She's fighting for freedom of religion. "My religion is as valid as their religion." I would have thought that Mr.B would applaud.
A government entirely neutral on religion - as America's founding fathers intended - is the key to freedom of religion. Remember, the folks on the Mayflower weren't fleeing Muslims or Atheists or Pagans; they were fleeing Christians whose government-sanctioned interpretation of Christianity was different from their own. And of course one could say the same of the entire Protestant movement.
Mr.B claims that the Old Testament is NOT part of Christianity and cherry-picks the bits of the New Testament that agree with his beliefs while discounting others. With his unique version of Christianity, he should understand all this.
Well, OK - wearing a colander seems silly, but no more so than any number of other clothing or appearance requirements of other religions - that are not openly mocked as not-a-religion. Beard requirements, yarmulkes, hijabs, Morman underwear and clip-on ties, Amish pants without zippers, Hadisic hair styles, Pope and Cardinal costumes, etc. and yada. Most Protestant sects don't have clothing requirements others might consider strange, but before they pat themselves on their backs we could address sprinkling water on their heads and dunking members, not to mention drinking grape juice and pretending it's wine that pretends it's blood.
Personally, I don't think there should be religious exceptions to the "no hat" rule for ID pics.
Vrede wrote:That would be the state demanding that some abandon their religious mandates for the pic. .
Understood. I didn't say it would be legal, just that I'd like it to be. Religion gets too many breaks already. Of all the bases for unlawful discrimination, religion is the only one that is voluntary. Well, marital status, but that doesn't cause near the heartburn religion does. There are limits on what a person can do because "God told me to." You can't get away with doing something for religious reasons that would otherwise be a crime, such as claiming you are allowed by Deuteronomy 22:28 to rape the damsel you found in the field since she was not a virgin. I just don't think there are enough limits and that "it's my religion" gets cut way too much slack.
O Really wrote:".......... we could address sprinkling water on their heads and dunking members, not to mention drinking grape juice and pretending it's wine that pretends it's blood."
So many things that the heathen cannot understand....."Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"Psalm 2:1
Of course that photo looks better; she's a pretty woman in that picture...but, it's a different photo; what has that photo got to do with the DL photo?
....it's still not the one on the DL which I was referencing that looked weird. Pay attention.
O Really wrote:".......... we could address sprinkling water on their heads and dunking members, not to mention drinking grape juice and pretending it's wine that pretends it's blood."
So many things that the heathen cannot understand....."Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"Psalm 2:1
Understanding isn't necessary for observation. Those are examples of rituals, meaningful to adherents, strange to others. Just like wearing the colander. I'm guessing you don't or didn't understand the significance of the colander, yet you observed it to be strange and even drew personal conclusions about the person just from seeing the pic. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one knows that what one thinks may bear no relationship whatsoever to reality.
Vrede wrote: "Mr.B........knows full well, he posted a full quote of my post without adding a single word of his own and then rapidly deleted it. His " :?: :?: " is yet more perverted, sinful dishonesty."
So that's what you're crowing about! That wasn't posting a quote of you.... when I first saw your post, there was no picture there, just the link. I clicked on 'quote' then 'submit' to see what the photo was, then "rapidly deleted" the post. I thought nothing more about it until you started crying foul....You've been strutting like a banty rooster ever since supposing that I was attempting to hide something..... More "perverted, sinful dishonesty" in your whining.
Judgments of any sort based on one deleted post is stupidity.
Last edited by Mr.B on Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
O Really wrote: "Just like wearing the colander. I'm guessing you don't or didn't understand the significance of the colander, yet you observed it to be strange and even drew personal conclusions about the person just from seeing the pic. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one knows that what one thinks may bear no relationship whatsoever to reality."
I didn't even consider the colander....only the spaced-out look on her face.
Mr.B wrote:I didn't even consider the colander....only the spaced-out look on her face.
I don't know the woman, and I'm not a member of the Pastafarians, but I looked back at the driver license pic and I don't see a "spaced-out look." Absent the colander, it would look much like most anybody else's ID, and better than some I've had.
Vrede wrote: "I know it was an inconsequential goof and all I did was tease you for it with your own words. Once again, you embarrass yourself much more by arguing over it when ignoring it or an "Opps" would have ended it."
duhh....I didn't embarrass myself...you attempted to embarrass me...it didn't work; I'm not even arguing over it; just explained the true facts. Opps....
Inasmuch as you're such a condescending person, it's hard to know when you are "teasing".....