No, not like that
—conservatives, inevitably
Even if you are super conservative bible weaving guy, since bible doesn’t like females, the bible itself says nothing about abortion except in one place where it explains what’s going on but so vaguely it might be interpreted as anything.
“I want control because freedom isn’t free…or something”
- dumb twat right wingers
Oh neat, do my atheist based ethics get the same legal weight as closely held religious beliefs?
Best I can do is his noodly appendage.
Unfortunately, the courts have ruled that Pastafarians don’t have the same rights as people who follow government-approved religions.
As a member of TST, I would argue you do.
Praise Bob.
Have you not yet been touched by His noodly appendage?
While funny, it still injects religion into the equation by requiring someone pretend to be part of a religion.
There are in fact some religious rights which accrue to atheists too:
In statements filed in court, the six inmates explained why the solar eclipse would be an important occasion for their respective beliefs: as a time to perform a special Muslim prayer, a spectacle evoking a scene from the New Testament, and a gathering to celebrate science and reason.
…
Jeremy Zielinski, an atheist and one of the plaintiffs, was granted permission to view the eclipse on religious grounds in March before the statewide lockdown was announced, according to the lawsuit.
Atheism isn’t a religion, and that is an example of treating it like one.
agreed
You might not understand the point of Pastafarianism. Nobody is pretending. The central tenet of faith is that ridicule is a spiritual act, that fanciful beliefs are arbitrary and spurious, and demand ridicule as a moral obligation. The FSM (PBUHNA) is made in the image of the absurd because the concepts of faith are absurd. You won’t find any Pastafarians who don’t believe in that.
If you want to find some pretenders, visit a local church on Easter.
The point is that if you let one religion claim something, then you have to let the rest of them too. In practice that means people with “closely held beliefs” get free passes, but people who make decisions based on logic and reason don’t.
So someone can claim certain clothing can be an exception for a closely held belief, but an atheist can’t have the exact same outcome because they don’t have a religion to use as a reason. I’m fine with some leniency, other than the fact that atheists don’t get any.
Pastafarianism is a closely held belief. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else? The courts have created two classes of religions by rejecting the Pastafarian faith.
Pastafarianism is a clisely held belief. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights as everyone else?
Why are you asking me about something I didn’t say?
Who’s pretending heretic?
Me, I would be pretending :P
Do you know the consequences of not believing in his Noodliness? … Well nothing, but… I lost my train of thought.
Yes. Because xians constantly claim that Atheism is a religion. They believe it’s a religion. They also believe Science and the LGBT+ community is a religion.
No only people who believe in imaginary sky daddy.
“No.” - Religions
Although I’d prefer it if religion was kept out of the equation entirely, I will admit that taking absurdity to its logical conclusion is very satisfying to read about. These judges kick ass.
Uh oh, this is something sure to rile up the xtian taliban, who think only their beliefs should matter, and should rule over others that want nothing to do with their little book club. Dingbats like Boebert don’t even think there is a separation of Church and State…
Good job, Hoosier Jews for Choice
