NationStates Jolt Archive

At least if they are pastafarians:

A student has been suspended from school in America for coming to class dressed as a pirate.
But the disciplinary action has provoked controversy – because the student says that the ban violates his rights, as the pirate costume is part of his religion. Bryan Killian says that he follows the Pastafarian religion, and that as a crucial part of his faith, he must wear 'full pirate regalia' as prescribed in the holy texts of Pastafarianism.

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

Religions about pasta and pirates are silly and stupid.

Now, religions about talking snakes and magical zombies...THOSE should be taken seriously.

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here!

as long as he peace ties his broadsword the way everyone is required to at conventions!

sure america discriminates against any kind of REAL spirituality. as do most organized religeons. especialy the most dominant of them such as the cult of christerism.

=^^=
.../\...

They're making global warming worse.

as long as he peace ties his broadsword the way everyone is required to at conventions!


Maybe he could even get round that by claiming he was starting a breakaway sect. One which wasn't required to conform to the oppressive and outdated peace tie rule.

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

LOL! If I were still in school, I would dress as a hardcore biker and ride my motorcycle to school, and insist that I belonged to the Holy Riders of Harley! LMAO!

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

I guess if the kid could come up with the church he attend certifcate of tax exempty stauts that would prove it as a ligitimate religoin.

Can someone tell me why half of the news on that site were dealing with issues regarding bitten or sawed off penis?

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

A single asshole school principal does not represent the entirety of America.

Can someone tell me why half of the news on that site were dealing with issues regarding bitten or sawed off penis?

Um ... the Webmaster has a penis obsession? :D

A single asshole school principal does not represent the entirety of America.

Nor does one idiot HS student. Heh!

A single asshole school principal does not represent the entirety of America.
I know... I was exaggerating since I felt that is the style of this site... :>

Pastafarianism is, as you're all well aware, a joke religion created by an opponent of creationism - I believe it was Kansas where he wrote to the board of education to request the Pastafarianist theory of how the Earth began be taught alongside intelligent design and evolution. This I have no problems about, to force the teaching of intelligent design is stupid beyond belief, and anything that highlights it is good by me.

Where I get hazy is when someone who is perfectly aware it is a joke religion cries discrimination. The school asked him to take his eyepatch off, a symbol of the joke religion in question but not an unfair request, and this kid blew it up into something much larger. The school is in the right here, to say otherwise is to give Pastafarianism more cadence as a religion than is warranted.

All religions are joke religions.

sure america discriminates against any kind of REAL spirituality.

Not to defend America (I don't think it needs it), but I think that it would be more accurate to say that IDIOCY and BIGOTRY discriminate against INTELLIGENCE and CRITIQUE.

The real problem is that it appears that in many western countries the politicians aren't ashamed of exploiting idiocy and bigotry, and actually get more votes by looking idiot and bigot.

Yeech. Mala tempora currunt.

Pastafarianism is, as you're all well aware, a joke religion created by an opponent of creationism - I believe it was Kansas where he wrote to the board of education to request the Pastafarianist theory of how the Earth began be taught alongside intelligent design and evolution. This I have no problems about, to force the teaching of intelligent design is stupid beyond belief, and anything that highlights it is good by me.

Where I get hazy is when someone who is perfectly aware it is a joke religion cries discrimination. The school asked him to take his eyepatch off, a symbol of the joke religion in question but not an unfair request, and this kid blew it up into something much larger. The school is in the right here, to say otherwise is to give Pastafarianism more cadence as a religion than is warranted.

So would it be alright if a teacher asked a Christian student to remove a cross from around their neck?

All religions are joke religions.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2708/oppressedchristiansau0.jpg

So would it be alright if a teacher asked a Christian student to remove a cross from around their neck?

Or, think about the fuss many muslim did about the no-veil-in-school bill in France.

Well, cross yes, veil yes, eyepatch no? Why? Is there any logical, mundane, rational reason for that? The Pastafarianist was merely making this point - and he was bloody right to do so.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2708/oppressedchristiansau0.jpg

I imagine that image will become a regular part of the discourse around here. :D

Or, think about the fuss many muslim did about the no-veil-in-public-schools bill in France.

Corrected.

Corrected.

I stand so.

Pastafarianism is, as you're all well aware, a joke religion created by an opponent of creationism - I believe it was Kansas where he wrote to the board of education to request the Pastafarianist theory of how the Earth began be taught alongside intelligent design and evolution. This I have no problems about, to force the teaching of intelligent design is stupid beyond belief, and anything that highlights it is good by me.

Where I get hazy is when someone who is perfectly aware it is a joke religion cries discrimination. The school asked him to take his eyepatch off, a symbol of the joke religion in question but not an unfair request, and this kid blew it up into something much larger. The school is in the right here, to say otherwise is to give Pastafarianism more cadence as a religion than is warranted.


So, worse, they were censoring his political speech?

So, worse, they were censoring his political speech?

Being a minor in public school is a vastly different proposition than being a college student or being a private citizen. Helllohhh!

Being a minor in public school is a vastly different proposition than being a college student or being a private citizen. Helllohhh!

So? You don't cede your First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door. Supreme Court said so years ago, and has affirmed it several times since. That's what's at the heart of the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case right now.

So? You don't cede your First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door. Supreme Court said so years ago, and has affirmed it several times since. That's what's at the heart of the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case right now.

This is true, as far as it goes, but the principle is well-established that, although you do not "cede your First Amendment rights" at the school house door, you are still subject to limitations consonant with being a minor and being subject to the "good order and discipline" required in a public school.

Okay, now I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

If I made up a religion that prohibited the wearing of clothing, could I show up to school naked without consequence?

Now that makes me really sad. The people at our school don't really care when I wear my pirate stuff on fridays. They just give me funny looks.

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

I just got up at 5:30 in the morning to drive 45 minutes to study for and take a bullshit Computer Science exam that was supposed to take an hour and a half but only took me half an hour. My lab from 10-11:30 is now canceled, but due to other classes I'm marooned on campus. I'm not exactly have a splendid day.


And I just crapped myself with laughter at this. Thank you, immensely.

Okay, now I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

If I made up a religion that prohibited the wearing of clothing, could I show up to school naked without consequence?

Yes.


In future if you're going to try reductio ad absurdum, try something we won't accept immediately.

No, this religion is not real.

It is only designed to induce hatred against other religions, the whole point of it is to parody religions. You can't come to school in a pirate costume ever, whether you are a pastafarian or not. Just like you can't wear turbans etc...

No, this religion is not real.

It is only designed to induce hatred against other religions, the whole point of it is to parody religions. You can't come to school in a pirate costume ever, whether you are a pastafarian or not. Just like you can't wear turbans etc...

I guess the law is different overseas, but I'm fairly sure you can wear turbans in school in New Jersey.

Come to think of it, I'm damn sure you can.

No, this religion is not real.

It is only designed to induce hatred against other religions

Welcome to the Abrahamic religions.

I guess the law is different overseas, but I'm fairly sure you can wear turbans in school in New Jersey.

Come to think of it, I'm damn sure you can.

Well thats damn stupid but at least it is a real religion with very strong cultural backgrounds. Unlike FSM'sm.

I imagine that image will become a regular part of the discourse around here. :D

Damn right. It's saved on my PC now. ;)

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i178/firemanandy/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Pastafarianism is silly.

Religious ideas should be treated exactly the same as all other ideas. If 'genuine' religious dress is permitted, pirate regalia should be too, whether or not it's a joke. If one student is allowed to wear a crucifix, others should be allowed eyepatches, hammer-and-sickles, or whatever they like.

Well thats damn stupid but at least it is a real religion with very strong cultural backgrounds. Unlike FSM'sm.

Are Christians not allowed to wear crosses on their persons where you come from?

Would you deny the right to wear a yamucha(I know I horribly misspelled that, dunno how it's spelled) to people of the Jewish faith?

Are Christians not allowed to wear crosses on their persons where you come from?

Would you deny the right to wear a yamucha(I know I horribly misspelled that, dunno how it's spelled) to people of the Jewish faith?

France does just that. :D

Damn right. It's saved on my PC now. ;)

Aye, I just saved it as well.

I preferred the animated PacMan one, though.

France does just that. :D

The crosses or the yamuchas? Also, can someone please tell me how it's correctly spelled?

Are Christians not allowed to wear crosses on their persons where you come from?


Depends on what your rules are on jewelry. They wouldn't stop you wearing it simply because it is religious.


Would you deny the right to wear a yamucha(I know I horribly misspelled that, dunno how it's spelled) to people of the Jewish faith?

I doubt it, if it isn't part of the uniform....

No, this religion is not real.

It is only designed to induce hatred against other religions, the whole point of it is to parody religions. You can't come to school in a pirate costume ever, whether you are a pastafarian or not. Just like you can't wear turbans etc...

What schools have banned turbans in the UK?

The crosses or the yamuchas? Also, can someone please tell me how it's correctly spelled?

All religious symbols.

Aye, I just saved it as well.

I preferred the animated PacMan one, though.
Animated? Not this one?

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/3/pacmanchart.png

Hey, if it has a page on Wikipedia its a religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian

Pastafarianism is, as you're all well aware, a joke religion created by an opponent of creationism - I believe it was Kansas where he wrote to the board of education to request the Pastafarianist theory of how the Earth began be taught alongside intelligent design and evolution. This I have no problems about, to force the teaching of intelligent design is stupid beyond belief, and anything that highlights it is good by me.

Where I get hazy is when someone who is perfectly aware it is a joke religion cries discrimination. The school asked him to take his eyepatch off, a symbol of the joke religion in question but not an unfair request, and this kid blew it up into something much larger. The school is in the right here, to say otherwise is to give Pastafarianism more cadence as a religion than is warranted.

There is no requirement that something not be a joke for it to be a religion, I'd have thought that much ought to be clear to anyone with a sense of humour. It's not up to either the US government or US government funded agencies to dictate to their citizens whether or not something ought to be established as a religion. Such an option is explicitly excluded by the Consitution.

Animated? Not this one?

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/3/pacmanchart.png

No, no. It was the oppressed Christians pie chart, but the edges where the Christian section met the others moved inwards to meet, and then outwards again.

What schools have banned turbans in the UK?

Sorry wrong word, I meant the Veil. Though some schools ban turbans as well.

All religious symbols.

If all religious symbols are banned, I have no objections. Not because I believe the status quo of it should be maintained, but at least it applies universally.

On the other hand, if students at this kid's school are allowed to wear crosses and other regalia, then denying a student the right to wear a pirate outfit if he's a Pastafarian (irrespective of whether or not it's a "true" religion) is pure, shameless discrimination.

On the other hand, if students at this kid's school are allowed to wear crosses and other regalia, then denying a student the right to wear a pirate outfit if he's a Pastafarian (irrespective of whether or not it's a "true" religion) is pure, shameless discrimination.

No, it is absolutely not. The only reason that the student came into school was to piss people off, it was 100% nothing to do with religion. You cannot come into a school wearing a pirate uniform and that is it.

No, this religion is not real.

And please prove that he doesn't actually believe it.

AND if he doesn't actually believe it, then it's political speech rather than religious speech which is equally protected.

It is only designed to induce hatred against other religions, the whole point of it is to parody religions.

Thanks, you proved the point here.

Just like you can't wear turbans etc...

pssssst, you can.

No, it is absolutely not. The only reason that the student came into school was to piss people off, it was 100% nothing to do with religion. You cannot come into a school wearing a pirate uniform and that is it.

actually, if part of your religious beliefs dictate that you should do so...you can. That's kinda the issue here

No, it is absolutely not. The only reason that the student came into school was to piss people off, it was 100% nothing to do with religion. You cannot come into a school wearing a pirate uniform and that is it.

It only depends on how narrowly you define "true" religion. Who's to say that Christianity itself hasn't been a colossal running joke for the past 2000 years?

So are you saying that an Amish person should not be allowed in school dressed in his normal wear?

AND if he doesn't actually believe it, then it's political speech rather than religious speech which is equally protected.


Well I wasn't aware you can break school rules if you have a very vague political opinion to do with how you hate religion. But even so it is not religious discrimination.

Sorry wrong word, I meant the Veil. Though some schools ban turbans as well.

and britian doesn't have the constitutional protections the US has, so any discussion about what you can do in Britian is rather irrelevant to what can or can not be done in America, is it not?

Different laws, and all that.

Well I wasn't aware you can break school rules if you have a very vague political opinion to do with how you hate religion.

school rules < constitution

actually, if part of your religious beliefs dictate that you should do so...you can. That's kinda the issue here

Yes but it still isn't the same thing in the slightest. Muslims are very sensitive about their culture and background and I can see the incentive in trying to keep the peace and not stir up discontent by stopping them from "being muslim" so to speak. This "pastafarian" couldn't really give a flying shit whether he was able to wear his pirate costume or not though, on the other hand.

Yes but it still isn't the same thing in the slightest. Muslims are very sensitive about their culture and background and I can see the incentive in trying to keep the peace and not stir up discontent by stopping them from "being muslim" so to speak. This "pastafarian" couldn't really give a flying shit whether he was able to wear his pirate costume or not though, on the other hand.

Ah, I see. This has nothing to do with fundamental rights. This has to do with preventing discontent.

And you can't prove he doesn't really believe in it.

This "pastafarian" couldn't really give a flying shit whether he was able to wear his pirate costume or not though, on the other hand.

The fact that this is news would suggest otherwise, non?

Ah, I see. This has nothing to do with fundamental rights. This has to do with preventing discontent.


I never said that I approved. But some may argue that religion is more of a fundamental right then respecting shcool rules.


And you can't prove he doesn't really believe in it.

It doens't need proof. It could not be more obvious.

The fact that this is news would suggest otherwise, non?

Don't be silly. We all know his costume is for political not religious reasons so there is no point in pursuing this rout.

The question is:

Is this regilion oficial or not? If its oficial, the guy can dress anyfuckingway he wants.

I never said that I approved. But some may argue that religion is more of a fundamental right then respecting shcool rules.

I would make that argument. Which is why I support this fellow. The school is a government owned education facility if it is a public school. Freedom of religion.

It doens't need proof. It could not be more obvious.

I could make the same statement about anyone of faith. "He doesn't go around killing non-believers. He can't be a Christian." or "He doesn't sit in a temple all day, he can't be a Buddhist." or "He doesn't wear a yamucha, he can't be Jewish." How obvious is it? Is it written on his forehead? Has he handed pamphlets out about how he doesn't believe it? No, didn't think so. So you have no proof, aside from your own opinion, which only proves that you can form an opinion on something, not that it is the correct opinion.

I have a problem with the idea that "religious reasons" for doing/wearing something should be given special treatment.

Why? Why should religious beliefs be any more important than any other personal convictions?

I would make that argument. Which is why I support this fellow. The school is a government owned education facility if it is a public school. Freedom of religion.


It isn't a religion. He doesn't have any sort of actual belief set that compells him to dress like a pirate. He is just doing it to piss people off and make a point.


I could make the same statement about anyone of faith. "He doesn't go around killing non-believers. He can't be a Christian." or "He doesn't sit in a temple all day, he can't be a Buddhist." or "He doesn't wear a yamucha, he can't be Jewish." How obvious is it? Is it written on his forehead? Has he handed pamphlets out about how he doesn't believe it? No, didn't think so. So you have no proof, aside from your own opinion, which only proves that you can form an opinion on something, not that it is the correct opinion.

You really need your head examined if you actually believe that this person believes in FSM'sm even though the whole point if it is a parody religion.

The question is:

Is this regilion oficial or not? If its oficial, the guy can dress anyfuckingway he wants.

Here's the thing about America. There is no such thing as an "official religion", the government can't recognize a religion as valid or not valid, unconstitutional. There have been vague attempts by SCOTUS and others to come up with sort of a "test", IE meet these you're a religion, don't and you don't, but those are so vague and inconsequential that "I worship daffodils" can qualify as a religion.

I have a problem with the idea that "religious reasons" for doing/wearing something should be given special treatment.

Why? Why should religious beliefs be any more important than any other personal convictions?

Silence, lest ye be cast into the FIERY PIT!


...yeah I think that sums it up about as succinctly as possible.

I have a problem with the idea that "religious reasons" for doing/wearing something should be given special treatment.

Why? Why should religious beliefs be any more important than any other personal convictions?

because the constitution places specific emphasis on the protection of ones religious beliefs.

because the constitution places specific emphasis on the protection of ones religious beliefs.
So?

Great, so we should protect religious freedoms. How does that equate to saying that individuals should have special freedoms that are only protected if they claim religion as their excuse?

The way I see it, the Constitution particularly emphasizes that we shouldn't infringe on religious freedoms. But it also specifically and clearly states that religious belief is NOT a suitable excuse for breaking the common rules that bind us all. ALL CITIZENS are bound by the same laws, and they can't use their personal faith to get out of that.

It isn't a religion. He doesn't have any sort of actual belief set that compells him to dress like a pirate. He is just doing it to piss people off and make a point.



You really need your head examined if you actually believe that this person believes in FSM'sm even though the whole point if it is a parody religion.

And you entirely miss the entire point of this. Pastafarianism meets basically every tenant of religion that has been articulated. It has a belief structure, mythos, religious practices, core beliefs, a religious heirarchy, anything you can use to demonstrate a religion, you can apply to pastafarianism.

Someone wearing a cross is afforded religious protection. Can you PROVE he's not christian? No.

Someone wearing a kippah is afforded religious protection. Can you PROVE he's not jewish? No.

Can you prove that this kid doesn't believe it? No.

It isn't a religion. He doesn't have any sort of actual belief set that compells him to dress like a pirate. He is just doing it to piss people off and make a point.



You really need your head examined if you actually believe that this person believes in FSM'sm even though the whole point if it is a parody religion.

Personally I find his supposed belief about as silly as most of the major religions ... I dont find it any more hard to believe that he might believe in the mock religion then people who believe in other religions

Personally even if he does not believe in it I applaud him for pointing out how silly religions really are, I like this young man already he had the conviction to either really believe or to stand up to the accepted standard

With so many worse things that a student could be doing with his time, he is just fine by me

So?

So...the constitution says religion is afforded extra protection, so it gets extra protection.

Great, so we should protect religious freedoms. How does that equate to saying that individuals should have special freedoms that are only protected if they claim religion as their excuse?

The way I see it, the Constitution particularly emphasizes that we shouldn't infringe on religious freedoms. But it also specifically and clearly states that religious belief is NOT a suitable excuse for breaking the common rules that bind us all. ALL CITIZENS are bound by the same laws, and they can't use their personal faith to get out of that.

Ahh, but here we run into the problem of the "make no law" bit. All citizens are bound by the same laws, BUT those laws can not limit ones religious practices, absent a compelling state reason.

The idea that we are bound by the same laws misses the fundamental principle that those laws CAN NOT limit religion, that's kinda the point.

So?

Great, so we should protect religious freedoms. How does that equate to saying that individuals should have special freedoms that are only protected if they claim religion as their excuse?

The way I see it, the Constitution particularly emphasizes that we shouldn't infringe on religious freedoms. But it also specifically and clearly states that religious belief is NOT a suitable excuse for breaking the common rules that bind us all. ALL CITIZENS are bound by the same laws, and they can't use their personal faith to get out of that.Is dressing up as a pirate an act of breaking the common rules?

So...the constitution says religion is afforded extra protection, so it gets extra protection.

I don't think it does say that. I think it emphasizes that we aren't supposed to fuck with religious freedoms, but I don't think it says that religious freedoms are supposed to be held more sacred than (for instance) freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc.


Ahh, but here we run into the problem of the "make no law" bit. All citizens are bound by the same laws, BUT those laws can not limit ones religious practices, absent a compelling state reason.

If you're talking about the "make no law" bit of the First Amendment, you should probably read the whole thing.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc are all listed in there, just like "an establishment of religion" is. So why should we assume that religious freedoms are supposed to be regarded as special or more important than these other freedoms?


The idea that we are bound by the same laws misses the fundamental principle that those laws CAN NOT limit religion, that's kinda the point.
I'm not arguing for laws restricting freedom of religion. I'm saying that I don't see why RELIGIOUS speech or RELIGIOUS actions are supposed to be given special treatment compared to secular speech or actions.

Why should it matter if the kid in question was "practicing his religion" as opposed to, say, expressing a political belief? Or asserting a secular philosophical belief? Why should religious beliefs, in particular, be protected, if secular beliefs--however strongly held--are not afforded equal respect?

Is dressing up as a pirate an act of breaking the common rules?
I don't know.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a kid being told to quit being disruptive. I don't have a problem with schools maintaining standards of what is and is not acceptable dress.

What I have a problem with is the idea that it would be okay for him to be disruptive, if only he invoked religious superstition as a justification.

I believe that ALL people, religious or not, should be held to the same standards of conduct. If wearing a certain garment is against the rules, then it should be against the rules for everybody. If it is permitted, it should be permitted for everybody.

Why should it matter if the kid in question was "practicing his religion" as opposed to, say, expressing a political belief?

Because that's what he said he was doing. He didn't say it was a political belief, or a philosophical belief. He is claiming it was a religious reason, and thus we're discussing it in the context of religion. That's the point of this thread, he has claimed it as RELIGIOUS justification. Not political.

It "should matter" because that is the right he is asserting, the right ot make a religious statement. NOt a political one. Why in the world would I be discussing the merits of a political statement he didn't make? He claims to have made a RELIGIOUS statement and therefore I am analyzing it as such.

It shouldn't, and generally, ti doesn't. Political speech is held in the same vein as religious speech.

He however is claiming it was a religious reason, and thus we're discussing it in the context of religion. That's the point of this thread, he has claimed it as RELIGIOUS justification. Not political.

Why in the world would I be discussing the merits of a political statement he didn't make? He claims to have made a RELIGIOUS statement and therefore I am analyzing it as such.
I know, and that's what I'm analyzing as well.

I'm saying that the reason I think this is BS is specifically BECAUSE of the idea that religious statements should get special protection. I'm saying that, regardless of my feelings toward pirates or the FSM, the key point is that it is wrong to try to claim special rights or status for "religious reasons."

In other words, I'm not trying to stick it to Christians or other majority groups who abuse their status, and I'm not trying to stick it to the man for granting special perks to certain religions while denying those perks to other religions. I'm saying that the entire problem is the notion that religious speech is more important than other speech, or that religious expression should be treated with more respect than other personal expression.

Don't be silly. We all know his costume is for political not religious reasons so there is no point in pursuing this rout.
Firstly, we dont know, secondly false dilema. If you cannot detect the political overtones in say the Old Testament, you are simply not looking.


The entire point is we cannot prove that Christians truely believe that a Great Sky Wizard who is all merciful and all loving created them and sent his son to die in order that only those who believe the son died for their sins and is their salvation might be saved, whilst in his/her/its mercy and love neglecting to give large volumes of people any opportunity to know much less believe, and so in effect relegating those millions if not billions of people to hell. Some might claim such a belief is a joke. Some might have trouble seeing how anyone could believe such things, some might refuse to believe that they do. We cant prove any which way whether anyone claiming adherence to a religion really believes.


The fact of the parodic beginnings of the religion in question prove nothing that cannot be countered by the ascertion "He moves in mysterious and noodlous ways'.

There is nothing in this world that proves a divine creator cannot choose to reveal themselves by inspiring a prophet to speak divine truths whilst believing themselves to be perpetrating a parody. Certainly the 8 'I'd really rather you didnts' have every appearance of divine inspiration, so who is to say they are not divinely inspired by a mysterious moving Flying Spaghetti Monster. If that is the case then there is every possibility that the Pastafarian profit may himself be ignorant as to the divine and truthful nature of his ascertions simply because the Flying Spaghetti Monster chooses for it to be so.

If a divine creationist Flying Spaghetti Monster can choose to falsify radio carbon dating results, why not choose to reveal his divine pasta goodness in a way that gives all the freedom to choose to worship or not. Indeed many Christians are happy to claim that God chooses not to better confirm his/her/its presence in order to facilitate free will since direct and undeniable proof of God's existence would create cohersion amongst anyone not too keen to spend eternity in burning in the firey pits of hell.

In short religion has never been seperate from politics, and we've no more or less reason to believe this person believes the religion they claim than we have to believe anyone else's ascertions as to their religious beliefs.

I don't think it does say that.
Hey Bottle, where'd you get your law degree?

I don't know.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a kid being told to quit being disruptive. I don't have a problem with schools maintaining standards of what is and is not acceptable dress.

What I have a problem with is the idea that it would be okay for him to be disruptive, if only he invoked religious superstition as a justification.

I believe that ALL people, religious or not, should be held to the same standards of conduct. If wearing a certain garment is against the rules, then it should be against the rules for everybody. If it is permitted, it should be permitted for everybody.The real problem seems to me that there are folks who get special treatment because of their religion. There was this case of a Rastafarian kid who was told to cut off his dreads and appear in school with a proper hair cut, and then he and his parents made a fuss based on their "religion" (which in no way demands dreads). And there many worse examples. If there are rules then there must be no exceptions, least of all for religions causes.

I know, and that's what I'm analyzing as well.

I'm saying that the reason I think this is BS is specifically BECAUSE of the idea that religious statements should get special protection. I'm saying that, regardless of my feelings toward pirates or the FSM, the key point is that it is wrong to try to claim special rights or status for "religious reasons."

The problem is the constitution seperates religion, and expression into two different catagories. Now the analysis is pretty much the same, but none the less, the constitution itself seperates them into two areas, religion, and expression.

Now they overlap, a TON, and the problem is when dealing with rules, and exceptions. For instance, a school may have compelling reasons against students wearing jewelry, but that still can't really stop them from letting students wear a cross.

You're saying that if a christian can wear a cross, why can't you wear a necklace with an entirely nondenominational pendant, same rights and all.
They get jewelry, you get jewelry.

The problem with that is, the constitution does protect religion, and it does protect expression. That cross is religion. THe banner "bong hits for jesus" is expression.

The pretty necklace is neither, you are neither exercising religion nor making a statement.

So a school can't stop you from wearing a cross, they can't stop you from waving a bong hits for Jesus banner, but they can stop you from wearing a necklass that is neither religion nor expression. And is that wrong?

No, not really, for it is neither religion, nor expression.

The problem is the constitution seperates religion, and expression into two different catagories. Now the analysis is pretty much the same, but none the less, the constitution itself seperates them into two areas, religion, and expression.

Now they overlap, a TON, and the problem is when dealing with rules, and exceptions. For instance, a school may have compelling reasons against students wearing jewelry, but that still can't really stop them from letting students wear a cross.

You're saying that if a christian can wear a cross, why can't you wear a necklace with an entirely nondenominational pendant, same rights and all.
They get jewelry, you get jewelry.

The problem with that is, the constitution does protect religion, and it does protect expression. That cross is religion. THe banner "bong hits for jesus" is expression.

The pretty necklace is neither, you are neither exercising religion nor making a statement.
I don't see how you can make that last assumption. Just because some other people may judge your "statement" to be less important than somebody else's, I don't see why that should matter. Personally, I think "I want to wear a pretty necklace" is a far more important statement than "Jesus wants me to wear a pretty necklace," but I don't think my personal opinion should determine who gets to wear what.


So a school can't stop you from wearing a cross, they can't stop you from waving a bong hits for Jesus banner, but they can stop you from wearing a necklass that is neither religion nor expression. And is that wrong?

No, not really, for it is neither religion, nor expression.
Sure it's expression. The fact that some people deem it to be less significant or important is beside the point.

What "expression" are you talking about? Expression of what? :confused:

No, it is absolutely not. The only reason that the student came into school was to piss people off, it was 100% nothing to do with religion. You cannot come into a school wearing a pirate uniform and that is it.

Whether or not he believes in it, Pastafarianism(sp?) is a certified religion. His beliefs and dress are protected by his First Amendment rights, and the school can't legally stop him from dressing as such.

I don't see how you can make that last assumption. Just because some other people may judge your "statement" to be less important than somebody else's, I don't see why that should matter. Personally, I think "I want to wear a pretty necklace" is a far more important statement than "Jesus wants me to wear a pretty necklace," but I don't think my personal opinion should determine who gets to wear what.


Sure it's expression. The fact that some people deem it to be less significant or important is beside the point.

Ah yes, but here in lies the problem. You are an adult. Minors are not. You as an adult have the full compliment of rights. It is generally agreed that minors do not (if you disagree with this, that's a whole other issue).

So minors don't have all the rights adults do, but they have SOME. So the trick is to find out just where their rights are. So in doing so the courts have looked at where rights should not be curtailed, even for minors. And through historical analysis, viewing the history of the nation, the views of its framers, it's been generally decided that in the realm of "free expression" two forms of expression are considered so fundamentally important to a free society that it is improper to restrict them, even for minors who we agree have their rights restricted in other fashions.

Thos are relgious, and political. YOU as an adult get the full range of free expression. Minors don't. But courts have held that that the freedom of religious expression and political expression are so vital to a free society that they can not be restricted even from minors.

Now again, disagree with this if you wish, but the idea still stands that minors don't have the full rights they get only those rights that are so vital as not even they can be denied them. And looking at the historical context of our nation, it's been held that political expression, and religious expression are of such paramount importance that even minors enjoy them.

On the other hand, the right of free expression to wear a necklass because it makes you feel pretty has not been held to be of such paramount importance that even minors get it.

That's the point, YOU do, you're an adult. Minors don't get full rights, so it's a matter of finding WHICH rights they still have.

Pastafarianism is silly.

No sillier than any other religion. That's the whole point.

It doens't need proof. It could not be more obvious.

To be fair, one could say the same thing of Scientology, which started out in science fiction books. And yet people have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

an important question in my mind is does the school have a uniform or is it casual? (almost all schools here have a uniform which you have to wear),At my old school some specific religious symbols and artifacts were allowed, most were not. (I also went to a single sex school so no issues with veils etc.)
If it has a uniform then he should have worn it, regardless of religious political or other views, if its casual then where is the problem?

Who here says we should pool some cash and send this guy a bottle of rum? :D

No, this religion is not real.

Thank you oh mighty arbitrator of the reality of peoples religions. Any more religions you want to declare fake?

Yes but it still isn't the same thing in the slightest. Muslims are very sensitive about their culture and background and I can see the incentive in trying to keep the peace and not stir up discontent by stopping them from "being muslim" so to speak. This "pastafarian" couldn't really give a flying shit whether he was able to wear his pirate costume or not though, on the other hand.

You know him personally then?

Don't be silly. We all know his costume is for political not religious reasons so there is no point in pursuing this rout.

No, we don't actually know that.

an important question in my mind is does the school have a uniform or is it casual? (almost all schools here have a uniform which you have to wear),At my old school some specific religious symbols and artifacts were allowed, most were not. (I also went to a single sex school so no issues with veils etc.)
If it has a uniform then he should have worn it, regardless of religious political or other views, if its casual then where is the problem?

Nope, entirely irrelevant question.

Pastafarianism is, as you're all well aware, a joke religion created by an opponent of creationism - I believe it was Kansas where he wrote to the board of education to request the Pastafarianist theory of how the Earth began be taught alongside intelligent design and evolution. This I have no problems about, to force the teaching of intelligent design is stupid beyond belief, and anything that highlights it is good by me.

Where I get hazy is when someone who is perfectly aware it is a joke religion cries discrimination. The school asked him to take his eyepatch off, a symbol of the joke religion in question but not an unfair request, and this kid blew it up into something much larger. The school is in the right here, to say otherwise is to give Pastafarianism more cadence as a religion than is warranted.

Maybe this is how all major religions started. :p

There is no requirement that something not be a joke for it to be a religion, I'd have thought that much ought to be clear to anyone with a sense of humour. It's not up to either the US government or US government funded agencies to dictate to their citizens whether or not something ought to be established as a religion. Such an option is explicitly excluded by the Consitution.

Well, that's fine. On that note, I've just started a Christian sect called "Murderism", it's based on the one principle that murder is actually God's will (particularly when you look on the Old Testament), and so murder of any non-members of my sect is perfectly legal. It goes hand-in-hand with the Group of the Sacred Banana (which states that God, rather than being human-like, is actually a banana).

So, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to kill some people at church then replace the crucifix with an inflatable banana.

Well, that's fine. On that note, I've just started a Christian sect called "Murderism", it's based on the one principle that murder is actually God's will (particularly when you look on the Old Testament), and so murder of any non-members of my sect is perfectly legal. It goes hand-in-hand with the Group of the Sacred Banana (which states that God, rather than being human-like, is actually a banana).

So, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to kill some people at church then replace the crucifix with an inflatable banana.

<checks thread for someone saying that religion gives people the right to violate the law>

Nope, doesn't seem to be there.

I never said that I approved. But some may argue that religion is more of a fundamental right then respecting shcool rules.



It doens't need proof. It could not be more obvious.


Oh I see. It's just "obvious" that the kid has no honest belief in this thing. I like it when people say things are "obvious", as it usually means 'I can't actually think of any specific proof, but I have a general objection to this.'

Anyway... assuming you're serious: it couldn't be less obvious. Do any of us know the kid? Do any of us know more about the story? No. We don't have any idea whether or not he honestly believes in Pastafarianism. Just becaue a religion started as a joke / critique of the Creationist theory, it doesn't mean that everyone has to see it only in those terms for evermore.

Oh I see. It's just "obvious" that the kid has no honest belief in this thing. I like it when people say things are "obvious", as it usually means 'I can't actually think of any specific proof, but I have a general objection to this.'

Anyway... assuming you're serious: it couldn't be less obvious. Do any of us know the kid? Do any of us know more about the story? No. We don't have any idea whether or not he honestly believes in Pastafarianism. Just becaue a religion started as a joke / critique of the Creationist theory, it doesn't mean that everyone has to see it only in those terms for evermore.

Ramen my brother/sister/non-gendered clump of noodley goodness.

Absolutely the school is wrong.

Actually, I think students should be permitted to go to school dressed in full pirate regalia whatever their reasons, as long as it isn't to intimidate someone or promote hatred.

Absolutely the school is wrong.

Actually, I think students should be permitted to go to school dressed in full pirate regalia whatever their reasons, as long as it isn't to intimidate someone or promote hatred.
It is simply impossible to dress as a pirate and not intimidate people.

It is simply impossible to dress as a pirate and not intimidate people.

I meant specifically to intimidate someone.

Say, if it for whatever reason signified some sort of threat.

It is simply impossible to dress as a pirate and not intimidate people.I don't know, but if you dress as Jack Sparrow... :p

It is simply impossible to dress as a pirate and not intimidate people.


Bah.....Pirates don't intimidate me, I'm a ninja.


***fading back into the board***

I don't know, but if you dress as Jack Sparrow... :p

"Oy, pass the rum while I put braids in me 'air."

Johnny Depp's the man, but honestly, wtf.

"Oy, pass the rum while I put braids in me 'air."
Johnny Depp's the man, but honestly, wtf.I was only trying to point out that pirates are not necessarily intimidating, savvy? :rolleyes:
And surely a boy dressing as a pirate is not intimidating at all.

I meant specifically to intimidate someone.

Say, if it for whatever reason signified some sort of threat.

*throws a generic witticism at you*

I was only trying to point out that pirates are not necessarily intimidating, savvy? :rolleyes:
And surely a boy dressing as a pirate is not intimidating at all.

Bloody pirates, the lot of you. I'll see you hung before noon. You are perhaps the worst pirate I have ever heard of.

Absolutely the school is wrong.

Actually, I think students should be permitted to go to school dressed in full pirate regalia whatever their reasons, as long as it isn't to intimidate someone or promote hatred.

Yeah, they SHOULD be careful not to offend the land-lubbers, though. ;)

I was only trying to point out that pirates are not necessarily intimidating, savvy? :rolleyes:
And surely a boy dressing as a pirate is not intimidating at all.

Maybe the principal is an eunuch? :D

Bloody pirates, the lot of you. I'll see you hung before noon. You are perhaps the worst pirate I have ever heard of.

But you HAVE heard of me.

Now that makes me really sad. The people at our school don't really care when I wear my pirate stuff on fridays. They just give me funny looks.

Yeah. I and about seven of my friends dressed up in full pirate regalia and went around singing pirate songs all day. Hell, we skipped practically every class to go around to each room (including some of the ones we skipped) and sung and what-not.

Granted, that was the end of the year last year when nothing happens, but still.

Bah.....Pirates don't intimidate me, I'm a ninja.


***fading back into the board***

Worthless, you are. You are not a Nirate, like I (and a small band of friends).

I believe the term we use for cases like this, is, when applied to the school, "GOTCHA! BEO-TCHES!"

At least if they are pastafarians:

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!
Pastafarianism is not an integral part of any culture or cultural identity. It was invented on the 'internets' for 'the lulz'.

Not that I care so much; I don't agree with school uniforms or dress codes.

Dude, this is priceless.:D

I love the way Christians get all uppity about the FSM....

I was only trying to point out that pirates are not necessarily intimidating, savvy? :rolleyes:
And surely a boy dressing as a pirate is not intimidating at all.

Or is that what a pirate in disguise has led you to believe?

Pastafarianism is not an integral part of any culture or cultural identity.

You're just looking in the wrong places for culture. Look at college campuses across the world. Students are living off cheap and nutritious Ramen(or some other brand of instant noodles) and various forms of grog(aka beer) and seducing wenches like there's no tomorrow. What could be more Pastafarian than that?

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

Heh heh. This proves how stupid religion is.

Heh heh. This proves how stupid religion is.
Not stupid... unless you call all culture stupid, that is... no idea how the right term is in English.... to rational like apples to oranges.

<checks thread for someone saying that religion gives people the right to violate the law>

Nope, doesn't seem to be there.

Oh, but it's my religion! I'm not violating the law, I'm just obeying the rules of my faith!

You're just looking in the wrong places for culture. Look at college campuses across the world. Students are living off cheap and nutritious Ramen(or some other brand of instant noodles) and various forms of grog(aka beer) and seducing wenches like there's no tomorrow. What could be more Pastafarian than that?

I completely agree, I live in Kansas (the state that helped inspire this "religion") there is a growing culture, especially among college students, but also in the public at large that is latching on to the FSM as a principled stance against Christian theology being forced upon us.

Personally I am thankful for the FSM and wish to be touched by his noodly appendage sometime in the near future. It will help give me hope that what I believe in can and will be recognized as equal to what others do, especially here in the heartland.

They're making global warming worse.

Could I see a chart, please?

Oh, but it's my religion! I'm not violating the law, I'm just obeying the rules of my faith!

Show me anywhere in America that someone has successfully made this legal argument in support of murder.

Hahahahahahahah....hahaha....ha....ahahhahaha!!!!

I'm sorry there is no way i can take this article, let alone this religion seriously. I can barely read it from all the laughing I'm doing. Haha thankyou I needed a good laugh today. :D :D

as long as he peace ties his broadsword the way everyone is required to at conventions!

sure america discriminates against any kind of REAL spirituality. as do most organized religeons. especialy the most dominant of them such as the cult of christerism.

=^^=
.../\...

This has nothing to do with Christianity. It's the cult of liberalism that causes this bizzare behavior. Since pirates are associated with violence, liberalism believes that they need to be banned from our culture along with anything their self-righteous liberal minds declare offensive. :headbang:

The Christianity that I know believes in allowing people to make their own decisions even if they are contrary to what we believe, not forcing everyone to conform to some far-left, liberal norm.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. It's the cult of liberalism that causes this bizzare behavior. Since pirates are associated with violence, liberalism believes that they need to be banned from our culture along with anything their self-righteous liberal minds declare offensive. :headbang:

The Christianity that I know believes in allowing people to make their own decisions even if they are contrary to what we believe, not forcing everyone to conform to some far-left, liberal norm.

This is true... Christians do love them some violence.

I love it when people make a mockery of religion. :)

This has nothing to do with Christianity. It's the cult of liberalism that causes this bizzare behavior. Since pirates are associated with violence, liberalism believes that they need to be banned from our culture along with anything their self-righteous liberal minds declare offensive. :headbang:

The Christianity that I know believes in allowing people to make their own decisions even if they are contrary to what we believe, not forcing everyone to conform to some far-left, liberal norm.

Amen! Not necessarily in historical practice, but in doctrine. Adam and Eve were given the right to go to hell in a handbasket if they so pleased, but the consequences were made known. If you have a spirituality different from mine, than great, but don't have a spirituality for the sake of hurting someone else. That ruins it, and it is not spirituality.

This is true... Christians do love them some violence.

Sounds like someone is still living in the Dark Ages. The crusades have been over for a long time - let's move on. Looking through the prism of history, I might be inclined to accept your statement. Looking at the present day, I am forced to reject same.

While I agree that there are still far-right wing conservative groups that attempt to provoke violence, I contend that these are not true Christians. If you were to study the life of Christ, you would see that He said that we should both avoid retaliation and love our neighbor.

Could I see a chart, please?


Here's your chart:
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/610/776pxpchartaz7.jpg


Sounds like someone is still living in the Dark Ages. The crusades have been over for a long time - let's move on. Looking through the prism of history, I might be inclined to accept your statement. Looking at the present day, I am forced to reject same.

While I agree that there are still far-right wing conservative groups that attempt to provoke violence, I contend that these are not true Christians. If you were to study the life of Christ, you would see that He said that we should both avoid retaliation and love our neighbor.


"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"
Matthew, 10:34

That's all that needs to be said.

Whoo, first post.

Oh, but it's my religion! I'm not violating the law, I'm just obeying the rules of my faith!

Like the last reductio ad absurdum response to this, it's missing a key component, and that is: Where does it state in the law that people are barred from dressing like pirates?

A point a vice-principal of my school made just a few days ago to me went something like "There are laws, and there are rules. The two are different." This is where the two examples differ. It's a rule that was broken when Bryan Killian went to school as a knockoff Bluebeard. It's a law that would be broken if someone were to commit murder in the name of their religion.

I think the crux of the matter is whether Pastafarianism has any claim as a religion (And from what I've heard, it seems to be the case, parodic as it may be) and whether Bryan Killian has claimed religious beliefs for his reason to wear the pirate outfit (which in the article, he has) and if both of those are true, whether that allows him to end-run the school's rules (This is where our information runs out; the school might have specifically ruled against all religious symbols, it might have specifically allowed them, or not ruled one way or the other. From the rest of what I've heard religious freedom still reigns supreme for minors so a ban on religious symbols might be invalid anyway). If the answer to all three questions is a yes, I see no difference between crucifixes and eyepatches.

Though it might be hard to go down the stairs. I know the perils of lousy depth-perception first-hand.

There have been vague attempts by SCOTUS and others to come up with sort of a "test", IE meet these you're a religion, don't and you don't, but those are so vague and inconsequential that "I worship daffodils" can qualify as a religion.

You just offended anyone who believes in the mythology of daffodils. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to get druids angry at you.

(Caution: Gaudy, overly vibrant colour-scheme ahead.) http://www.paghat.com/narcissusmyth1.html

James Raynor
Chief Consul of the Most Serene Republic of Enigmachina

Sounds like someone is still living in the Dark Ages. The crusades have been over for a long time - let's move on. Looking through the prism of history, I might be inclined to accept your statement. Looking at the present day, I am forced to reject same.

While I agree that there are still far-right wing conservative groups that attempt to provoke violence, I contend that these are not true Christians. If you were to study the life of Christ, you would see that He said that we should both avoid retaliation and love our neighbor.But why is the US in Iraq again? And why does the US hunt Muslims as terrorists again? Out of love?

Not stupid... unless you call all culture stupid, that is... no idea how the right term is in English.... to rational like apples to oranges.

Meh. I just never liked the concept. I hope I'm not turning into UB.

I completely agree, I live in Kansas (the state that helped inspire this "religion") there is a growing culture, especially among college students, but also in the public at large that is latching on to the FSM as a principled stance against Christian theology being forced upon us.

Personally I am thankful for the FSM and wish to be touched by his noodly appendage sometime in the near future. It will help give me hope that what I believe in can and will be recognized as equal to what others do, especially here in the heartland.

Another believer! Bless you, child. rAmen and Noodleooyah!!

Meh. I just never liked the concept. I hope I'm not turning into UB.

Nah, you're just a teenager. You aren't old enough to be bitter and spiteful.

Edit: An angsty bee-otch, maybe, but not bitter and spiteful :p

Sounds like someone is still living in the Dark Ages. The crusades have been over for a long time - let's move on. Looking through the prism of history, I might be inclined to accept your statement. Looking at the present day, I am forced to reject same.

While I agree that there are still far-right wing conservative groups that attempt to provoke violence, I contend that these are not true Christians. If you were to study the life of Christ, you would see that He said that we should both avoid retaliation and love our neighbor.

I have studied the life of Christ and it wasn't his nice messages that turned me away from religion.

I guess the law is different overseas, but I'm fairly sure you can wear turbans in school in New Jersey.

Come to think of it, I'm damn sure you can.

In fact, I recall reading about some school that allowed a student to carry a kirpan, which is a ritual dagger. I think it was in Quebec. There's a guy at my university who is always dressed like a Tibetan monk.

I have studied the life of Christ and it wasn't his nice messages that turned me away from religion.

"Dear Lord, protect me from your followers"

"Dear Lord, protect me from your followers"
QFT! :>

In fact, I recall reading about some school that allowed a student to carry a kirpan, which is a ritual dagger. I think it was in Quebec. There's a guy at my university who is always dressed like a Tibetan monk.

Indeed, and many of the Muslim girls at my old middle school and now here in college walk around in the head scarf (I do not know what it's called. It's not the veil, it just wraps around the head and the face it totally visible. Sorry if I can't describe it/name it any better) and no one seems to care, least of all the administration.

Could I see a chart, please?

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

But why is the US in Iraq again? And why does the US hunt Muslims as terrorists again? Out of love?

If the US is hunting Muslims, that is wrong. In fact, shortly after 9/11 my congregation's youth visited a Mosque to show that Muslims are not the problem. Terrorists are the problem - regardless of their faith.

If the US is hunting terrorists, that is a different story. In either case, the war in Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion unless you believe that the war is about religion rather than self defense.

I have studied the life of Christ and it wasn't his nice messages that turned me away from religion.

Details, please?

If the US is hunting Muslims, that is wrong. In fact, shortly after 9/11 my congregation's youth visited a Mosque to show that Muslims are not the problem. Terrorists are the problem - regardless of their faith... and public office?

If the US is hunting terrorists, that is a different story. In either case, the war in Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion unless you believe that the war is about religion rather than self defense.
Self defense? That's supposed to be a joke, right?

Details, please?


Here are your details:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
Matthew 10:34-39

And, for what he told people to do, here's a list:
1. Accumulate no wealth or possessions. There is no need for them.
2. Make no plans. Give no thought to the morrow. Do not buy groceries or cook.
3. Be gloomy and mournful.
4. Be self-righteous and put-upon, holier than thou. Parade your perfection in such a way as to invite persecution.
5. Be smug and know that you are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Let everybody know this.
6. Do behave so you can be high up in the class system in heaven.
7. Think of yourself as a gross sinner. Nearly every thought you have and almost everything you do must be regarded as a sin that will require repentance and forgiveness.
8. Take no pleasure in this world. Constantly point toward the kingdom of God, the coming of which is imminent.
9. Be sure to believe that someone else bought your way into heaven by being tortured to death, a death in which you had a hand. Be comfortable in that concept of salvation.
10. Agree with everyone else.
11. Don't admit to having sexual urges. If a sight of a member of the opposite sex arouses you, pluck out your eye.
12. Be a eunuch, if you want to win special approval of God.
13. Don't have deep love for your family. Abandon them, if you want to receive a "hundredfold" and attain everlasting life in heaven for sure.
14. Be retiring, do not lead, take a back seat, do not assert yourself. Do not be proud of your accomplishment.
15. Love everybody. Have no special feeling for those who might otherwise endear themselves to you.
16. If a criminal robs you of $50, give him another $50.
17. Don't use your reason or your mind. Remain as a child, with no moral sense, ability to discriminate or make rational decisions, or experience to guide you.
18. Be gullible and credulous. Do not question or philosophize.
19. Don't resist any attacker. Let him abuse you again.
20. If you lose a lawsuit, pay double what you are assessed.
21. If someone kidnaps you and takes you five miles, offer to go ten.
22. Love all those who mistreat you. This will encourage them to continue, since they have now discovered how to win your admiration and affection.
23. Don't declare your charitable giving for income tax credit.
24. Avoid the "dogs and "swine" of this world. Save your uplifting thoughts for worthy persons.
25. Don't worry or rebel at misfortune. Be content and passive, confident you have a heavenly father who loves you so much that if you don't grovel, he'll throw you into a lake of fire forever.
26. Behave as you please most of your life and say you're sorry at the end. That way you'll get your reward before more exemplary persons at the seat of judgment.
27. Do not achieve prominence in this world, for the first shall be last in the next.
28. For special approbation, refrain from eating, pour oil on your head, and wash your face. Then take a gift to the church.

Religions about pasta and pirates are silly and stupid.

Now, religions about talking snakes and magical zombies...THOSE should be taken seriously.

I doubt anyone will completely get this but...

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2820/horusison4.png

It has a belief structure, mythos, religious practices, core beliefs, a religious heirarchy, anything you can use to demonstrate a religion, you can apply to pastafarianism.


It is invalid when the belief structure and everything to do with it is deliberately false.


Someone wearing a cross is afforded religious protection. Can you PROVE he's not christian? No.


There should never be anything wrong with anyone wearing a cross whether they are christian or not, period. If you take away peoples crosses for any reason other then it being jewelry that is akin to an Orwellian style government.


Someone wearing a kippah is afforded religious protection. Can you PROVE he's not jewish? No.

Can you prove that this kid doesn't believe it? No.

No but that is besides the point. Again I must stress I don't agree with this sort of thing, however I can see how this principle could be universilized despite whether all of them believe it or not to prevent any major discontent.

Personally I find his supposed belief about as silly as most of the major religions ... I dont find it any more hard to believe that he might believe in the mock religion then people who believe in other religions


Just listen to what you are saying. You find it as easy to believe some guy who dresses up in a pirate costume pretending to follow a religious belief that is suppost to be false, as believing that say smunkevill believes in her faith.


Personally even if he does not believe in it I applaud him for pointing out how silly religions really are, I like this young man already he had the conviction to either really believe or to stand up to the accepted standard


Yes because people are forced to be christian :rolleyes:


With so many worse things that a student could be doing with his time, he is just fine by me

He is still breaking the school rules, and the school is perfectly justified in punishing him accordingly.

Nah, you're just a teenager. You aren't old enough to be bitter and spiteful.

Edit: An angsty bee-otch, maybe, but not bitter and spiteful :p

Yeah, thanks.

Details, please?

Details about what? Jesus was a nice guy who got nailed to a plank for being uncomfortably good to people. Sucky. It's his followers who turned me off. Just like the KISS Army ruined that band for me. I can never take that group seriously now.

Here are your details:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."
Matthew 10:34-39

And, for what he told people to do, here's a list:
1. Accumulate no wealth or possessions. There is no need for them.
2. Make no plans. Give no thought to the morrow. Do not buy groceries or cook.
3. Be gloomy and mournful.
4. Be self-righteous and put-upon, holier than thou. Parade your perfection in such a way as to invite persecution.
5. Be smug and know that you are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Let everybody know this.
6. Do behave so you can be high up in the class system in heaven.
7. Think of yourself as a gross sinner. Nearly every thought you have and almost everything you do must be regarded as a sin that will require repentance and forgiveness.
8. Take no pleasure in this world. Constantly point toward the kingdom of God, the coming of which is imminent.
9. Be sure to believe that someone else bought your way into heaven by being tortured to death, a death in which you had a hand. Be comfortable in that concept of salvation.
10. Agree with everyone else.
11. Don't admit to having sexual urges. If a sight of a member of the opposite sex arouses you, pluck out your eye.
12. Be a eunuch, if you want to win special approval of God.
13. Don't have deep love for your family. Abandon them, if you want to receive a "hundredfold" and attain everlasting life in heaven for sure.
14. Be retiring, do not lead, take a back seat, do not assert yourself. Do not be proud of your accomplishment.
15. Love everybody. Have no special feeling for those who might otherwise endear themselves to you.
16. If a criminal robs you of $50, give him another $50.
17. Don't use your reason or your mind. Remain as a child, with no moral sense, ability to discriminate or make rational decisions, or experience to guide you.
18. Be gullible and credulous. Do not question or philosophize.
19. Don't resist any attacker. Let him abuse you again.
20. If you lose a lawsuit, pay double what you are assessed.
21. If someone kidnaps you and takes you five miles, offer to go ten.
22. Love all those who mistreat you. This will encourage them to continue, since they have now discovered how to win your admiration and affection.
23. Don't declare your charitable giving for income tax credit.
24. Avoid the "dogs and "swine" of this world. Save your uplifting thoughts for worthy persons.
25. Don't worry or rebel at misfortune. Be content and passive, confident you have a heavenly father who loves you so much that if you don't grovel, he'll throw you into a lake of fire forever.
26. Behave as you please most of your life and say you're sorry at the end. That way you'll get your reward before more exemplary persons at the seat of judgment.
27. Do not achieve prominence in this world, for the first shall be last in the next.
28. For special approbation, refrain from eating, pour oil on your head, and wash your face. Then take a gift to the church.


Somehow, I knew you would quote that passage. However, I will not be drawn into a verse quoting battle. They generally drag on forever and rarely lead anywhere. Each side simply quotes passages (often out of context) to support their ideas.

As for your list... Several of these are things I've never head of, while others are either taken out of context or twisted to support your arguement.

As I stated earlier, I respect your right to your beliefs even if I disagree with them. All I ask is that you also respect mine.

Details about what? Jesus was a nice guy who got nailed to a plank for being uncomfortably good to people. Sucky. It's his followers who turned me off. Just like the KISS Army ruined that band for me. I can never take that group seriously now.

What is it about His followers that turned you off?

Please don't take my question as an attempt at confrontation. I am genuinely curious. While I know that there are some (so called) Christian groups that can turn someone off (believe me, there are many that turn me off) I honestly believe that there are others that work very hard to not turn people off.

What is it about His followers that turned you off?

Please don't take my question as an attempt at confrontation. I am genuinely curious. While I know that there are some (so called) Christian groups that can turn someone off (believe me, there are many that turn me off) I honestly believe that there are others that work very hard to not turn people off.

As far as the less aggravating groups go, maybe it has to do with the group mentality itself. I'm more of a "show me by doing" type of guy when it comes to philosophical matters and I believe the existence of God is unknowable no matter what a person happens to feel. I think that there are things to be learned from all people and not just a certain type or a group that believes in one certain thing. So, you for instance might have very good things to say and have things I can learn from but I'm going to choose what works for me and what doesn't.

Show me anywhere in America that someone has successfully made this legal argument in support of murder.

It would be a stretch, but there have been cases where parents have allowed their children to die rather than have them treated for medical emergencies because of religious prohibitions. I think you could reasonably call that murder by neglect.

As far as the less aggravating groups go, maybe it has to do with the group mentality itself. I'm more of a "show me by doing" type of guy when it comes to philosophical matters and I believe the existence of God is unknowable no matter what a person happens to feel. I think that there are things to be learned from all people and not just a certain type or a group that believes in one certain thing. So, you for instance might have very good things to say and have things I can learn from but I'm going to choose what works for me and what doesn't.

Thank you for this excellent response. This is a position that I can definately respect. Choosing what works for you and what doesn't is certainly the way things should be.

Your statement that "there are things to be learned from all people" is one of the greatest truths I've read on the internet in a long time. I applaud you for this statement.

At least if they are pastafarians:


http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

What do you think? I think the school is wrong here! Other religions might seem as weird to us as the abrahanic religions seem to them!

A school is a place of learning, and a pirate costume would have distracted students from learning. Does the constitution protect the right to disrupt class now? :headbang:

A school is a place of learning, and a pirate costume would have distracted students from learning. Does the constitution protect the right to disrupt class now? :headbang:

So I take it you support the removal of cross necklaces and kippahs? They are just as disruptive to the class.

A school is a place of learning, and a pirate costume would have distracted students from learning. Does the constitution protect the right to disrupt class now? :headbang:

There's a solution for that. Pirate garb should be mandatory! That way no one will notice anyone in a pirate garb! :D

They could also rename the school Jack Sparrow High! :D

if the dude can't come in pirate attire, mideasterners shouldn't be able to wear turbans either.

if the dude can't come in pirate attire, mideasterners shouldn't be able to wear turbans either.

And Christians shouldn't be able to wear crosses.

if the dude can't come in pirate attire, mideasterners shouldn't be able to wear turbans either.

Can I assume you're referring to Islamic men? They don't wear turbans. Sikhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh) wear turbans. Well, Sikh men. Men in the middle east wear keffiyehs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh). thank you, wikipedia!

It does mention keffiyehs being worn as turbans, though.

So I take it you support the removal of cross necklaces and kippahs? They are just as disruptive to the class.

fine

fine

So you're willing to go to such lenghts just so people can't wear pirate outfits in class? You're an anti-pirite! :p

So you're willing to go to such lenghts just so people can't wear pirate outfits in class? You're an anti-pirite! :p

NINJA!!!!!!!!!!

NINJA!!!!!!!!!!

*uses ninja powers to sneak up behind you, and uses pirate powers to slice you into pieces with a parrot*

Nirate ftw

A school is a place of learning, and a pirate costume would have distracted students from learning. Does the constitution protect the right to disrupt class now? :headbang:

Come on now. Is a pirate costume really any more disruptive than what goth kids wear? Or emo kids? Really?

Come on now. Is a pirate costume really any more disruptive than what goth kids wear? Or emo kids? Really?

They're all disruptive. I got goth and emo dress banned at my school. :) I was one of the good students who got freaked out by them. I hope they ban it in other schools too.

They're all disruptive. I got goth and emo dress banned at my school. :) I was one of the good students who got freaked out by them. I hope they ban it in other schools too.

And if I find jeans and t-shirts disruptive, should I then try to make a case for forcing everyone to wear clown costumes instead? Why be a douche?

And if I find jeans and t-shirts disruptive, should I then try to make a case for forcing everyone to wear clown costumes instead? Why be a douche?

Because, eventually, you'll ban all clothes. :p

thats where uniforms come in. Studies show that students in uniform care less about their appearance and focus more on studies.

as I find myself saying quite often when I talk to you...source?

Because, eventually, you'll ban all clothes. :p

thats where uniforms come in. Studies show that students in uniform care less about their appearance and focus more on studies.

If everyone in school had no clothes THAT would be a distraction.... Yuk, 50 year old teachers and 70 year old subs....:eek: teenagers noticing the opposite or same sex (depending on your sexual orientation) more....:eek:

as I find myself saying quite often when I talk to you...source?

I heard it from someone I trust whose hardcore on the subject of education. I beleive him. Logistically if your less worried about your appearance you focus more on school. Are you arguing that US teenagers don't carefully about what they put on in fear of being shunned or becoming unpopular?

I heard it from someone I trust whose hardcore on the subject of education. I beleive him.

So in other words you have no source for your claims.

Are you arguing that US teenagers don't carefully about what they put on in fear of being shunned or becoming unpopular?

I have not argued a single thing. I asked you to provide a source for your claims, which apparently you are unable to do. "I heard it from someone" who has the credentials of "hardcore" is not a valid source for anything.

I heard it from someone I trust whose hardcore on the subject of education. I beleive him. Logistically if your less worried about your appearance you focus more on school. Are you arguing that US teenagers don't carefully about what they put on in fear of being shunned or becoming unpopular?

I'm a US teenager, and I sure don't. Hell, I threw on a bunch of fabric I acquired from my mother, sewed it quickly together, and came dressed to school as a Cardinal of the catholic church. I even went around blessing people. :p

Religions about pasta and pirates are silly and stupid.

Now, religions about talking snakes and magical zombies...THOSE should be taken seriously.

SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS!

So in other words you have no source for your claims.



I have not argued a single thing. I asked you to provide a source for your claims, which apparently you are unable to do. "I heard it from someone" who has the credentials of "hardcore" is not a valid source for anything.

You won't accept 'hardcore' sources?!?!?!? What the hell's your problem? What, you demand, like, news articles? Honestly, stop being so difficult.

So in other words you have no source for your claims.



I have not argued a single thing. I asked you to provide a source for your claims, which apparently you are unable to do. "I heard it from someone" who has the credentials of "hardcore" is not a valid source for anything.

For smeg sake, logistically people focus better once the whole fashion thing is off their chests.

the whole fashion thing is off their chests.

...:D

For smeg sake, logistically people focus better once the whole fashion thing is off their chests.

Sounds to me like you're the only one around here with a problem about it. Are you saying that the pressure to be fashionable is harming your ability to learn? Maybe you ought to grow a set.

logistically

You keep using this word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

people focus better once the whole fashion thing is off their chests.

I'm unaware of why most students would be concerned with what to wear to school once they're, you know, IN school. Moreover I would think likewise that students would be LESS inclined to participate in a school that seeks to micromanage their lives to such an extent.

Sounds to me like you're the only one around here with a problem about it. Are you saying that the pressure to be fashionable is harming your ability to learn? Maybe you ought to grow a set.

Its obviously harming others, I observe you know. Other teenagers were more focused on their clothing and dress styles that it disrupted their learning and others.

Its obviously harming others,

If you can't provide a SINGLE shred of proof, how is this obvious in the slightest?


I observe you know. Other teenagers were more focused on their clothing and dress styles that it disrupted their learning and others.

You can read minds too then eh?

You can read minds too then eh?

Your ability to twist words and meaning to demonise the object of your hatred makes me chuckle.

I overhear people rant on about their clothing and how they look. I can see people with my eyes and hear with my ears. I dunno about you, you probably lack those things in that your only sense seems to articles and weblinks. :cool:

If you can't provide a SINGLE shred of proof, how is this obvious in the slightest?

Where I live its obvious when the topic of fashion is mentioned so many times your head nearly explodes by the days end due to the subject's monotony.

Its obviously harming others, I observe you know. Other teenagers were more focused on their clothing and dress styles that it disrupted their learning and others.

As an educator, I'm far more worried about the effects of the large amounts of caffeine and high fructose corn syrup my students take in every day than any fashion issue. I worry more about the amount of debt they're being forced to take on or the number of jobs they're having to work to pay tuition because the Pell Grant system and other financial aid is falling way short. In short, fashion being a distraction is about as close to the bottom of my list of concerns about student progress as it can get while actually being on the list. There are larger issues at play here.

Your ability to twist words and meaning to demonise the object of your hatred makes me chuckle.

If you think I "hate" you, or really have strong feelings about you one way or the other, you greatly overestimate yourself.

I overhear people rant on about their clothing and how they look. I can see people with my eyes and hear with my ears. I dunno about you, you probably lack those things in that your only sense seems to articles and weblinks. :cool:

Well my neighbor X'lathix from the planet Privlup says that dress codes actually cause more distruptive students. I believe him, because of that big brain of his...but it's kinda gross how it's all on the outside.

You believe any of that?

Here's one little question for you junior.

Why should I believe you? Why should I believe what you have to say? Why should I believe what you claim to have heard? you are not a valid source. You do not have credibility.

Where I live its obvious when the topic of fashion is mentioned so many times your head nearly explodes by the days end due to the subject's monotony.

Just because you don't want to hear about it doesn't mean you get to decide what other people talk about.

If you think I "hate" you, or really have strong feelings about you one way or the other, you greatly overestimate yourself.



Well my neighbor X'lathix from the planet Privlup says that dress codes actually cause more distruptive students. I believe him, because of that big brain of his...but it's kinda gross how it's all on the outside.

You believe any of that?

Here's one little question for you junior.

Why should I believe you? Why should I believe what you have to say? Why should I believe what you claim to have heard? you are not a valid source. You do not have credibility.



Just because you don't want to hear about it doesn't mean you get to decide what other people talk about.

The sooner I get a mobile recorder the sooner I get to prove that I saw and heard the things I saw...

The sooner I get a mobile recorder the sooner I get to prove that I saw and heard the things I saw...

Careful kid, recording other people's conversations is illegal in most states.

More to point, still wouldn't actually prove your point. Nobody has said people don't talk about clothes. YOU have said they talk about clothes AND THIS AFFECTS THEIR PERFORMANCE.

To validate your point, this isn't enough, you need to show us:

1) that this conversation has an affect on their performance
2) that uniforms would lessen this conversation (people won't wear their uniforms out of class you know)
3) that the uniforms won't cause NEW issues even greater than the issues you've lessened

You haven't done any of these 3.

Come on now. Is a pirate costume really any more disruptive than what goth kids wear? Or emo kids? Really?

When I was a student I remember there being several girls who were quite distracting no matter WHAT they were wearing. Should we then ban girls?

When I was a student I remember there being several girls who were quite distracting no matter WHAT they were wearing. Should we then ban girls?

We should go back to the good 'ol days when boys and girls went to seperate buildings. That way student's would be less distracted by the opposite sex and focus more on work.

thats where uniforms come in. Studies show that students in uniform care less about their appearance and focus more on studies.

Yes it would be much less distracting if all the girls were wearing catholic school girl uniforms. :rolleyes:

Yes it would be much less distracting if all the girls were wearing catholic school girl uniforms. :rolleyes:

like the uniforms can't be modified to reduce the level of distraction....

We should go back to the good 'ol days when boys and girls went to seperate buildings. That way student's would be less distracted by the opposite sex and focus more on work.

the fact that you define that as the good old days says a lot about you.

For smeg sake, logistically people focus better once the whole fashion thing is off their chests.

:D

the fact that you define that as the good old days says a lot about you.

Anything before the 60s and after the 19th century is what I call the "good 'ol days"

We should go back to the good 'ol days when boys and girls went to seperate buildings. That way student's would be less distracted by the opposite sex and focus more on work.

And then when they got to the real world with no idea how to act around the opposite sex in a professional setting, then what?

And then when they got to the real world with no idea how to act around the opposite sex in a professional setting, then what?

Thats what sex ed is for. Plus back in the day when boys and girls had separate school buildings they were still able to mingle with each other during breaks and lunches.

We should go back to the good 'ol days when boys and girls went to seperate buildings. That way student's would be less distracted by the opposite sex and focus more on work.

I dunno, I think that would have distracted me more. And I probably would have had more sex in high school.

like the uniforms can't be modified to reduce the level of distraction....

I wonder if some of the designers of a lot of muslem womens traditional garb were thinking the same thing ...

So the idea is guys cant control them selfs so women must cover up

Disgusting

You keep using this word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

S. Liz - Are you a 19th Century schoolmarm?

Inconceivable!

S. Liz - Are you a 19th Century schoolmarm?

I was born in the wrong century... :(

I was born in the wrong century... :(

Depends. If I give you a ruler and set you loose on the real trolls of NSG, will that work?