Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK. So your argument for why we don't need a principle of free exercise of religion comes down to this; a truly secular state state would never impose any kind of religious test.

Really? That's it? You don't feel any need at all to address the question of why the state would or should be "truly secular"?

Why would a truly secular state need to impose any kind of religious test?

It would not differentiate in any way between the professed religion (or lack thereof) of any citizen.

I support secularism because it is the only way to ensure that both persons of any religion and non-believers alike are treated equally and fairly. We cannot provide fairness by, for instance, allowing only certain religions to run state-funded schools or conduct legally binding marriages. In practice a secular state must allow no religion to do these things, because allowing all is impossible and excluding some is arbitrary.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats fair enough,
I think we need to clear this up in this forum, given there's so many gods and only faith religion just seems to use the word god for their god (very confusing)

Can we refer to the christian god and its bible as Yahweh and Yahweh's Bible in future?

No vowels, and it's in CAPSLOCK like this: YHWH.

The god of the Jews is very insecure about his image.

Brian Shanahan

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're wrong, but let that pass.

Days is right, and you know it. Otherwise you would have challenged his statement.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

any of the beliefs of the varieties of Secular Atheism

And JC that comment alone disqualifies you from having any possibility of knowledge of how to discern belief.

Firstly secularism is totally different to atheism. Secularism is simply the position that there should be no religious influence on non-religious matters (i.e. the running of the state or society), and atheism is simply the disbelief in any god due to the lack of evidence.
Secondly neither are beliefs nor can they ever be.

So now you fail on science, basic english and basic definition of belief. Your parents must be proud.

Brian Shanahan

Absoluvely wrote: »

Any law that needs to "know" a person's sex before it can be applied to them is a sexist law.
An example of such a sexist law is a political "gender quota".

Gender quotas aren't sexist. They simply acknowledge that historically and culturally pro-male discrimination is widespread, and that even now with women often being far more qualified are still being discriminated because of the long lasting pro-male discrimination.

Yes it is a bit of a sledgehammer but the patriarchy is a bit thick.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I am seriously considering this for my UK licence. Just checked and it will only cost £20.

I wonder how much checking they do...

I am only new to pastafarianism and would be concerned that my religious credentials would not be up to it.

MrP

I'll vouch for your 'Pastafarian' credentials Mr P ... if you run into any difficulties trying to prove them!!!:D:):eek:

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And JC that comment alone disqualifies you from having any possibility of knowledge of how to discern belief.

Firstly secularism is totally different to atheism. Secularism is simply the position that there should be no religious influence on non-religious matters (i.e. the running of the state or society), and atheism is simply the disbelief in any god due to the lack of evidence.
Secondly neither are beliefs nor can they ever be.

They're all 'birds of a feather' ... and they flock together ... on the A & A anyway!!!

... and its just as unreasonable for Secular Atheists to demand that religious people and their beliefs should be not be respected by the state ... as it would be, if religious people demanded that the state should not respect Secular Atheists and their beliefs.

Lets all live together with love and respect for each other ... that's how a Secular State is supposed to operate!!!:)
You seem to be confusing it with an anti-theist totalitarian one!!!:eek:

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

god be with the days this thread was a bit of craic, gone too high brow for me...my brain hurts

... could it be that the collander is too tight for you??:D

... I hear that this is an occupational hazard ... for Pastafarians!!!:)

swampgas

J C wrote: »

... could it be that the collander is too tight for you??

A colander can indeed be a great strain. :pac:

pauldla

swampgas wrote: »

A colander can indeed be a great strain. :pac:

It is its holiness that creates the strain.

bumper234

Pastafarian gets sworn in to New York city council wearing colander


http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4555793?utm_hp_ref=tw

heliguyheliguy

I must say as an ordained minister of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; I find many of the comments in this thread quite offensive. My beliefs and the beliefs of my congregation are as valid as any other and further are protected under the law.
That said much of the humour has been quite entertaining and enjoyable.