overthere Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 I don't think it makes sense to let people create new religions and demand rights for those new religions. Here we go again, with somehow assigning different degrees of equality. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
-1=e^ipi Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 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. No he isn't. Where has the guy claimed to want to limit people's rights to wear a turban or hikab? Do I need to open a dictionary for you and define satire? Satire does not imply wanting to remove people's rights to wear religious clothing. 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? Exactly! Everyone should be allowed to wear a hat. That is the fairest and most reasonable solution. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Here we go again, with somehow assigning different degrees of equality. People don't have equality today - why do you think that they do ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
-1=e^ipi Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 If you don't give special privileges to religion then they can't operate as they would like to. You would effectively ban religion. How does allowing people to wear a colander on their head restrict the rights of another person to beleive in or practice their religion? Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 Some rituals wouldn't be able to happen. "special privileges"... meaning what... meaning the rights they have today ? If so, then it's easier to keep the status quo. Like for instance, if someone has a religion where they have a religious requirement to blood sacrifice virgins to their volcano god, should that practice be allowed in Canada? Freedom of thought should be allowed in Canada. However, freedom to practice one's religion should only be allowed within reasonable limmits (virgin-sacrifice is outside reasonable limits). Strawman. Creating a hypothetical isn't a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman argument is? 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. All religions are new at one point. Islam used to be 1 day old, same with Christianity, Sikhism, Buddism, Hinduism, etc. What you are advocating is not freedom of religion, but freedom of religion for only well established religions that you approve of. Who is supposed to define what is and isn't a religion, the government? How do you know that won't lead to the government becoming like Indonesia and not recognizing Judaism or Sikhism? 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. The point is to make people ask questions and to fight for the right to wear a colander on your head. Quote
overthere Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 People don't have equality today - why do you think that they do ? People have a constitutional right to freedom of religion in Canada- to choose one and to practice it. But you want to restrict that to 'old religions'. That's unequal treatment. Are you a member of one perhaps? I understand your fear. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 People have a constitutional right to freedom of religion in Canada- to choose one and to practice it. Check ! But you want to restrict that to 'old religions'. That's unequal treatment. I get that. We already have unequal treatment, though, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Are you a member of one perhaps? I understand your fear. No fear. My argument has nothing to do with whether I'm part of a religion or not. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Mighty AC Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Mr. Euler, already responded to your post, so I will just deal with these points. Some rituals wouldn't be able to happen. Right, which makes sense to me. 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. The point is to get people, especially the religious, to examine their beliefs. Hopefully, the fact that colander wearing, spaghetti monster following clowns are indistinguishable from followers of sincere religions can plant a seed of doubt. We should never ban religion but hopefully an increase in reason and skeptical thinking will eventually see religion on equal footing with astrology and witchcraft. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
-1=e^ipi Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 I get that. We already have unequal treatment, though, so it doesn't bother me a bit. So some unequal treatment justifies more unequal treatment? No fear. My argument has nothing to do with whether I'm part of a religion or not. What argument? All I see is an unjustified opinion that you don't think freedom of religion should apply to religions that you do not approve of and that are not mainstream. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Right, which makes sense to me. Without certain rituals, you're effectively suppressing the religion. If you can't do baptism for example then there isn't a possibility for someone to enter into the religion according to their customs. The point is to get people, especially the religious, to examine their beliefs. How effective does the effort have to be before you say that it's actually just a stunt ? How many people have to be convinced ? We should never ban religion but hopefully an increase in reason and skeptical thinking will eventually see religion on equal footing with astrology and witchcraft. The state is already burdened with enough without having to provide a framework for stunts. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
waldo Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 How does allowing people to wear a colander on their head restrict the rights of another person to beleive in or practice their religion? I just know you'd really like me to support your thread ... however, will you guarantee this isn't another one of your social experiments you're running? That, as you did previously, you won't let this thread go on for another 10-15 pages and then drop the hammer by stating you're just kidding? Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) Without certain rituals, you're effectively suppressing the religion. If you can't do baptism for example then there isn't a possibility for someone to enter into the religion according to their customs. Do you support the 'right' of individuals to perform female genital mutiliation on their children for religious reasons? Do you support the 'right' of people sacrificing virgins in the name of their religion? It's called reasonable limitation. Who is trying to take away someone's legal right to perform baptism? Are you creating an absurd strawman cause you feel your irrational belief system is under attack? Edited October 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 8, 2014 Author Report Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) I just know you'd really like me to support your thread ... however, will you guarantee this isn't another one of your social experiments you're running? That, as you did previously, you won't let this thread go on for another 10-15 pages and then drop the hammer by stating you're just kidding? If you are asking if I support the right of people to wear colanders on their head when taking their driver's license photo, I absolutely support it. Actually, I'm very tempted to get my driver's license just so I can get my photo taken with a colander on my head. It is very tempting. Edited October 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
overthere Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 The state is already burdened with enough without having to provide a framework for stunts. I'm not sure why you approve of that burden at all. I reckon if we accept one set of dogma, completely without any factual proof, as reasons to provide constitutional protection and massive financial advantage- how do we assess another set of dogma/faiths that appear to be equally silly. Objectively, which of these is more or less silly as a sacred sacrament? Rank them if you like. Virgin birth. wearing a colander as a religious symbol smoking wicked amounts of weed expecting 70 virgins to open their legs on your demise wearing odd underwear to bed sawing off the end of your childs penis stoning somebody to death for speaking to the other gender Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 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? Are you really that upset about not being able to wear a hat? Because if you are, might I suggest therapy? Quote
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 People don't have equality today - why do you think that they do ? Equality is not equity. People seem to miss that point. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 How does allowing people to wear a colander on their head restrict the rights of another person to beleive in or practice their religion? You're being intentionally obtuse. You know exactly what the purpose of the statement is. It's to make the point that if he can't wear his colander, no religious head coverings should be allowed. He can't wear his colander because he's an idiot. Full stop. He's making a mockery of the system to make a political point that no one should wear religious head coverings because look how ridiculous it is when I put on my colander. You're intentionally pretending that's not the case and it's plainly obvious. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 8, 2014 Report Posted October 8, 2014 Do you support the 'right' of individuals to perform female genital mutiliation on their children for religious reasons? Wearing a head covering....just like FGM, eh? You see what happens when you take ridiculous positions? Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 9, 2014 Author Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Are you really that upset about not being able to wear a hat? Because if you are, might I suggest therapy? Does it upset you if we wear a hats? Why do you have the right to determine if we can wear a hat or not? Equality is not equity. People seem to miss that point. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - Orwell You're being intentionally obtuse. You know exactly what the purpose of the statement is. It's to make the point that if he can't wear his colander, no religious head coverings should be allowed. No, you are projecting this view point onto the pastafarian even though there is little reason to believe this. Look, myself and other atheists in this thread do not see that as the pastafarian's intent. I've talked to many pastafarians, I think I understand their motives better than you (especially since I might wear a colander myself). Most pastafarians have no intent to prevent people from wearing turbans or hijabs and support freedom of religion. He can't wear his colander because he's an idiot. Full stop. How is he an idiot? In any case, even if he were an idiot, why does that prevent him from having freedom of religion? He's making a mockery of the system to make a political point that no one should wear religious head coverings because look how ridiculous it is when I put on my colander. The system is already a mockery. All he did was indirectly point it out. You're intentionally pretending that's not the case and it's plainly obvious. It's not obvious because it isn't true. You are trying to project some evil hidden intent on this individual where there is none. Edited October 9, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
cybercoma Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) The system is already a mockery. All he did was indirectly point it out. Which perfectly highlights my point. Is it really a mockery that someone can wear a turban in their driver's license photo? Is that something really worth protesting about by wearing a colander? What Bobby Henderson did was monumentally important for everyone's education in Kansas. How is allowing people the freedom to wear their religious head coverings in a driver's license photo a mockery of anything? And do you really think Bobby Henderson actually wanted Pastafarianism taught alongside evolution? Do you really think he was fighting to water down the system more? Of course you don't because you're not an imbecile. So don't sit here and tell me the moron with the colander on his head is actually fighting to wear a ridiculous colander in his driver's license photo. Edited October 9, 2014 by cybercoma Quote
cybercoma Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 Because frankly if he is, then he's an even bigger idiot than I'm giving him credit for. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 9, 2014 Author Report Posted October 9, 2014 Which perfectly highlights my point. Is it really a mockery that someone can wear a turban in their driver's license photo? No, it's a mockery that the law is not applied equally to everyone. Everyone should be allowed to wear turbans! The government shouldn't define what is or isn't a religion nor should it be able to determine someone's devotion to a particular religion; if it can do either of these things then society does not have freedom of religion nor freedom of thought. Is that something really worth protesting about by wearing a colander? Yes. How is allowing people the freedom to wear their religious head coverings in a driver's license photo a mockery of anything? You fail at reading comprehension. I said the system. System != ability of people to wear religious head coverings. So don't sit here and tell me the moron with the colander on his head is actually fighting to wear a ridiculous colander in his driver's license photo. I said it was a combination of reasons and I listed them. The right to wear a colander is one of them. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 The "system". Go ahead and define that then. You fail at writing clearly, since you used such a meaningless word. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 9, 2014 Author Report Posted October 9, 2014 The "system". Go ahead and define that then. You fail at writing clearly, since you used such a meaningless word. By the system I meant the legal system as well as the influences from society as a whole. The law is hypocritical and inconsistent and so is a large segment of the population. You can't claim to support freedom of religion, and then deny freedom of religion to those religions that you don't think worthy enough, and remain consistent. Quote
Bonam Posted October 9, 2014 Report Posted October 9, 2014 "special privileges"... meaning what... meaning the rights they have today ? If so, then it's easier to keep the status quo. It's *always* easier to keep the status quo. That's not an argument for anything. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.