking for an alternate way to achieve an objective; I do have a problem with someone asking to undermine an objective when it's been established that it's legitimate and important.

 

[LuisDantas]

Granted, but he also has taken part already. I'm not going encourage him to ignore that.

Don't you worry about that.

 

[Sir Doom]

You mean #218? I'm not all that disciplined in following threads, nor do I understand why you are so testy, but all right if that is what you want.

It is, and thanks.

Of course he is. Then again, this is not an one-on-one thread and I am not aware of any particular discouragement from entering into these exchanges.

You aren't entering in. You were already here. You ignored my response to you and responded to someone else response. Why would I let that happen?

I may or may not consider your request to keep a separate thread. Let it be clear that it will not be because you asked in a very proper manner.

I know that. And I'll respond if I wish, or not. Harmony! What did you think was happening?

Then I guess you will have to choose between living with that or trying to explain yourself to me.

Quite aware of my options, thanks.

And conversely, I will have to decide whether, how much and how long to care, won't I?

As do we all.

No. Are you proposing that there is any that is not completely arbitrary?

Yeah, I'd say there is a pretty clear distinction between political and religious. Hence the separation of church and state. You do understand they need to be separate things for that to work, right?

People have been trying to define religion with any consensus for at least a few centuries now. If you think you can help in solving that impasse, more power to you.

Yes, groups that pretend to be religions for political reasons are just pretending to be religions, they aren't actual religions. See how that works?

Which would it be? (The point of having religious exceptions other than allowing people to exploit them for their own purposes)

If you are the exception... how is that exploitation? If you aren't the exception but you pretend to be... that's exploitation. Do you see the difference now?

I usually give you a fair share of consideration, Sir Doom, but you just might indeed convince me to make an exception this once. You are too thin-skinned for reasons that I can't very well guess.

Back-handed compliments aren't going to improve the situation. I guarantee you that. Just one more example of you treating me like a fool.

Fortunately, I am quite capable of dealing with unreasonable atittudes as well. They are sort of my blood legacy, you know.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Now about this answer to #218 that you seem to find so necessary:

Its not necessary. Its only necessary if you want to keep having this conversation. You can skip to something else entirely as you did, and I'll respond how I feel like responding. Which is to back you up to where we were at. It worked, too. What's the problem?

You mean recalling and denouncing, but okay. It will be fun in a breath-enabling kind of way.

I don't know about your personal experience, but I have met many a nominal Christian. Many of them are on it mainly because others expect them to, with not a lot of actual religious reflection. Quite often it becomes little more than a subject matter for bonding, and human nature makes it so that in so doing a "us vs them" mentality may easily take hold. As is only natural, really.

I disagree that religion makes it any easier or more difficult. It is people who adopt that mentality and they do it with everything. Not everyone does it. But the people that do, do it with everything. This is not a 'danger' of religion. Try again.

When people are isolated enough and immature enough, that usually leads to an unhealthy cycle of mutual encouragement and indoctrination based on the reinforcement of the idea that "outsiders" are just Not Worthy. A serious enough practicioner may learn to be on the guard for such obvious traps and to raise out of them. Or he may lose his way that much worse, obviously.

Ignoring completely that all of those he is 'rising above' are likely very serious practitioners. So you are essentially saying the non-serious practitioner is just doomed to be a zealot at the hands of... serious practitioners. Are you kidding me or what?

Nor is it a Christian exclusivity; you wouldn't believe how much worse it can be with Kardecists, although I don't know that I would call them religious people at all. But the law apparently would, much to my disappointment.

Its not even a religious exclusivity.

So, the supposed dangers of 'non-serious' religion are A: It enables tribalism and B: You wont' know when you are being seriously serioused.

And somehow these outweigh the dangers of serious religion which of course caries the same exact problems as non-serious religion with a few thrown in like radical zealotry, oligarchies and genocide. But yeah, people should take their religion seriously. Or... at least as serious as Pastafarians take their 'religion'.

You're welcome. Too bad that you don't feel much like returning the favor.

And, is it unnecessary really? You don't seem to have a very good grasp of Pastafarianism at all.

That would be convenient for you. But its not true.

I can give you more and better detailed examples. Do you want them?

I want any example. You haven't given one. You are supposed to be showing me how Pastafarians 'believe better than' religious people. Instead you just described Pastafarianism. So, yeah... I'll need a bit more than that.

Hardly. It is rather a matter of satire versus blind surrendering to unreasonable expectations created by arbitrary traditions and laws.

No, what you are saying is that it is better to take your religion seriously than not seriously. That's supporting fanaticism, since that is as serious as it gets. Obviously, if taking it seriously is better than taking it less seriously (as you stated clearly) then taking it even more seriously than that is also better. So, perhaps you want to revise your criteria for 'better than'. Or perhaps you can abandon that ridiculous notion altogether.

Of course not. I do however know for a fact that those distortions are often brought up for purposes I disapprove of.

I'm not quite enough of a fool not to notice that the Vatican has considerable influence over many people.

You are letting them influence YOU right now. You are using them as a defense for your distinctions. Do you even remember what you said? Do you even remember why you said it? You used the catholic church's erroneous labeling as a justification to label a liar a believer!

Because Pastafarianism is a legit, reasonable and necessary cause from a religious standpoint, and I have no reason to doubt that many or most Pastafarians fully grab it.

From a political standpoint. There is no religious standpoint.

Of course, it is definitely on the less serious end of the spectrum, but is that at all a reason to disqualify it as a religion? I don't think so, nor can I think of any reasonable criteria to attempt to.

The fact that its the parody of a religion means it isn't a religion. It wouldn't be a parody otherwise. But it is. So... there ya go.

Worse still, if you decide to do the attempt, you will have a very hard and difficult time trying to draw the line with such things as Thelema or the Church of Chaos.

Are those parodies?

Best of luck with that. You will need it. Worst of all, it will serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

When you're right, you're right. As useful as being adamant that a thing is what it is not.

Are you serious?

sosrs

It is your misconceptions about me that cause you to vomit propaganda at me like that particularly irrelevant detail. I don't have a religion. I don't object to Pastafarianism's status as a religion out of some kind of jealousy or that I think religions are a special thing that nobody can just make up out of nowhere. They are exactly that. But Pastafarianism isn't a religion. Its a parody of a religion. It wouldn't work as a parody if it was actually a religion.

Yep, that is exactly what I think. If they took their religion more seriously they would not feel so drawn to the confort of unthinking numbers.

Do you have a problem with that?

Aside from the fact that its totally backwards? No problem at all. Zealotry, radicalism, fanaticism... these are examples of people taking religion WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. How you can possibly perform the mental gymnastics to see it otherwise is beyond me.

Not to you, apparently. Now I have to decide whether to care.

Decide away.

Says the one who has just attempted to curb my speech.

In what weird way did I do that?

Of course I do.

Edited to clarify: I mean in practice, not as an inherent right.

I meant the inherent right. We dont' even live in the same country, Luis. How would I mean anything else? Am I a senator? Am I a judge? Nope. I'm talking about the actual inherent right to free speech. So, why then is it important to make the distinction? The wearing of the colander is just fine under free speech as under free religion, except its not really a religion, its a mockery of one. So why is that not okay with you? Why do you think trying to convince me that a farce is real is going to improve your situation?

Probably. Then again, so are many religions.

And you just validated all of them despite your actual opinion to the contrary. I'm not sure why you think that's an effective tactic.

I can understand the difference. I don't see a downside to joining the two goals. If anything, it is a secondary benefit.

Ultimately, you are attempting to invalidate your own opinion. By first validating it as a religion and then invalidating religious opinions from politics, you've invalidated your own rights because you ARE a religious opinion now. Good job.