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

[Sir Doom]

Apparently, by your view, I truly do. Still not having a good grasp of what why you think so.

See above. Foot... you shot it.

No, not at all. I flat out disagree.

You take a religious exception as a religion. That validates the exception. You've validated it with your participation. If you demanded the exception without the religion totally different story. Now you are against the exception.

Yours, not mine.

Should be all of ours. Free thinking people, that is. You know... same thing for everyone.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

For two good reasons. First, you are powerless to "not let" me. Second, there is really not much to say that you can't easily deduce if you want to.

You seem to think you have cornered me or something. I guess you don't know me half as well as I assumed.

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

You having a weird fit.

(...)

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?

Actually I do not. While I support and understand the intent of the separation, there is neither a need nor a complete possibility of clearly delimiting the political from the religious for the separation to work, nor for it to be a good idea.

Politics is basically everything that involves making decisions on behalf of large groups. Religion may be pretty much anything that involves establishing what the values and goals of people are.

The two areas intermingle quite spontaneously, even unavoidably. One can not very well not have his or her own values and goals not influence the political choices one makes, nor would I even want anyone to try.

All that truly means is that I don't think there is much of a point in the traditional ways of attempting to enforce the separation between church and state. Exactly because they end up having to decide what is religious and what is not, they are unavoidably doomed to fail and to cause unnecessary attriction.

Instead, the state must be purposefully oblivious to any claims of religious nature and let claims and privileges stand or fall on their own non-religious merits, or lack thereof. People shall be allowed exceptions for any reasonable justification, but there shall be no attempt to decide whether such justifications are valid or true on a religious sense. Having the state decide who are the true believers would defeat the very purpose of the separation at a fundamental level.

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?

Yes, I do see. Not at all well or usefully, that is how it works.

Unless you happen to have access some sort of power to tell the pretenders from the true believers? That would be of the utmost interest to both lay states and religious people. Many of them can't very well decide what the truth is about themselves, you know.

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?

Quite nicely. It is entirely arbitrary. Which is my point.

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.

I often call them as I see them. Makes life simpler, albeit perhaps not as quiet. But ultimately it is probably for the best. It is surprising how often people fail at noticing things that are somewhat obvious for others.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Indeed. :drool:

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 making something of a fool of yourself, so far.

But I will play your cards as you want them for a while. I am interested in seeing what comes out of it. It ought to be instructive in an useful it perhaps unpleasant way.

I have learned not to go too much out of my way to protect people from themselves. It is not in my power to give everyone a pleasant path ahead of them.

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.

Do you have any experience with religion at all? If you do, I can't believe you mean that.

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?

I really don't know what to make of the above. It lacks a meaning I can figure.

That does not even relate to what I was talking about, which is the clique pride of certain groups of practicioners.

Kardecists, for instance, usually think of themselves as the true enlightened inheritors of all "other" religious traditions and end up being somewhat condescendin for that.

Like you to admit it or not, those missteps are an inherent danger of religious (and pseudo-religious) practice.

That is what I said in other words and that you are supposedly replying above, but it does not look like you understood what I said there.

Its not even a religious exclusivity.

True enough. Religion is a major enabler, not the only and decisive cause.

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

Wow, that sounds kinky. May I have some?

Were I a more compassionate man, I would stop here and allow you to come back to me at a later time after cooling off.

It is too bad that I am not.

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'.

Are you even talking to me still?

I told you directly that Pastafarianism is on the low end of the scale of seriousness, so I'm not sure what you are even meaning here. Again.

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

Surprisingly enough (it is not exactly higher math), it does seem to be true.

Is that convenient to me? Hardly. I wish you understood such a simple matter and we could go on to more productive subjects already. But everyone has a bad day and need to vent off, it seems. And I am very thick-skinned, so be my guest.

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.

You know what? You will have to do without, at least for now. It serves me better right now to remind you that I am not your servant. I suspect it will serve you better as well, although it is certainly hard to tell.

No, what you are saying is that it is better to take your religion seriously than not seriously. That's supporting fanaticism,

Maybe it is when you say it. That is not what I do mean, though.

since that is as serious as it gets.

If you say so. I would not make that jump.

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.

A fool might well reach that conclusion.

So, perhaps you want to revise your criteria for 'better than'. Or perhaps you can abandon that ridiculous notion altogether.

After you. Although I guess it is too late, since I do not hold that caricature anyway.

You are letting them influence YOU right now. You are using them as a defense for your distinctions.

Nope. As evidence for my claims, instead. I do not need "defense". Only patience...

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!

You are misrepresenting me somewhat, you know.

Many believers are liars to themselves to some degree or another, and that brings them terrible conflict. That is a direct result of the peer pressure that confuses their feelings and beliefs.

I really thought you had a better understanding of the reality of religious practice, Sir Doom.

From a political standpoint.

That too, even mainly.

There is no religious standpoint.

That is not your call to make. Even if it were, it would be completely baseless and arbitrary.

The fact that its the parody of a religion means it isn't a religion.

Hardly.

It wouldn't be a parody otherwise. But it is. So... there ya go.

Yeah. There we go.

Are those parodies?

To a considerable degree. It seems to vary according to the practicioner and the very moment he is in, though.

Pastafarianism is really no different, other than being slight less serious. Not that it could not be, mind you.

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

Come back to me when you feel better. I'm through with you for now. I don't mind being unfairly insulted too much, but you are not even making rough sense anymore, and your talk is not that fascinating a puzzle.

All the best.

 

[Sir Doom]

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.

I am not upset about it at all. I think he should be allowed to wear his colander because it doesn't prevent the ID from working. Freedom of speech covers that just fine. The fact that there ARE religious exceptions and that he used that rule as a loophole to brook no argument from the ID folks is a great political message about the legal impossibility of delineating between a religion and not a religion. But I'm not the government. I'm not a judge. I'm not a senator. I'm not the ID people. I don't have to clearly delineate it with legal language. All I have to do is recognize a farce for what it is. That's plenty to say it isn't really a religion no matter how strongly you assert it at me. Its not, and you're only insulting my intelligence to keep insisting otherwise. Insult the intelligence of the establishment all you like. I encourage it, in fact. But don't think that I have to act like I'm fooled. I don't, and I'm not.

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

What did they approach literally then? Or is it nothing as I suspected?

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.

Well, you've presented information now, so its rather moot. But without the info it sounded a lot like, "I know Pastafarians... trust me." I don't do that.

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

And which part of that string of gags did they take non-literally, yet sincerely?

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.

I do not doubt that you spent time there. Lots of time even. What I doubt is the judgments you are making about their sincerity of belief.

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.

Did they tell you they actually believed and that's how you know? I'm just curious how you managed to judge that people believed the joke wasn't a joke instead of just playing the joke to the hilt.

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

You think we are talking about the law. That's not the case. When I said, "that's just politics" that's what I meant. The law is beside the point. Your rights trump the law.

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.

There is nothing you can say that will convince me a mock religion is an actual religion. Because it isn't.

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.

I'm sure he seriously believes in the cause. Beyond that... yeah anybody's guess. Based on his words though... I'd say he's making a political statement. You can imagine its a religious one if you like. But I definitely don't see why other than the need to continue that farce to validate wearing the colander despite the fact that he should be allowed to anyway.

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.

Fair enough. I think considering the sheer number of religious differences between people its a mistake to ignore those beliefs when making policy. But this is no more important than ignoring the needs of the handicapped or minorities or the environment etc etc etc. Its all equal and should be regarded that way. As long as the purpose of the law is still served then people shouldn't be put out to achieve it.

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.

I agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

You know what, Sir Doom? Maybe it would be better for you simply to present your case.

How can one tell for sure what is religious from what is not?

How can that be made unambiguous and non-arbitrary?

 

[Sir Doom]

For two good reasons. First, you are powerless to "not let" me.

You don't seem to realize that I told you what to do and then you did it. I knew what to say to make that happen. That's power whether you like it or not.

Second, there is really not much to say that you can't easily deduce if you want to.

Spare me.

You seem to think you have cornered me or something. I guess you don't know me half as well as I assumed.

I was interested in continuing the conversation we were having. You didn't seem to be. Instead you wanted to start a new conversation about something I said to 9-10ths. I wasn't interested in that. Now what's happening?

You having a weird fit.

In what weird way did you think I was threatening anything but simply not talking to you anymore until you picked up where we left off? That's what happened. Get over it.

Actually I do not. While I support and understand the intent of the separation, there is neither a need nor a complete possibility of clearly delimiting the political from the religious for the separation to work, nor for it to be a good idea.

Politics is basically everything that involves making decisions on behalf of large groups. Religion may be pretty much anything that involves establishing what the values and goals of people are.

The two areas intermingle quite spontaneously, even unavoidably. One can not very well not have his or her own values and goals not influence the political choices one makes, nor would I even want anyone to try.

All that truly means is that I don't think there is much of a point in the traditional ways of attempting to enforce the separation between church and state. Exactly because they end up having to decide what is religious and what is not, they are unavoidably doomed to fail and to cause unnecessary attriction.

Instead, the state must be purposefully oblivious to any claims of religious nature and let claims and privileges stand or fall on their own non-religious merits, or lack thereof. People shall be allowed exceptions for any reasonable justification, but there shall be no attempt to decide whether such justifications are valid or true on a religious sense. Having the state decide who are the true believers would defeat the very purpose of the separation at a fundamental level.

Thanks for making the difference clear in your own words.

Yes, I do see. Not at all well or usefully, that is how it works.

Unless you happen to have access some sort of power to tell the pretenders from the true believers? That would be of the utmost interest to both lay states and religious people. Many of them can't very well decide what the truth is about themselves, you know.[/quote]

Pastafarianism is pretending to be a religion. You're right, I would never be able to prove that in a court of law. That doesn't matter. This isn't a court of law. I don't need to go that far. Pastafarianism is specifically exploiting that inability to make a point. That's plenty.

Quite nicely. It is entirely arbitrary. Which is my point.

The exception might be. But that's beside the point, isn't it?

I often call them as I see them. Makes life simpler, albeit perhaps not as quiet. But ultimately it is probably for the best. It is surprising how often people fail at noticing things that are somewhat obvious for others.

It remains unconvincing all the same. Dishonest and passive aggressive. Be proud of that if you like.

Indeed. :drool:

You making something of a fool of yourself, so far.

But I will play your cards as you want them for a while. I am interested in seeing what comes out of it. It ought to be instructive in an useful it perhaps unpleasant way.

I have learned not to go too much out of my way to protect people from themselves. It is not in my power to give everyone a pleasant path ahead of them.

Again, in what weird universe do you think I was threatening anything beyond simply ignoring you until you returned to the conversation we were already having?

Do you have any experience with religion at all? If you do, I can't believe you mean that.

I do mean it. You put the cart before the horse.

I really don't know what to make of the above. It lacks a meaning I can figure.

Definitely your fault not mine.

That does not even relate to what I was talking about, which is the clique pride of certain groups of practicioners.

I know that, and yes it does. These people who exhibit 'clique pride' as you put it are serious practitioners BECAUSE of that. Therefore, what you are outlining as a 'danger' of non-serious belief is actually a danger of serious belief.

Kardecists, for instance, usually think of themselves as the true enlightened inheritors of all "other" religious traditions and end up being somewhat condescendin for that.

Sounds like they take their beliefs too seriously.

Like you to admit it or not, those missteps are an inherent danger of religious (and pseudo-religious) practice.

Sure, but are they dangers of serious belief or not-serious-enough belief? Or in other words, 'better than' Pastafarian belief or 'worse than' Pastafarian belief as you outlined at the start of this conversation?

That is what I said in other words and that you are supposedly replying above, but it does not look like you understood what I said there.

No, I definitely understood. You just forgot what you were attempting to prove.

True enough. Religion is a major enabler, not the only and decisive cause.

Well, at least we can agree on something.

Wow, that sounds kinky. May I have some?

You are the only one asserting those things. I don't expect you actually believe them, but since you are so committed to your ridiculous position, and at the same time managed to forget what that was, you just took the opportunity to again soap-box about the dangers of religion in general as if that's the topic. What you were supposed to be doing was proving to me that more serious belief is 'better than' less serious belief, thus proving that Pastafarians (more serious) 'believe better than' some religious people (less serious).

Were I a more compassionate man, I would stop here and allow you to come back to me at a later time after cooling off.

It is too bad that I am not.

Its fine with me. I don't really cool off so much. It would have been wasted time.

Are you even talking to me still?

I told you directly that Pastafarianism is on the low end of the scale of seriousness, so I'm not sure what you are even meaning here. Again.[/quote]

Like I said, you forgot what we were talking about. You are supposed to be proving to me that Pastafarians 'believe better than' 'nominal' Christians. You defined 'better than' as 'taking seriously'. You are supposed to be proving that as an accurate reason to consider it 'better than' by proving that 'less serious belief' is more dangerous than 'more serious belief'. You haven't come close to that yet. Instead you just blather on about the danger of religion in general.

Surprisingly enough (it is not exactly higher math), it does seem to be true.

Keep pretending. I don't see through it.

Is that convenient to me? Hardly. I wish you understood such a simple matter and we could go on to more productive subjects already. But everyone has a bad day and need to vent off, it seems. And I am very thick-skinned, so be my guest.

What you wish is that I would simply capitulate so that you didn't actually have to support your position. As it is, you are doing your best to avoid doing that.

You know what? You will have to do without, at least for now. It serves me better right now to remind you that I am not your servant. I suspect it will serve you better as well, although it is certainly hard to tell.

I would have done without anyway. You don't have anything to give me.

Maybe it is when you say it. That is not what I do mean, though.

When you say Pastafarians believe better than others because they take it more seriously that means that anyone who takes it more seriously than the Pastafarians are also believing better than them. Or, that standard is ridiculous and you should change your given definition of 'better than'. I suggest the latter. Or... you can try and somehow demonstrate how zealots aren't taking their religion seriously at all, despite the fact that they are zealots and that's what it means.

If you say so. I would not make that jump.

Its not a jump at all. Its the logical conclusion of your position. YOUR position.

A fool might well reach that conclusion.

Well, this fool isn't reaching that conclusion. This fool is telling you your criteria for 'better than' is wrong and you should change it because it leads to insane conclusions. As I've clearly demonstrated.

After you. Although I guess it is too late, since I do not hold that caricature anyway.

You very clearly stated that Pastafarians believe 'better than' nominal christians. And you qualified that by saying it meant 'more seriously'. I knew you couldn't possibly mean that because the implications are INSANE. Yet you held fast to it all the same. How do you expect me to react other than to point out how ridiculous it is? And now you are sitting here trying to pretend you never meant that all along? How stupid do you think I am? Just because you can't be bothered to 'keep up' with a thread, doesn't mean I don't. I remember the entire thing. And its all there to go and read again.

 

[Sir Doom]

Nope. As evidence for my claims, instead. I do not need "defense". Only patience...

You evidence your claim by appealing to an authority that neither of us respects, and both of us think is wrong.

You are misrepresenting me somewhat, you know.

I'm representing what you've said to me. Not sure what else you think I can do.

Many believers are liars to themselves to some degree or another, and that brings them terrible conflict. That is a direct result of the peer pressure that confuses their feelings and beliefs.

I really thought you had a better understanding of the reality of religious practice, Sir Doom.

Why are you hanging on to this so tightly? In what WEIRD *** UNIVERSE do you consider someone who DOES NOT BELIEVE as a believer? Whether the lie is to themselves (impossible) or outwards to the rest of us, there is NO BELIEF. Thus, they are NOT BELIEVERS. The fact that they call themselves believers... that's the lie! They aren't actually believers because THEY DON'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

That too, even mainly.

No, there's nothing else besides comedy. Its only political. Its not religious. It can't be. I'll say it again. Its the mockery of a religion, its not an actual religion because of that.

That is not your call to make. Even if it were, it would be completely baseless and arbitrary.

Please state the religious message of Pastafarianism. And yes, it sure as **** is my call to make. Yours too. That's why we are arguing. Derp.

Hardly.

I'm starting to think you have no idea what parody means.

Yeah. There we go.

Yeah, exactly. It can't be both. Its definitely a parody and not a religion.

To a considerable degree. It seems to vary according to the practicioner and the very moment he is in, though.

Do you mean that about Thelema or about the Church of Chaos? They are pretty different. I know that's hard for an atheist to grasp since its all ******** to you, anyway.

Pastafarianism is really no different, other than being slight less serious. Not that it could not be, mind you.

I'd say you are exactly as serious as Discordianism and nowhere near as serious as any of the various religions that bother with Thelema.

Come back to me when you feel better. I'm through with you for now. I don't mind being unfairly insulted too much, but you are not even making rough sense anymore, and your talk is not that fascinating a puzzle.

All the best.

Nice parting shot. "I'm done with you.... after this." Brave crusader.

 

[Sir Doom]

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

Hey, I resemble that remark!

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey, I resemble that remark!

You do indeed. Bye.

 

[Sir Doom]

You do indeed. Bye.

Couldn't help yourself, huh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why can't you wear your glasses?

Here, if your licence says you need corrective lenses, you can wear glasses in your driver's licence photo.

For my passport, the onmy requirement is that the photo doesn't have any glare on the glasses that obscures the eyes. A decent photographer can usually handle this.

It's state law where I live. You can't even legally smile in your photo ID picture here. I also noticed at school the other day, where you go to get student IDs, they have a sign that says "Yes, you can smile."
The idea behind it is for identification, and that things like glasses and a smile will distort your picture so much that the apparently severely vision impaired police will not be able to identify you.

 

[Aquitaine]

I agree.

Many people feel very strongly about their headgear. Who am I to say that a baseball fan's passion for his team is any less important than someone else's religious rules?

More importantly, regardless of the relative importance of these things, if we've established that the government can achieve its legitimate goals while religious people wear headgear in photos, why should the government be constraining the freedom of everyone else by telling them they have to take off their hats? Doesn't the fact that we let some people wear theur hats or head coverings undermine the justification for making people remove their hats generally?

Aye.
Come to think of it, ever seen a large congregation of baseball fans at a game, and how emotionally and religiously they follow their team, or even just the game in general?
Very passionate, cannot wear associated headgear.

At the other end of the spectrum, ever known a bunch of "religious" people who actually don't believe in their respective faith(s), but wear certain religious clothing due to peer pressure and not wanting to upset family members?
Not passionate, can wear associated headgear.

:tsk:

 

[Aquitaine]

I agree, and I will add that rules are so easily turned into tools of undue favoritivism and/or repression (which are ultimately perhaps one and the same thing) that is is only rarely true that making them more specific leads to better justice.

There is no good reason, religious or otherwise, to make exceptions for photo ids out of religious beliefs. Or if there are, they should be presented as practical considerations without relying on doctrine points if at all possible. Because otherwise we are talking about special exemptions for religion. If there is some religious group out there that is indeed demanding special rules for photo ids that would be seem as unreasonable for someone else, we need to be made well aware of which group is that and decide whether they should be granted such an unusual privilege.

Religious beliefs and demands can be unreasonable. And when they are, we should point that out without fear or ambiguity.

Good points.

This may sound a bit offensive, but in my own personal opinion, I think many of the customs/beliefs/clothing associated with virtually all 'established' religions are equally as stupid/valid as those of the Pastafarians. :run:

So yeah, one rule for all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed.

It is difficult to even attempt to understand this tradition of simply assuming that religions have an inherent right to exceptions and privileges, just because they are considered religions. That is just insane, and arbitrary to the utmost.

Is it that hard to accept that it is people who lend religions meaning and prestige? Even when the matter is simply to decide what should be considered religious and what should not?

I just don't see what, barring unquestionable divine expression, would even allow for an alternative understanding of the matter.

 

[ChristineES]

Indeed.

It is difficult to even attempt to understand this tradition of simply assuming that religions have an inherent right to exceptions and privileges, just because they are considered religions. That is just insane, and arbitrary to the utmost.

Is it that hard to accept that it is people who lend religions meaning and prestige? Even when the matter is simply to decide what should be considered religious and what should not?

I just don't see what, barring unquestionable divine expression, would even allow for an alternative understanding of the matter.

Atheists always say that they have no beliefs, no religion; if they wear said colander, then they are stating a belief and even a religion, in my opinion. So that means they are no longer atheists, at best, they would be non-theists. I don't think any of us can have it both ways.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheists always say that they have no beliefs, no religion; if they wear said colander, then they are stating a belief and even a religion, in my opinion. So that means they are no longer atheists, at best, they would be non-theists. I don't think any of us can have it both ways.

Perhaps belonging to a religious organization fulfills some basic human need. So freedom of religion, freedom of religious expression seems the way to go.

People should be free to express their religious beliefs within the guidelines of their nation's laws.

Any exemptions provided for religion should be done so equally.

 

[ChristineES]

Perhaps belonging to a religious organization fulfills some basic human need. So freedom of religion, freedom of religious expression seems the way to go.

People should be free to express their religious beliefs within the guidelines of their nation's laws.

Any exemptions provided for religion should be done so equally.

I'm not too terribly worried about it. People are social, they need some kind of social outlets. Some people use their faith. If someone has no faith, then he/she will start their own kind of organizations.

But, as far as I can tell, the ONLY reason the man pictured wants to wear a colander as a hat on his hat is because others get to do it. That, to me, sounds very childish. Everyone has different needs, different requirements. If these people can PROVE that their hats serve some sort of purpose outside "But other people get to do it", then I'll stand up for their right to do so. And, as I already stated, if there is no law against it, they can wear a Davy Crockett hat, an animal, a paper crown, etc. on their head and I just don't care.

This is what I've been saying all along, but I've decided to say it more forceful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists always say that they have no beliefs, no religion; if they wear said colander, then they are stating a belief and even a religion, in my opinion. So that means they are no longer atheists, at best, they would be non-theists. I don't think any of us can have it both ways.

It's not that atheists have no beliefs; it's that atheism is not a belief. I'm an atheist and I have plenty of beliefs; it's just that none of my beliefs were the thing that made me an atheist.

 

[ChristineES]

It's not that atheists have no beliefs; it's that atheism is not a belief. I'm an atheist and I have plenty of beliefs; it's just that none of my beliefs were the thing that made me an atheist.

How about this: Is there something that atheists need to wear in order to be atheists?
Granted, there is nothing that Christians need to wear in order to be Christians.
All the Muslim women I see around my city wear scarfs on their head, I can perfectly see their faces. I don't see a problem with them wearing the scarf, as long as their face is not obscured. I just don't see any problem with it (I mean, if it doesn't bother the person wearing it). I just don't see the problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about this: Is there something that atheists need to wear in order to be atheists?

No, but some Pastafarians believe that they have to wear things in order to be Pastafarians.

Granted, there is nothing that Christians need to wear in order to be Christians.
All the Muslim women I see around my city wear scarfs on their head, I can perfectly see their faces. I don't see a problem with them wearing the scarf, as long as their face is not obscured. I just don't see any problem with it (I mean, if it doesn't bother the person wearing it). I just don't see the problem.

Neither do I. I also don't see how the religion of the person wearing the head scarf would affect how visible their face is, so I fail to see why there should be a difference in treatment based on religion here.

IMO, the rule should be that if wearing a thing interferes with the picture, it shouldn't be allowed even if it's religious, and if it doesn't interfere, it should be allowed even if it's non-religious. IOW, on this issue, religion should be irrelevant.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Seems more like a 'same old thing' to me. That's what I'm getting at. He isn't wearing religious headgear. So where's the discrimination he is supposedly protesting?

Even though atheists don't have a specific hat, turban, ect. that they wear, he is protesting the fact that religious people are given special allowances to wear their headgear in an ID when the average joe is not even allowed to wear glasses in some states now. If one person can wear head gear, shouldn't everyone be allowed to?