Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo

[Disir]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

 

[martybegan]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

 

[Disir]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

 

[martybegan]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

 

[Valerie]

that's pretty funny but even liberal massachusetts does not allow head covering of any kind...





"A hat or other head cover is not acceptable"

Obtaining Your License - Registry of Motor Vehicles

 

[Disir]

5. A hat or other head cover is not acceptable, but if worn for medical or religious reasons, it may be allowed if it does not hide any facial features.

 

[Valerie]

5. A hat or other head cover is not acceptable, but if worn for medical or religious reasons, it may be allowed if it does not hide any facial features.

well my bad, i see now that is absolutely correct...

but ftr everyone knows spaghetti colanders are way too big not to cover some facial features.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

I would disown any such person from my family.

 

[Disir]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

 

[TheOldSchool]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

How dare you spit on their beliefs like that?! You Godless scum.

 

[TheOldSchool]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

I would disown any such person from my family.

^ Typical atheist

 

[martybegan]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

 

[martybegan]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

How dare you spit on their beliefs like that?! You Godless scum.

Yes, "beliefs".

 

[Disir]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.

About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.

Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.

It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.

 

[martybegan]

When one's entire organization is created just to be assholes to another organization, I suggest checking your priorities.

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.

About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.

Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.

It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.

There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.

 

[Disir]

I don't mind the Pastafarians. They are wonderful funny. This is actually a response to the number of individuals (like Sikh Americans) that have found it an issue to remove the head covering to obtain a driver's license.

We are rolling into 2016 and this should not even be necessary. There are so many other issues.

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.

About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.

Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.

It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.

There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.

Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.

 

[007]

(Boston, MA, Nov. 13, 2015)—The American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center is pleased that the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) is permitting a Pastafarian woman to wear a colander in her driver’s license photo, a development that occurred after the group's attorneys were enlisted to assist with the applicant's appeal.

Lindsay Miller identifies as a Pastafarian, also known as members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a secular religion that views the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster to be just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. As a Pastafarian, Ms. Miller wished to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, as an expression of her Pastafarian identity. However, she was denied this request by the Massachusetts RMV.
Massachusetts Pastafarian Wins Right to Wear a Colander in Driver’s License Photo, Thanks to Humanist Group

It's pretty sad that this is where we are at folks. Amusing but pretty sad.

Typical leftist nut job.

 

[martybegan]

What about when they try to get the flying spaghetti monster co-equal time with a Nativity scene, or a Menorah.

Find me one that actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster, and I may concede the point, but when all they are doing is trying to make a point at the expense of others, then I have an issue with the,

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.

About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.

Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.

It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.

There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.

Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.

And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.

I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.

 

[Disir]

The Establishment Clause is just as valid as the Free Exercise Clause. It does mean something and it is what they believe in. I do too. I firmly believe in the first amendment. If that means that 20 items from other religions are displayed along with a nativity scene or Menorah then lets get it done. Or we can just not put any religious symbols on public property. I'm down with that too. That is what I meant by it shouldn't even be necessary at this point.

Ordinarily I find this stuff at least somewhat amusing but lately it's just exhausting. The same battles on the same fronts.

We have inter-faith groups that have been traditionally against each other that are engaging in dialogue and utilizing conflict resolution techniques to not just solve issues but move forward and do good things. They operate internationally and nationally.

In the US we have the Holy Grail in the First Amendment and we cannot even get beyond this. This cannot be the only way.

I need one of those handy Buddhist sayings that sums it all up.

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.

About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.

Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.

It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.

There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.

Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.

And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.

I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.

Actually, it was all about the ability to cater to all religions. There are ample sources that support this. That history was much closer to them than to us. It was their recent history. Further, they were not limited to knowing only of Christianity. Almost 240 years later and the US has forgotten how important it is.

Those religions "made purely to spite others" rose in response to those religious zealots that made attempts by word and deed and promised to make attempts if elected to create a theocracy.

 

[martybegan]

There is a difference between wanting to display symbols of ones Religion due to actual beliefs, and wanting to do so as a "gotcha" or to ruin someone else's day.

If we remove religious beliefs entirely from the public square, the asshole atheists win, and frankly, I dislike those people far more than very religious people, and this is coming from an at best lapsed Catholic.

Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.

About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.

Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.

It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.

There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.

Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.

And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.

I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.

Actually, it was all about the ability to cater to all religions. There are ample sources that support this. That history was much closer to them than to us. It was their recent history. Further, they were not limited to knowing only of Christianity. Almost 240 years later and the US has forgotten how important it is.

Those religions "made purely to spite others" rose in response to those religious zealots that made attempts by word and deed and promised to make attempts if elected to create a theocracy.

They can attempt all they want, but the only way they will get it is if a super-majority of people want it, and if that is the case Atheists have bigger problems than the government.

And nowadays most religious people just want to be left in peace, they tried the whole Moral Majority thing, and rightly got smacked down. It's now the Secular Left trying that tactic to crush the other side.