Re: All 'religions' the same
For OTF see the Laundry Novels of Charles Stross
A United States District Court judge has ruled that Pastafarianism, the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), is not a religion. Stephen Cavanaugh, a prisoner in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, brought the case after being denied access to Pastafarian literature and religious items while behind bars. Cavanaugh argued …
Coercion? And what does that say of the modern day homosexual movement and its followers when politely told no by a baker, photographer, etc to provide a luxury item for their homosexual wedding and instead of simply finding another accommodating establishment they proceed to coerce said individuals against their will to the tune of losing their businesses, their savings, their livelihoods, etc. How is that any different than the coercion of some religions, but yet is astonishingly applauded by many as being just peachy in spite of the fact the United States was founded on freedom OF religion and the freedom from being coerced? Typical hypocrisy!
Nor was he impressed by Cavanaugh, who had a rather poor grasp on Pastafarianism's key texts, which the judge took the trouble to read.
Well good for that judge, but it's hardly surprising that Cavanaugh has a poor grasp on the key texts, when he's being denied access to study those texts!
Under secular governments and constitutional freedom of religion, there is no such thing as a parody religion. Even a religion abused by some non believers must still be counted as religion by others based upon nothing more than their claiming it.
Take for example atheist Christian ministers who look upon their religion as nothing more than an opportunity to meet the children of the believers of that religion in order to sexual molest those children.
Regardless of the ministers patent lack of belief as demonstrated by their behaviour or the children's lack of understanding of the religion and the ministers junk not being religious objects, the parents of those abused children still have a right to express themselves via that religion.
The judge, should face judgement for the immoral decision to decide what religion others should worship based upon the judges own prejudices.
This post has been deleted by its author
"to which tomatoes, spices, herbs and all manner of tasty things are added as he is slowly cooked to become a pasta sauce.
That will teach him!"
Why? He did the exact right thing.
He handed out a verdict that is in accordance with the goals of Pastafarianism. To end religious exceptions to the rules the rest of us follow.
If you think the Pastafarians lost, you really haven't understood the game being played.
Right..... the religious texts of Pastafarianism is classed as a parody and worse - a work of fiction, but a book about a woman who becomes pregnant even though she hasn't had sex, a man who can magically turn water into wine (and why wine? why not grapefruit juice?), a book that claims Jesus was born in December - even though it was clearly closer to Spring - even the Christmas Carol While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks By Night to anyone with any common sense tells you it wasn't December, As for the idea that in the time period that people were frightened of Thunder and Lightning because God was mad - people would see a bright star in the sky and go towards it rather than run screaming in the opposite direction, a book where someone dies and then comes back to life..... that is obviously not a work of fiction and is a real documentation of things that actually happened - written down thousands of years after they allegedly happened. The Bible to people who have a clear head actually reads like a book where someone started writing down stories making each one more and more fantastical to see how far people would get through it before going - hang on a minute, this is made up!
Seriously - talking snakes? Adam and Eve and Kane and Able being the only people in the whole world - and yet somehow they were able to find wives outside of the Garden of Eden - where did the people outside of the Garden of Eden come from? Did they just magically appear? And don't even get me started on the way people go "yup, an ark, every single animal in the entire world, 2 of them in fact, even though there is the thing called the food chain which means the vast majority of them are dinner for another animal higher up the food chain, yup - it seems entirely plausible that - that really happened" I mean has anyone ever worked out what the dimensions of this Ark would have had to have been? and How long it would have taken for it to be built? Bearing in mind that not only did the Ark have to be built, but trees needed to be chopped down and made into planks of similar in order to do this? Yup what a totally believable book.........
This post has been deleted by its author
The book never made the claim to December. I think the word didn't even exist when the book was written.
It is the Roman Catholic Church which took to parasiting local customs to replace them with Vatican-approved versions that made that decision. So the RCC was the first organization to uphold the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish method that another modern company made so prevalent.
As for Adam & Eve, you're the one inferring that they found wives outside. The Bible never says that, so it infers implicitly to huge amounts of incest. And, if Mitochondrial Eve is anything to go by, well, there just may be a grain of truth to it.
Not parasitism; the new roman coverts to Christianity retained their old holy days and customs for convenience, which is why there is a clear descent of the Pope (pontifex maximus, the civil administrator of the combined roman cults, was a title often held by the emperor), holy days such as saturnalia/Christmas, and the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy from the religious institutions of imperial Rome. Given those customs broadly match all across Europe it isn't surprising that local cultures would adopt a similar syncretism.
"As for Adam & Eve, you're the one inferring that they found wives outside. The Bible never says that, so it infers implicitly to huge amounts of incest."
Well, Cain went off to the land of Nod to find a wife, so there's that. Not denying huge amounts of incest are also implied, however, especially after the Flood...
"As for Adam & Eve, you're the one inferring that they found wives outside. The Bible never says that, so it infers implicitly to huge amounts of incest. And, if Mitochondrial Eve is anything to go by, well, there just may be a grain of truth to it." Yes it does -
"16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
It doesn't say Eve had any more Children at this point, and there is no mention of Cain taking his wife with him when he dwelt in the land of Nod, thus the only possible conclusion at this point has to be that his wife from already living in the land of Nod.
"Seems like you're reading Genesis with the eyes of a 6yr old ....
Perhaps you also think the tortoise DID actually race the hare?"
Wow - killer rebuttal.
It's the fundamentalists themselves that insist that the Bible is the literal word of God - so IT MUST BE TRUE, mustn't it?
This post has been deleted by its author
"And, if Mitochondrial Eve is anything to go by, well, there just may be a grain of truth to it."
No truth at all - that would imply some insight on the part of the author of this particular fairy tale, of Mitochondrial Eve.
Coincidence, yes. Truth, no.
"Nor was he impressed by Cavanaugh, who had a rather poor grasp on Pastafarianism's key texts, which the judge took the trouble to read."
Is it too much to hope that those who wish indulgence to behave in an otherwise unacceptable way or illegal way must similarly prove a strong grasp on the central texts that allegedly inform and justify their actions?
That's be great - if you want to discriminate against gay people, you must take a bible quiz.
I'd watch that train-wreck.
End of the day, only blinkered people who don't accept the opinions of others will be bothered by this. And unluckily for everyone these people are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jews, Atheist.
Most religions - Judaism being the exception - all believe that there is a better place to go to after living on Earth. All religions believe that there is some greater body that will exact punishment or praise on to everyone on Earth. So where exactly is it your place to judge?
If you don't believe in Religion then that's fine. You know the score, you live you die, and thats it. There's nothing else beyond the here and now. So why take the piss out of someone who believes in a God and believes in an afterlife? Your spending your short time on Earth by being a dick.
If you believe in God and a Religion (which ever food based one it is) then that's fine. You know the score. You live, you die, you're judged on your actions by the body you believe in. So why are you making life difficult for people who don't believe in what you believe in? Your spending your short time on Earth, where you're being watched, by being a complete dick to someone. You aren't treating them with the respect they deserve.
The common thread with religion is that it's pretty much all the same. The people involved may be different, seen differently, but it's ultimately the same. You live, die, go to heaven or to hell. But above all you shouldn't be a dick. Be nice. It costs nothing.
And the common thread with humans, everyone wants to be liked. Everyone wants to be treated with respect. We're only here for 70ish years? Why spend that time getting annoyed at people and institutions that you don't recognise? You're not going to bring down the Vatican tomorrow, you're not going to force the closure of Mecca next week. Just suck it up, people don't have to agree with you. But it doesn't mean you should be nasty to them.
Life is too bloody short to argue the toss of events that happened thousands of years ago where no body here was around to see it. Be nice.
"So why take the piss out of someone who believes in a God and believes in an afterlife? "
Because that has always been the way to expose charlatans in any area of human life. Chaucer had it down to a fine art in his Canterbury Tales.
What people want to believe is a matter for themselves. The problems start when they claim a divine right to impose their dogma on the rest of the population as a form of social control.
The tribal nature of human behaviour means that people will pay lip service to a group's shibboleths in return for its offered protection against other groups. They try to assuage any doubts by proselytizing - so that conforming to their social model becomes the only choice if you want to work and live.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think you are confusing Religion with Faith,
I have no trouble getting along with people who have a particular faith in a deity or otherwise, even when I don't share it (as long as they don't try to stuff it down my throat).
I have no time whatsoever for organized religion, which is an abuse of faith by parasites interested only in their own self-satisfaction.
The common thread with religion is that it's pretty much all the same. The people involved may be different, seen differently, but it's ultimately the same. You live, die, go to heaven or to hell. But above all you shouldn't be a dick. Be nice. It costs nothing.
Good point; but I can be legally executed in (I think it's) 13 different countries for my beliefs or lack thereof. And that's not counting ISIS or that other African lot's territories.
I'm all for a peaceful coexistance and more power to the elbows of those who quietly get on with it (or possibly the power might be better allocated to their knees). But some of these bastards do not make this possible. About 1-in-4 of the planetary population refer to a book that states I should be converted, taxed or put to death; with no real preference as to which. Which frankly, is a little disconcerting.
The common thread with religion is that it's pretty much all the same. The people involved may be different, seen differently, but it's ultimately the same. You live, die, go to heaven or to hell. But above all you shouldn't be a dick. Be nice. It costs nothing.
The problem tends to come about when one's holy book tells one to be a dick. They all contain some seriously dickish instructions here and there.