Giant Affront to Freedom of Religion in Canada

[Mighty AC]

The statement wasn't witty or relevant at all. It was a ridiculous stunt that confronts something that isn't even an issue.

This stunt has lead people to question the difference between a religion and a fairy tale; a very worthwhile activity in my opinion. Additionally, this man has drawn widespread attention to this topic, peacefully and for free. Alright, alright, alright!

[cybercoma]

What topic?

[-1=e^ipi]

I guess the test of this dudes devotion to his "church" is if he wears the colander everywhere or just where he wants to make a point.

Of course the guy isn't devoted. Pastafarianism is a fake religion created by atheists to poke fun at religion and point out hypocrisy in the implementation of our laws regarding religious accommodation. But it isn't the state's job to determine what is and isn't a religion.

What is funny is reading the comments at ctv and other websites and the shear number of people that actually think the Pastafarian is genuine in his beliefs.

I think it's within somebody's rights to be insulting but to what degree should the state go along with these things, that are created to prove a point ?

I don't really have an answer. It's like people who want to change their names to numbers or racist ephiphets because they have the right to do so.

Furthermore, should we care ?

We should care because we should have freedom of religion and freedom of thought in this country, and it should not be the state's role to determine what is and what isn't a religion. Maybe I consider the zombie-worshiping and flesh-eating rituals of Catholicism insulting to human intelligence but you don't see me advocating that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to perform their bizarre rituals. The state should not define what is and isn't a religion period because not only is it difficult to define religion, but it gives the state absurd power in oppressing the rights of those that follow minority religions.

[cybercoma]

Pastafarianism is a fake religion created by atheists to poke fun at religion and point out hypocrisy in the implementation of our laws regarding religious accommodation.

No it wasn't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a single person, Bobby Henderson. And it wasn't to "poke fun at religion," it was to very seriously point out the problem with allowing creationism to be taught in schools instead of or alongside evolution.

Idiotis like the guy in the OP have taken the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and turned it into the shining example of everything that's wrong with some certain vocal atheists, who presume to speak for everyone, as if there's anything atheists have in common.

Like I said before, I'm sure Bobby Henderson looks at news articles like this and wishes this whole thing never got as big as it did because stunts like this are petty and do nothing to address any real problems.

[Big Guy]

.... Pastafarianism is a fake religion created by atheists to poke fun at religion and point out hypocrisy ...

...

I suggest that if it "registered" as a religion then it is a religion;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/pastafarians-rejoice-as-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-is-granted-permission-to-register-as-a-religion-in-poland-9248689.html

[-1=e^ipi]

No it wasn't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by a single person, Bobby Henderson. And it wasn't to "poke fun at religion," it was to very seriously point out the problem with allowing creationism to be taught in schools instead of or alongside evolution.

Bobby Hendersen founded the religion and created most of it, but he didn't create all aspects of the religion. For example, he didn't create the practice of wearing colanders on the head when getting your driver's license taken.

Idiotis like the guy in the OP have taken the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and turned it into the shining example of everything that's wrong with some certain vocal atheists, who presume to speak for everyone, as if there's anything atheists have in common.

What is wrong with wanting the law to apply equal to everyone. If Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans when having a driver's license photo taken, Jewish people are allowed to wear Yamakas when having a driver's license photo taken, and Muslims are allowed to wear Hijabs when having a driver's license taken, why can't a person that declares that they follow Pastafarianism, not be allowed to wear a colander?

So to you, atheists shouldn't be vocal and shouldn't point out the absurd privilege that religion has in various societies across the globe? Does it upset you went atheists point out the BS in the beliefs of other people?

Like I said before, I'm sure Bobby Henderson looks at news articles like this and wishes this whole thing never got as big as it did because stunts like this are petty and do nothing to address any real problems.

It addresses a very serious problem: lack of applying the law equally to everyone.

Edited October 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I suggest that if it "registered" as a religion then it is a religion;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/pastafarians-rejoice-as-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-is-granted-permission-to-register-as-a-religion-in-poland-9248689.html

That's a weird and inconsistent way of defining what is and isn't a religion. According to Indonesia, Judaism and Sikhism are not religions.

[Mighty AC]

What topic?

Critically dissecting the difference between a religion and a fairy tale. I applaud any action that leads to any form of religious examination.

Though you are right that the prophet Bobby Henderson created the FSM in a letter protesting the teaching of creationism in science classrooms, it has evolved beyond that.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Mighty AC

[cybercoma]

Right. It evolved into idiots wearing colanders to the MOT.

Is it really so hard to see the difference between fighting against creationism being taught to your children and fighting against Sikhs being allowed to wear turbans in their DL pic?

The Sikh isn't forcing his views on anyone. The colander-wearing idiot is. Bobby Henderson was fighting against people imposing their beliefs on others. Who is harmed by a Sikh wearing a turban in his DL?

Edited October 8, 2014 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

The Sikh isn't forcing his views on anyone. The colander-wearing idiot is....

Who is harmed by a Sikh wearing a turban in his DL?

Really? What views does the colander-wearer force upon others? Who is harmed by a pastafarian wearing a colander in his DL?

I support the right of followers of mock-religions to mock religion. Whether it be on serious issues like the teaching of nonsense in school, or on more light-hearted issues.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

Is it really so hard to see the difference between fighting against creationism being taught to your children and fighting against Sikhs being allowed to wear turbans in their DL pic?

The Sikh isn't forcing his views on anyone. The colander-wearing idiot is.

How are pastafarians trying to get Turbans banned or impose their beliefs on others? They are fighting for the right to wear a colander on the head, not to get turbans banned.

[Michael Hardner]

I suggest that if it "registered" as a religion then it is a religion;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/pastafarians-rejoice-as-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-is-granted-permission-to-register-as-a-religion-in-poland-9248689.html

If we're going to play this game, though, we should just play it according to the rules. Being recognized in Poland and the U.S. don't mean it's recognized in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

I support the right of followers of mock-religions to mock religion.

Is the goal to ban religion or to show why religion's rights shouldn't trump those of the non-religious ?

[-1=e^ipi]

Is the goal to ban religion or to show why religion's rights shouldn't trump those of the non-religious ?

1. The main goal is to get your driver's license photo taken with a colander on your head. Why? Well the primary reason is its fun. It's like halloween, people like to dress up and at the end of it you have a silly story to tell. Lighten up.

2. It points out hypocrisy and the fact that the law does not apply equally to everyone. The law should be consistent and apply equally to everyone regardless of their religious affiliation. So either everyone should be allowed a head covering, or no one should. As it currently is, you can only wear a head covering if your reasons are religious, which is discrimination and gives religious people more rights than non-religious people. If a Sikh is allowed to wear a turban then an atheist should be allowed to wear a turban as well. Most pastafarians don't want to ban religious headgear, but rather merely wish to have the right to wear colanders.

3. It points out the fact that it is difficult/impossible for the government to define religion. And furthermore, it is dangerous if the government tries to define religion and make a list of accepted religions. If the government determines what is and isn't a religion then your society no longer has freedom of religion and you can look at numerous cases across the world (such as Indonesia where Judaism and Sikhism aren't religions). It also points out that many people that claim to support freedom of religion only support it if it is a mainstream religion; so they are hypocrits.

3. It pisses of religious people, which almost always gives amusing reactions.

[Mighty AC]

Is the goal to ban religion or to show why religion's rights shouldn't trump those of the non-religious ?

I like that the stunt draws attention to questions like these. Should we grant special, elevated privileges to religious ideas and rights at all? Here we have an idiot in a colander and we can't really make a distinction between him and a person following religious customs. That seems like a great impetus for critical examination of one's beliefs.

[bush_cheney2004]

If we're going to play this game, though, we should just play it according to the rules. Being recognized in Poland and the U.S. don't mean it's recognized in Canada.

Is there an official religion registry in Canada...like the now defunct Gun Registry ? How does that work ? Or does that only apply for tax exemption ?

Edited October 8, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Really? What views does the colander-wearer force upon others? Who is harmed by a pastafarian wearing a colander in his DL?

I support the right of followers of mock-religions to mock religion. Whether it be on serious issues like the teaching of nonsense in school, or on more light-hearted issues.

He's trying to get the government to stop accommodating some Sikhs and some Muslim women by making a mockery of their religious observances. Religious observances that have no bearing on anyone else whatsoever, unlike forcing creationism to be taught in schools.

[cybercoma]

How are pastafarians trying to get Turbans banned or impose their beliefs on others? They are fighting for the right to wear a colander on the head, not to get turbans banned.

Do I need to open a dictionary for you and define satire?

[GostHacked]

This stunt has lead people to question the difference between a religion and a fairy tale; a very worthwhile activity in my opinion. Additionally, this man has drawn widespread attention to this topic, peacefully and for free. Alright, alright, alright!

Scientology fits your description of a fairy tale. One written by a science-fiction author. Most religions fit the fairy tale description. Believing in something that is not tangible with any sense of reality.

[GostHacked]

Right. It evolved into idiots wearing colanders to the MOT.

Is it really so hard to see the difference between fighting against creationism being taught to your children and fighting against Sikhs being allowed to wear turbans in their DL pic?

The Sikh isn't forcing his views on anyone. The colander-wearing idiot is. Bobby Henderson was fighting against people imposing their beliefs on others. Who is harmed by a Sikh wearing a turban in his DL?

I cannot wear a hat of any kind when getting my pic done for my drivers license. Why should others get special treatment simply based on religion?

[Michael Hardner]

I like that the stunt draws attention to questions like these. Should we grant special, elevated privileges to religious ideas and rights at all?

If you don't give special privileges to religion then they can't operate as they would like to. You would effectively ban religion.

Here we have an idiot in a colander and we can't really make a distinction between him and a person following religious customs. That seems like a great impetus for critical examination of one's beliefs.

By whom ? All I can see is somebody pushing the legal limits of the system. It's just a sideshow.

[Michael Hardner]

Is there an official religion registry in Canada...like the now defunct Gun Registry ? How does that work ? Or does that only apply for tax exemption ?

Good question. I have no answers for you though.

[Mighty AC]

If you don't give special privileges to religion then they can't operate as they would like to. You would effectively ban religion.

No, it would just mean religious rituals cannot operate outside of societal rules and regulations. However this is all part of the very important critical examination process. Do you think religions should be able to operate as they like and should only religions qualify for special privileges?

If I am part of a nudist club should I be able to walk around naked in public? Would this action be acceptable if I created a back story about a super natural being that commands followers to remain unclothed and forced this belief on my children? If not, do you think society is effectively banning my religion?

By whom ? All I can see is somebody pushing the legal limits of the system. It's just a sideshow.

It's a sideshow with a message. If it wasn't out of the ordinary, it wouldn't have been covered and we wouldn't be talking about it. However, we are and so are others, some them religious.

[overthere]

The discussion of this topic makes organized religions very nervous.

Many have enjoyed tax free status for capital assets for centuries, operate businesses with tax impunity/immunity. have protected constitutional status and generally enjoy wide corporate privilege not available to individuals or business.

They don't want close examination or any societal challenge to that privilege.

Can't say I blame them, religion has an extraordinary status in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

No, it would just mean religious rituals cannot operate outside of societal rules and regulations.

Some rituals wouldn't be able to happen.

Do you think religions should be able to operate as they like and should only religions qualify for special privileges?

"special privileges"... meaning what... meaning the rights they have today ? If so, then it's easier to keep the status quo.

If I am part of a nudist club should I be able to walk around naked in public?

Strawman.

do you think society is effectively banning my religion?

I don't think it makes sense to let people create new religions and demand rights for those new religions. If you don't like religion, as I suspect, then we should just let the old ones die.

It's a sideshow with a message.

Again I ask what the point is: if you're trying to get people together to ban religion, then it makes more sense to me.