Because the Spock fan is, likely as not, taking the ****.
And the guy with the headress not? Is there a devotional test that decides how religious one is, or can one just say, yeah, I'm a catholic, gotta wear the hat?
How die hard a fan does one have to be before you accept he might not be taking the piss?
This user would like to thank cyrus for this useful post:
And the guy with the headress not? Is there a devotional test that decides how religious one is, or can one just say, yeah, I'm a catholic, gotta wear the hat?
How die hard a fan does one have to be before you accept he might not be taking the piss?
The application of common sense wouldn't hurt in these cases:
a chap wears a turban because his religion has demanded it for the last 800 years: bend the rules a bit;
a chap wears a pair of Spock ears because he's a big fan of a television programme: laugh him out of the licensing office.
Accommodating minorities in this manner does nobody else any harm, and can help them to have access to services and rights which they might otherwise be denied.
Is it really a good idea to threaten this accommodation for some fatuous notion of 'equality'?
The application of common sense wouldn't hurt in these cases:
a chap wears a turban because his religion has demanded it for the last 800 years: bend the rules a bit;
a chap wears a pair of Spock ears because he's a big fan of a television programme: laugh him out of the licensing office.
Accommodating minorities in this manner does nobody else any harm, and can help them to have access to services and rights which they might otherwise be denied.
Is it really a good idea to threaten this accommodation for some fatuous notion of 'equality'?
It sorta does, that's why the 1st (the one from your over-the-pond-hyphen-everything-sometimes cousins) has the non preferential clause.
The application of common sense wouldn't hurt in these cases:
a chap wears a turban because his religion has demanded it for the last 800 years: bend the rules a bit;
a chap wears a pair of Spock ears because he's a big fan of a television programme: laugh him out of the licensing office.
Accommodating minorities in this manner does nobody else any harm, and can help them to have access to services and rights which they might otherwise be denied.
Is it really a good idea to threaten this accommodation for some fatuous notion of 'equality'?
So how old does fandom have to be before it is accepted? Star trek is getting on to be 50 years old now.
For the pictures, aren't the authorities basically saying that really, they don't really care about what people are wearing on their heads, so long as the face is visible. Or a they saying they have to be more careful about people who don't belong to particular named fan clans.
A gentleman never appears in public, let alone on a photograph, without his hat and understands that people may adhere to different dress codes, may they be dictated by religious dogmas or mere etiquette.
I put it to you: doesn't a pasta strainer look like a baseball cap worn backwards (albeit with a few more holes)? Now imagine said baseball cap had the words "Jesus saved me" embroidered on it in, automatically qualifying it as confessional headgear. Shouldn't the strainer be also accepted if its holes spell an equivalent pastafarian phrase in Braille?
The application of common sense wouldn't hurt in these cases:
a chap wears a turban because his religion has demanded it for the last 800 years: bend the rules a bit;
a chap wears a pair of Spock ears because he's a big fan of a television programme: laugh him out of the licensing office.
Marxist historians like to mumble something about a Common Struggle (whatever that is).
So The Sikh can open a history book and point at centuries of repression against Sikhs, thus implying that the fact that some of them didn't give in but stuck to their beliefs despite the suffering that their decison brought upon them, and claim it proves:
a) they had balls
b) they really meant it
Ditto for Jews, Muslims, Christians and others, yes even Scientologists
So how about demanding that Trekkies and Pasatafrains provide historical evidence of repression and discrimination. Or by extenmsion arguing that because today we don't suppress people because of their beliefs (unless they are German Scientologists), there is no longer scope for new religions to appear that have the right to special dress.
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
So how about demanding that Trekkies and Pasatafrains provide historical evidence of repression and discrimination. Or by extenmsion arguing that because today we don't suppress people because of their beliefs (unless they are German Scientologists), there is no longer scope for new religions to appear that have the right to special dress.
But as DB pointed out, if poor spocky went to get his ears at the licensing office, he would be laughed out. How many times must he do this before his ears are accepted? Can trekkies walk around in plain daylight free from mockery? Is that not evidence of suppression and discrimination?
This user would like to thank cyrus for this useful post:
Well, I guess this thread (including that article) is further evidence that people will always go to any great length to try to prove their own points. (From which I am certainly not exempt!).
The arguments here actually remind me a bit of how I felt about Sacha Cohen's "Boren" character. At first I thought it was hilarious (and to some extent still do), but then when I really thought about it, I realized that Sacha is a Jew making fun of Muslims via his Boren character. Somehow it lost a bit of its humor once I realized that...
So on that note... I actually do appreciate the fact that DB wasn't so quick to jump on the "religion bashing" train here and instead tried to view it in full context.
At the same time, though, I also appreciate anyone who has the giblets to retaliate (non-violently) against having religion "shoved down their throats."
Now I just long to see Richard Dawkins in one of those hats.
The arguments here actually remind me a bit of how I felt about Sacha Cohen's "Boren" character. At first I thought it was hilarious (and to some extent still do), but then when I really thought about it, I realized that Sacha is a Jew making fun of Muslims via his Boren character. Somehow it lost a bit of its humor once I realized that...
I can't remember him ever making fun of Muslims using that character, but he does have a go at the Jews quite a bit, or more at what he imagines Jews to be.
He's that kid in the back of the class, acting up, begging to get thrown out, terrified of being asked why he's doing what he's doing. Atheism is about an absence of theism. You can't "be" an Atheist. The guy's a c0ck
Well I'm an atheist.
As in I believe in no gods.
Absence of theism. Absence in belief in god.
A = no/anti/not, theos = god, ist = one who is
no god believer = a theo ist
By the way, the romans convicted most early christians and jews on the charge of atheism, because they didn't believe in the gods, including the god augustus. So actually, if you think about it, if you don't believe in any one of the gods you are technically an atheist.
But as DB pointed out, if poor spocky went to get his ears at the licensing office, he would be laughed out. How many times must he do this before his ears are accepted? Can trekkies walk around in plain daylight free from mockery? Is that not evidence of suppression and discrimination?
But by wearing his spocky ears every day and in all situations (including at work, going for work interviews, going on dates, passing through airport security) and suffering all the rejections and hassle that would probably ensue, he is (sort of) proving that he means it.
That's miles away from somebody who claims to have to wear a silly hat on his driving license, but probably doesn't wear it at other times.
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".
Mr Alm said the sieve was a requirement of his religion, pastafarianism. A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.
That religion is a ridiculous waste of time and effort.
You'll have to fill us in on the details of how the decison of an Austrian court can prove such a thing.
Here we have the great philosophers and thinkers from all over the world debating the topic for at least 4000 years and coming up with various theories and explanations and counter-theories and counter-explanations and then a bunch of lawyers proves it just like that. Must be the most significant news item of the last four millenia.
But by wearing his spocky ears every day and in all situations (including at work, going for work interviews, going on dates, passing through airport security) and suffering all the rejections and hassle that would probably ensue, he is (sort of) proving that he means it.
That's miles away from somebody who claims to have to wear a silly hat on his driving license, but probably doesn't wear it at other times.
Maybe we should have fines for people who have a headress in their ID, but are caught out in public without one. To see if they really mean it or not.
The following 3 users would like to thank cyrus for this useful post:
I can't remember him ever making fun of Muslims using that character, but he does have a go at the Jews quite a bit, or more at what he imagines Jews to be.
Good point -- but I guess I just assumed that, since Boren was (supposedly) from Kazakhstan, he is a Muslim, since Islam is the dominant religion there. Who knows. But now that I think about it, I guess you're right that he also poked fun at Jews. (Not that either is necessary "right").
(From which I am certainly not exempt!).
Linear Mode
