|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 7:54:15 GMT -5
*reads back over the post* ...holy shit, what is wrong with me. I'm contagious. Sorry. |
|
apedant
Full Member
Over himself, over his body and soul, the individual is sovereign--J S Mill.
Posts: 139
|
Post by apedant on Jul 15, 2011 12:15:09 GMT -5
This would have possibly been solid satire a few years ago. And I say, "possibly" because it's a hard sell to insist that the standards for a piece of religious headgear and a faux-religion fad are remotely the same. To be fair it's taken him 3 years to get the licence issued, so it was a few years ago that he had the idea. As for the difference, if both are based on fiction, what is the difference really between an ancient fiction and a recent one? Many countries, including the UK do not allow a hijab in a passport/driving licence photo, as it covers the top and sides of the face. I believe turbans and skull caps (I want to say Yammukahs but can't be bothered to google) are allowed so long as they do not cross over to cover the face. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 12:58:28 GMT -5
As for the difference, if both are based on fiction, what is the difference really between an ancient fiction and a recent one? You know, I got close to flamed on this board for defending Mormonism on that tenet. It would appear that, yes, in fact it does. Hoiwever, that's a misrepresentation of the statement I made. Pastafarianism is a joke. It was always a joke, and it may develop by the time of Futurama into a real religion, but it was one giant pisstake. I did not try to assert different standards based on fictional status. Nor do I particularly believe skullcaps or hijabs should be allowed in photos. However, if you're asking the honest question of why Governments would discriminate against a fad started for a laugh and not treat it the same as deeply held religious beliefs which have existed for thousands of years (Okay, sometimes hundreds), then the answer is self-evident. If you take the question of "if both are based on fiction, why the different standard?" Then you got me. Totally nailed me. Of course, you nailed me on something I'm not proposing, but still. I guess the question is: Would you like to stick to your Fox News distortion of my question to nail me, or address the things I actually said? Because I will be more than happy to continue to debate someone who is actually interested in my point of view, but I do not have the patience for yet another FSTDTer who is only interested in knocking down strawpeople with my avatar pasted on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Jul 15, 2011 14:35:21 GMT -5
However, if you're asking the honest question of why Governments would discriminate against a fad started for a laugh and not treat it the same as deeply held religious beliefs which have existed for thousands of years (Okay, sometimes hundreds), then the answer is self-evident. I guess the question is, then, who decides what constitutes a "fad" religion and something that, while new, might grow into something more meaningful? All religions are silly from the point of view of someone sitting outside the belief structure, so can you even call apparent farce a reason to treat one religion differently from another, at least in a legal context? |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 15, 2011 15:24:38 GMT -5
Think about how people reacted to the currently established religions back when they were first started. Go on, think about it. Now hush and let me call Pastafarianism stupid.
|
|
