Date: 2018-08-17 11:25 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I think the Dutch court is probably right about Pastafarianism, but in a way that rather makes their point for them. If Pastafarianism isn't a religion, then what is? And why do we give those things a special status and not Pastafarianism.

Date: 2018-08-17 02:44 pm (UTC)
drplokta: (Default)
From: [personal profile] drplokta
The roads in that London film are implausibly clean, given the number of horse-drawn vehicles. I suspect that a lot of digital cleaning-up has suppressed some of the detail.
jack: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jack
Although the article is not that precise. It SAYS they ruled that pastafarianism isn't a religion. But the quote they provide says "It may be the case that the colander is considered a holy object for Pastafarians, worn in honour of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but there is no obligation to do so,"

That sounds like they leave the religion question open, but don't believe the colander thing specifically. I don't know which is a more accurate reflection of the ruling.

I'm really not sure what I think should happen. On the one hand, I think it's likely that Pastafarianism is more of a parody religion than a religion. On the other hand, I'd feel a lot lot more secure in my religious freedom if the state DID accept pastafarianism, because I'd be more confident they accept everything less ridiculous than that.

I suspect they're right that Pastafarians aren't ACTUALLY devoted to wearing colanders. But they probably ARE devoted to protesting racist biometric requirements. I don't know if that was considered.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 1718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 03:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios