A clear and distinct voice fills the air around you. Suddenly weakened, you fall to your knees. Surely, this is the voice of an angel, come to do his Noodly service.
3 Likes
You know that the Identapastafarian sect believes that colanders are required to be worn for all images made for identification purposes, right?
Itâs because of the verse âAnd His Noodliness shall recognize the faithful by the colander on their head.â Since the Noodly Appendages are acknowledged to extend into bureaucratic systems, it only makes sense.
2 Likes
âProof of faithâ ?
Someone has a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms here.
2 Likes
âProof denies faithâ, says God, âand without faith I am nothingâ
âAhâ, says Man âbut the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isnât it?â
âIt proves that you exist, so therefore you donât. QEDâ
âOh dearâ, says God, âI hadnât thought of thatâ - and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
8 Likes
Related, The supreme court is going to decide on a religious discrimination case this term.
âIn a high-stakes employment-discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch Co., the court on Thursday said it would decide employer obligations to make religious accommodations for job applicants. The case centers on a practicing Muslim in Oklahoma who alleged the clothing company declined to hire her because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.â
What do you want to bet that when it comes to an non christian individualâs right to religious freedom the court will find any technicality they can to rule in favor of corporations. As opposed to how the court created brand new law to protect the âreligious freedomâ of wealthy christian people over their employees rights.
Maybe I am wrong and the court will be consistent⌠I would be happy to be wrong about that.
3 Likes
OTOH, a person who wants to wear a turban or a headscarf in a driverâs license photo would also be likely to wear the same thing while they were driving. Itâs a strong part of their personal identity that actually makes it easier to match the subject to the photo.
Similar example: if I asked to wear a rainbow clown wig in my driverâs license photo Iâd probably tick somebody off, because they would (accurately) assume I was doing it just to mess with them. But if a balding grandmother asked to keep her wig on that would make sense, because her photo would present her as she normally appeared in public.
Sikhs who wear turbans tend not to remove their turbans under any circumstances in public because their religion âprohibits them from removing it.â If your religion does not prohibit you from removing your yarmulke or crucifix, then there is no huge burden in asking you to remove it in your ID. And if your religion does forbid you from removing it, then itâs reasonable for authorities to expect to see you wearing it when they stop you and looking like your ID picture.
2 Likes
[quote=âBill_Ellis, post:25, topic:42376, full:trueâ]What do you want to bet that when it comes to an non christian individualâs right to religious freedom the court will find any technicality they can to rule in favor of corporations. As opposed to how the court created brand new law to protect the âreligious freedomâ of wealthy christian people over their employees rights.
Maybe I am wrong and the court will be consistent⌠I would be happy to be wrong about that.
[/quote]Actually, youâre missing the point - they found in favor of corporations in the last case (itâs not the owners they sided with before, but the corporation they own). Siding against the Muslim woman here is what would be consistent.
I get why the Pastafarian religion exists, to skewer the concept of religion, but to me, itâs just reinforcing the concept of religious dogma.
If they succeed in gaining legitimacy as a new religion and are legally recognized as one, they are just adding to the problem.
We need less religion, not more.
Then his god is infringing on our lady Erisâ territory and thus is obviously overextending their divine authority.
Whatâs next, pastafarians joyously partaking of a hotdog in their pasta on a Friday?
1 Like
Sometimes when dealing with toxic substances, dilution is the solutionâŚ
4 Likes
One could say the same thing about adherence to superstitious texts.
2 Likes
My religion specifically requires me to wear silly headgear only when having ID photos taken, and discourages me from wearing such nonsense the rest of the time.
3 Likes
This is absolutely a fair point, though this isnât the way itâs framed by the government â the existence of the rule presumably exists in order to prevent religious offense in the very act of requiring a person to remove religious headgear. And itâs in this respect that the test kind of fails, too. What if we had a cancer patient who eschews wigs but wears a beanie for both physical (e.g. keep warm) and emotional (e.g. shame of chemo symptoms) reasons? By the existing rule, removing the headgear would be required because it wouldnât cause any religious offense, but it would still potentially cause offense.
Headgear such as a turban, headscarf, kippah, etc., would likely form part of a personâs identity if they wore it all the time for religious reasons. But certainly there are people who wear non-religious headgear (ball caps, beanies, whatever) â for whatever reason â while in public at all times, which likewise come to form part of their identity equally strongly, just not emerging from religious observance.
Likewise, âreligious observanceâ does not necessarily entail âpersonal identityâ â consider the still hypothetical but reasonably plausible example of a religion that doesnât require headgear at all times, but due to beliefs about the role and meaning of portraiture, photography, etc, practitioners are required to sit for such portraits in full formal dress, which includes some form of head wear. In this case, the existing rule would permit the headgear even though it forms no meaningful part of the personâs identity outside of a photo sitting.
5 Likes
Just add more tomato sauce? 
I like this very much: âAnyone can wear headgear as long as it doesnât interfere with facial recognitionâ It is far too sensible to fit in a bureaucracy.
2 Likes
âwe will always try to accommodate customers with head coverings where their faith prohibits them from removing it. Mr. Canuel could not provide us with any proof that his faith prohibits it.â
Wow. Does this mean the ICBC has a âproofâ that muslim women MUST wear the hijab? Are they in direct contact with Momo the prophet?
1 Like
Take a read through all the other religionsâ literature. There is no requirement for any religious person to wear a head-covering mentioned. These are cultural constructs, an so should apply equally to sects of Pastafarianism that decree it.
I have spoken.
How depressingly unsurprising⌠
That is some commitment.
