Salanis wrote:Am I the only one who thinks this prank was more about making fun of beurocracy than religion?
I would agree with that.
Also, a relevant funny:
1
2
3
4
-
July 14, 2011 10:43 p.m. Luke SuperDork
-
July 14, 2011 10:51 p.m. friedgreencorrado SuperDork
oldsaw wrote:
friedgreencorrado wrote:
Current SWMBO. I didn't mean to offend with the tale, just thought you'd find the whole thing humorous. I didn't mean it as a "comparison" at all.
No offense ever taken, but the clarification is appreciated.
IIRC, the previous model was a version that would even make me go all "pagan" and build a bonfire.
Pagan bonfires rock. The neo-pagan girls I knew in college were usually searching for sex after the fire'd gone out.
EDIT: ROFL! Oldsaw, I just re-read my other message.
"..you sound like my.." yadayadayada..
No wonder you thought it was a comparison! Mea Culpa, dude-very poor choice of words on my part!
-
July 14, 2011 11:37 p.m. friedgreencorrado SuperDork
Salanis wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this prank was more about making fun of beurocracy than religion?
I don't know, dude..it could have been. Only thing that makes me think differently is that the Church of The FSM has become larger than the creators even thought it would (it started as a little protest against creationism in US schools, remember?). Personally, I have to recall that this happened in Austria. Western Europe seems to be worried at the moment about how to deal with the Islamic faith of their immigrants that do the "dirty jobs" that Latinos do in the US. Much bigger clash of cultures over there than there is over here. He may have been protesting the "full veil" some fundamentalist Muslim women wear..IIRC, most European countries allow them to wear it for a drivers' license photo.
Sorry to be so long-winded..just wanted ya to understand why I think this was not entirely a protest against bureaucracy.
The theists have a very good point here about it really being about religion..even if was pointed at a different religion than their own.
And re-read SVreX's very eloquent posts again..the theists here ain't exactly been disfiguring my property and beating atheists around the head like some of the real-life neighbors I've had.
EDIT: "some of the real-live neighbors"
-
July 15, 2011 12:37 a.m. Salanis SuperDork
friedgreencorrado wrote:
And re-read SVreX's very eloquent posts again..the theists here ain't exactly been disfiguring my property and beating atheists around the head like some of the real-life neighbors I've had.
Worst I'm going to accuse anyone of on this board right now is getting their knickers in a twist. I'll accuse both sides of that.
I get what you're saying about full veils. To me it should be pretty simple: your facial features must be unconcealed and clearly visible in any photo ID. If you can't be identified, it's not identification. You don't want to make yourself identifiable? You don't get government ID. No problem with a yamaka or even a hijab.
I think the absurdity compounds exponentially when you mix bureaucracy and religion together.
-
July 15, 2011 7:59 a.m. Duke SuperDork
Salanis wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks this prank was more about making fun of beurocracy than religion?
I think it's about both, and I applaud both institutions getting skewered.
Oh, and as for being a serious message delivered with humour - it's entirely possible. I give you Exhibit B:
-
July 15, 2011 9:01 a.m. DustoffDave Reader
Salanis said:
I think the absurdity compounds exponentially when you mix bureaucracy and over-sensitivity to religion together.
Fixed that for ya. I agree, and I think the intent of the whole prank was to point this out. And for those that say because he took three years to execute his little prank, you've got to understand that the european sense of humor is a lot more patient than ours in the U.S., so it is entirely plausible that his intentions were less than evil. And I say that as a deeply religious person. I am not offended by it, I think it's clever.
-
July 15, 2011 12:03 p.m. SVreX SuperDork
I agree. I am not offended by it either. It is quite funny.
I think a lot of folks in the thread have (once again) assumed I said something about religion I did not say.
I am more bothered with the careless way in which people on this board handle their commentary than any stunt by an Austrian nutjob with a spaghetti strainer on his head.
-
July 15, 2011 12:03 p.m. Jerry From LA HalfDork
HiTempguy wrote:
foxtrapper wrote:
on the forced teaching of christian creationism.
Wait, what? I always thought that sort of thing was something we (as in Canadians, for instance) made fun of but wasn't true. Hell, even in the catholic system here in Canada they don't teach that bullE36 M3
No Catholic school does. Catholics do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Plus, they got burned so badly with Copernicus and Galileo, they decided so sit all these scientific discussions out.
-
July 15, 2011 5:16 p.m. Salanis SuperDork
I'm going to spread some love around here. Just think of a few of the wonderful things European people of faith have brought us:
-
July 15, 2011 7:24 p.m. HiTempguy Dork
Jerry From LA wrote:
No Catholic school does. Catholics do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Plus, they got burned so badly with Copernicus and Galileo, they decided so sit all these scientific discussions out.
They may not, but if you want to make a religious studies class get tense, try it out there
Also, lol'd at the third sentence
-
July 15, 2011 7:34 p.m. fasted58 HalfDork
if you want to make a religious studies class get tense, try it out there
We'll see about that mister
-
July 15, 2011 9:20 p.m. friedgreencorrado SuperDork
Salanis wrote:
friedgreencorrado wrote:
And re-read SVreX's very eloquent posts again..the theists here ain't exactly been disfiguring my property and beating atheists around the head like some of the real-life neighbors I've had.
Worst I'm going to accuse anyone of on this board right now is getting their knickers in a twist. I'll accuse both sides of that.
And you're probably right about that. I know I've done it in that past..
Salanis wrote: I get what you're saying about full veils. To me it should be pretty simple: your facial features must be unconcealed and clearly visible in any photo ID. If you can't be identified, it's not identification.
Per-xactly, sir! I still think this is really a much bigger issue for Europe than it is for the US.
Salanis wrote: You don't want to make yourself identifiable? You don't get government ID. No problem with a yamaka or even a hijab.
I think the absurdity compounds exponentially when you mix bureaucracy and religion together.
Exactly. Damn, it's a weird world out there..
