Pastafarian

[MCB]

Discuss!

[GordonH]

I love pasta... unfortunately it raises hell with my blood sugars.

[zookeeper]

Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the onion, and the bay leaves, forever and ever.

Ramen

Everyone needs something to believe in, lightheartedly so.

[Bsuds]

I love pasta... unfortunately it raises hell with my blood sugars.

I eat whole wheat spaghetti for that reason.

[my5cents]

Discuss!

The Pastafarian has been discriminated against by government. They needed our support and sadly we let them down. An outrage !

[my5cents]

Pasta.jpg

This man couldn't even have his photo wearing his religious head gear on his driver's license

Turban vs helmet.jpg

These men, not only can have a driver's license containing a photo of them wearing their religious head gear, but they are exempt from wearing a mandated motorcycle helmet.

We are OK, with bureaucrats assessing each religion and making a determination which one in their view is legitimate ?

I, for one, think that another (neither of these) "sanctioned" religion in BC is a cult, but it seems to continue to have it's status acknowledged for tax exemptions etc.

[Babba_not_Gump]

This man couldn't even have his photo wearing his religious head gear on his driver's license

Turban vs helmet.jpg

Turban vs helmet.
Turban will lose every time, except maybe in court.

[soupy]

The movie 'Hail Satan?' on Netflix is a great watch if you are open to learning about discrimination regarding religious beliefs.

[youjustcomplain]

Pasta.jpg

This man couldn't even have his photo wearing his religious head gear on his driver's license

Turban vs helmet.jpg

These men, not only can have a driver's license containing a photo of them wearing their religious head gear, but they are exempt from wearing a mandated motorcycle helmet.

We are OK, with bureaucrats assessing each religion and making a determination which one in their view is legitimate ?

I, for one, think that another (neither of these) "sanctioned" religion in BC is a cult, but it seems to continue to have it's status acknowledged for tax exemptions etc.

Other than the mentally deranged, nobody believes in the pasta god. It's a complete farce. The only thing I don't understand is what criteria government uses to accept some beliefs and not others.

[alanjh595]

I wonder if I can form a church.

The alter would include a cook top and sink.

Services would be held Sundays around 5 PM.

Service would include wines.

The chalice would be a stock pot.

and, I would get great tax breaks for supplying all the breads being offered.

[my5cents]

Other than the mentally deranged, nobody believes in the pasta god. It's a complete farce. The only thing I don't understand is what criteria government uses to accept some beliefs and not others.

You mean compared to an invisible god, who is his own son and a ghost, that created heaven and earth in 6 days ?

Newsflash.... That's the whole point of the ridiculous pasta strainer on the head. It points out how ridiculous the whole interplay between church and state is.

What I'm saying is, that if the government considers one religion suitable, or appropriate for recognition (or whatever term you want), what gives the government the right to rule another isn't ? One religion says it's important for males to wear a cloth garment on their head, so why can't my religion dictate that I wear a pasta strainer on mine ?

[youjustcomplain]

You mean compared to an invisible god, who is his own son and a ghost, that created heaven and earth in 6 days ?

Newsflash.... That's the whole point of the ridiculous pasta strainer on the head. It points out how ridiculous the whole interplay between church and state is.

What I'm saying is, that if the government considers one religion suitable, or appropriate for recognition (or whatever term you want), what gives the government the right to rule another isn't ? One religion says it's important for males to wear a cloth garment on their head, so why can't my religion dictate that I wear a pasta strainer on mine ?

Ya, I understand that the pastafarian "faith" is designed intentionally to be a mockery of faith based organizations. And I think those organizations deserve such mockery. It's all a scam.

I'm not saying that the god so many believe in is any more realistic than the pasta god. I don't believe some god created a human son just to kill him to save the humans that god created to be sinners, then left no evidence that science could use to confirm any of it every happened or was real. The whole concept fails for me.

Problem is, government uses some criteria to decide that one faith group is valid and another isn't. If deemed valid, the group qualifies for a list of special privileges that are not offered to people outside those groups. I'm unclear what this criteria is, but if people actually cared enough, change could happen. As is though, it remains an elephant in the room that people of faith don't want to talk about because it being challenge is a challenge to the luxuries they benefit from.

Sadly, it doesn't matter if their belief is founded on reality or otherwise.
I, for one, think that in order to be fair, either everyone should quality for these tax breaks afforded to churches and faith groups, or nobody should. None of this "Lets let government decide" business. Government is supposed to represent us, but using rules from long ago doesn't reflect modern times.

[my5cents]

Ya, I understand that the pastafarian "faith" is designed intentionally to be a mockery of faith based organizations. And I think those organizations deserve such mockery. It's all a scam.

I'm not saying that the god so many believe in is any more realistic than the pasta god. I don't believe some god created a human son just to kill him to save the humans that god created to be sinners, then left no evidence that science could use to confirm any of it every happened or was real. The whole concept fails for me.

Problem is, government uses some criteria to decide that one faith group is valid and another isn't. If deemed valid, the group qualifies for a list of special privileges that are not offered to people outside those groups. I'm unclear what this criteria is, but if people actually cared enough, change could happen. As is though, it remains an elephant in the room that people of faith don't want to talk about because it being challenge is a challenge to the luxuries they benefit from.

Sadly, it doesn't matter if their belief is founded on reality or otherwise.
I, for one, think that in order to be fair, either everyone should quality for these tax breaks afforded to churches and faith groups, or nobody should. None of this "Lets let government decide" business. Government is supposed to represent us, but using rules from long ago doesn't reflect modern times.

I agree with you, except I see the Pastafarian movement designed to mock government, not religion. (but, yes it mocks both)

If there were a test applied to all religions to determine which have credibility such that they were worthy of legal dispensations such as head gear wearing for DL and Passport photos, or M/C helmet wearing and tax benefits it would be very interesting.

In Canada, we're fairly level headed USUALLY when it comes to religion. (recent protests and disobedience to Covid regs excepted)

Other countries are certainly not.

Even our neighbors to the South.... I don't think one could be elected president if they declared themselves an atheist. Surely not every US citizen who has been elected really believes in an invisible super power. I suspect some go along with the facade to get elected.

[Glacier]

Even our neighbors to the South.... I don't think one could be elected president if they declared themselves an atheist. Surely not every US citizen who has been elected really believes in an invisible super power. I suspect some go along with the facade to get elected.

The reason for this is that an "atheist" is a fundamentalist non-believer. Mainstream society hates fundamentalists. By fundamentalist, I mean a person who thinks there is only one correct religious answer. Atheists, like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims say that all other viewpoints on religion are false, and this pisses people off. Mainstream society views religion from an eastern religious perspective (New Age, progressive Christianity, Hindu, Sikh, etc.).

Any politician who stands up and says, "there is no god" severely hurts their chances of election just as when a politician stands up and says, "Jesus is the only way."

Note: I am criticizing atheists at all here. Personally, I have no problem with anyone believing in an exclusive religious viewpoint, whether theist or atheist. The only point I'm making is that mainstream inclusive society does have a problem with this.Inclusivity is the new religion that must not be blasphemed against.

[youjustcomplain]

The reason for this is that an "atheist" is a fundamentalist non-believer. Mainstream society hates fundamentalists. By fundamentalist, I mean a person who thinks there is only one correct religious answer. Atheists, like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims say that all other viewpoints on religion are false, and this pisses people off. Mainstream society views religion from an eastern religious perspective (New Age, progressive Christianity, Hindu, Sikh, etc.).

Any politician who stands up and says, "there is no god" severely hurts their chances of election just as when a politician stands up and says, "Jesus is the only way."

Note: I am criticizing atheists at all here. Personally, I have no problem with anyone believing in an exclusive religious viewpoint, whether theist or atheist. The only point I'm making is that mainstream inclusive society does have a problem with this.Inclusivity is the new religion that must not be blasphemed against.

I think you're right as to why a non christian won't be elected in the USA. However, I think you've misrepresented the position of the atheist; you're not alone.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.
It's not atheistic to state that god doesn't exist. That's hubrism. (if that's even a word)
As an atheist, I don't believe in a god, but I don't have any sense that I'm right and that anyone else is wrong. Just that I don't believe what others do.

There are plenty of examples of atheists running their mouths, spouting off about how they know. They/we don't. Nobody knows. knowledge of god lives in the realm of the agnostic. For belivers and non believes, we use faith and lack there of. :)