Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Pastafarian Wins Right To Wear Colander In License Photo 689

Posted by samzenpus
from the may-his-noodles-guide-you dept.
gregmon writes "An Austrian follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has finally won the right to don the religious headgear of his choosing (a spaghetti strainer) in his driving license photo. After a three year battle with the un-enlightened Austrian authorities, Niko Aim can now wear his colander in all official photos."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pastafarian Wins Right To Wear Colander In License Photo

Comments Filter:
  • See now... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    THIS is news for nerds!

  • Heresy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alex Belits (437) * on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:27AM (#36759276) Homepage

    That must be some heretical Pastafarian sect. Traditional Pastafarians wear pirate hats, not strainers.

    • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shag (3737) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:36AM (#36759334) Homepage

      Clearly some sort of Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox Pastafarian. Probably celebrates all the key holy days a week off, too.

      • They celebrate International Talk Like a Pirate Day on the 26th??? Heathens!
        • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)

          by Evtim (1022085) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @03:48AM (#36760114)

          Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

          He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

          He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

          Northern ConservativeBaptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

          • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2011 @04:42AM (#36760358)

            A heretic is someone who shares almost all of your beliefs. Kill him.
              -- Paranoia

          • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday July 14, 2011 @06:09AM (#36760744) Homepage Journal

            What makes that joke so funny is that it's only a tiny bit of an exaggeration. My grandmother, a Southern Baptist, told me once that my great aunt was always hounding her, telling her she was going to hell because she wore pants. It's amazing that so few people who profess to be Christians miss the whole point of their own religion, which is you are forgiven! The only catch is, you have to forgive others as well. IMO those who preach fire and brimstone are sadly misguided.

            I'm pleased that more and more Christians are ignoring denominations. The church I attend is nondenominational and has become one of the biggest churches in Springfield (although the fact that the head preacher could have been a stand-up comedian surely has something to do with it).

            I just woke up and am only on my second cup of coffee, so I first read rge headline as "Rastafarian" rather than "Pastafarian" (and I missed the "in Australia), and the first thing that came to mind was, if I'm supposed to have freedom of religion, why can't I smoke pot as a sacrament? I agree with the Rastafarians that pot is indeed a sacrament; it does bring the religious person closer to God. Why do I not have the right to adopt a native religion and eat peyote or psilocybin? Why weren't Catholics and many other Christians allowed to drink real wine during prohibition when they performed communion?

            As to the pastafarians, at first I thought since this "religion" is an athiest joke on the religious it isn't a real religion, but then I thought of L. Ron Hubbard. If Scientology can be a religion, surely Pastafarianism can be, too.

            Someone above mentioned gay marriage, I wonder why government has anything to do with marriage at all? Why should a single parent of one child pay more in taxes than a childless married couple who earn the same amount of income? Marriage itself is a religious rite, and government should stay the hell out. I shouldn't have to get a license to get married, and a judge shouldn't have the authority to marry anyone.

            To those Christians who bash gays, I'll quote someone they should be acquainted with: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". You sin enough yourself to worry about anybody else's sins. Fellow Christians, please mind your own fucking business. If God wants an athiest to find him, the athiest will find him.

            And you Jehova's Witnesses, GET OFF MY LAWN!

            • Re:Heresy (Score:4, Interesting)

              by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Thursday July 14, 2011 @07:31AM (#36761294) Homepage Journal

              I have distant relatives in Colorado Springs who are some nutty Christian sect. When my daughter was about 14 or 15 my wife and I drove her out West for a visit on our way to California (rte.66 from Chicago).

              My daughter had her hair cut short at the time and was wearing shorts. Not crazy short-shorts, just regular shorts.

              One of the first things they said to her is that she was endangering her eternal soul by wearing shorts. Then they asked her if she was a lesbian because she had short hair. Made my kid cry. My wife had to keep me from breaking furniture, and needless to say we don't have much truck with that branch of the family tree any more.

              Are Christians required to be judgmental assholes?

              • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Insightful)

                by gorzek (647352) <gorzekNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 14, 2011 @08:22AM (#36761770) Homepage Journal

                I always find it bizarre when I hear of Protestant Christians acting this way, particularly since one trait all Protestant sects share is the belief that it's faith, not works that get you into heaven. As someone said upthread, it's like they missed the entire point of their belief system. Protestants should theoretically be some of the least judgmental people on Earth, since all you need to get to heaven is belief in Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins.

                Instead, they seem to represent many of the worst aspects of organized religion, making Catholics look downright sane.

                Maybe Protestants need their own Reformation to help tone down the crazy.

                (I say all the above as a current atheist who was raised Protestant, in a United Church of Christ which really did practice tolerance and forgiveness. I find ultraconservative denominations like Baptists to be utterly repugnant.)

              • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Interesting)

                by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday July 14, 2011 @09:04AM (#36762266) Homepage Journal

                Are Christians required to be judgmental assholes?

                That was part of what I was speaking about. Christians, in fact, are prohibited from being judgemental assholes! To the judgemental part, "judge not, lest you be judged yourself." as to the asshole part, "treat others as you would want to be treated." I'm sure those "Christian" relatives of yours wouldn't want anybody treating them like that.

                My former girlfriend was a bible thumper, once in anger I told her she should stop thumping it and read the damned thing once in a while. The trouble with most Christians is they don't read their bibles and completely ignore what Christ taught.

                • Sometimes "treat others as you would want to be treated" can be open to interpretation. Suppose you where doing something, that without your knowledge, would condemn you to hell -- like wearing shorts. Wouldn't you want someone to notify you of this horrible transgression so that you can fix it and go to heaven?

              • by Svartalf (2997)

                Are Christians required to be judgmental assholes?

                Those distant relatives claim to be Christians- but sadly, they're following Doctrine instead of the Son.

                Tell me where in the Bible it says anything about "shorts" as an instance of what I'm speaking to. Much like the Sam Kinnison joke (God going through whole of the the Bible, muttering, "Where in here does it say, 'Build a waterslide'?") there's nothing in there about that. That's them and those within their "Church" failing to pay attention to the one

            • Marriage in and of itself is indeed mostly a religious and social ritual; however, the government can (and should) become involved when those people want to treat themselves as one entity for tax purposes. Effectively there are two parts to a marriage: the religious / social part which people can argue about and debate within the context of their own personal beliefs and the financial part which requires the government to at least recognize that the people are filing their taxes jointly.
              • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Insightful)

                by nhstar (452291) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @08:03AM (#36761582)

                There's actually much more to it than the tax benefits. Married couples have the legal right to speak for their spouses in things medically related. There are issues surrounding inheritance when a spouse passes, joint ownership of property...

                Imagine owning a house for years with your spouse, making it a home, growing old in that home... Your spouse passes, then your brother in-law files suit because as the closest-living relative, he should inherit.

                It's not just taxes, and it's not to stick the proverbial thumb in the church's eye. It's about fair treatment in how you live your life.

                • by cynyr (703126)

                  Health insurance would be another one, although there are a few companies now that have a "duo" plan, covers you and any one other person you want.

                  The medically related stuff is even worse, in many places you would not be able to visit your SO if they were in intensive care unless you are family and as an un-married gay couple that makes the partner "a good friend".

              • by scubamage (727538)
                There are other issues though. Hospital visitation. Spousal privilege in court. Inheritance. Custody of children/wards. There are many more implications to marriage than just tax things. Honestly, I feel that the religous and legal aspects of marriage should be held completely separate by the government.
            • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)

              by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @08:44AM (#36762050)

              And you Jehova's Witnesses, GET OFF MY LAWN!

              My grandmother had a better solution. When the Jehova's Witnesses came over, she told them they could talk to her if they changed the tire on her truck.

              They did, so it really worked out quite well.

            • Re:Heresy (Score:4, Informative)

              by CarsonChittom (2025388) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @09:03AM (#36762256) Homepage

              Why weren't Catholics and many other Christians allowed to drink real wine during prohibition when they performed communion?

              They were. The 18th amendment only prohibited it "for beverage purposes," and the Volstead Act [archives.gov], which enacted the amendment, provided that "Liquor for non beverage purposes and wine for sacramental purposes may be manufactured, purchased, sold, bartered transported, imported, exported, delivered, furnished and possessed . . . ."

            • Re:Heresy (Score:4, Informative)

              by d'fim (132296) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @09:41AM (#36762716)
              If the couple wants legal status designating that previously unrelated individuals should henceforth be treated as a legally related group, then government must be involved. Being legally allowed a relatives-only visit to a hospitalized parter, for example; or legal standing in probate, for another; or legal responsibility for a child's actions -- is the partner legally a "parent" or just someone who happens to live in the same house?. Such legal acknowledgement does not have to be called "marriage," nor does it have to be conflated with any religious practice.
              • by Danse (1026)

                Such legal acknowledgement does not have to be called "marriage," nor does it have to be conflated with any religious practice.

                Doesn't have to be called marriage, but that's what it's currently called, both for religious and governmental purposes. Calling it anything else just confuses the issue and is a rather dumb idea. Ultra-conservative religious types just need to get over themselves and their ridiculous idea that they should be able to dictate who may or may not be married. That crap has gone on far too long. They've lost every other battle over it, and they'll lose this one too. They're just too dumb to see it. They ca

            • by nschubach (922175)

              Someone above mentioned gay marriage, I wonder why government has anything to do with marriage at all? Why should a single parent of one child pay more in taxes than a childless married couple who earn the same amount of income? Marriage itself is a religious rite, and government should stay the hell out. I shouldn't have to get a license to get married, and a judge shouldn't have the authority to marry anyone.

              I've argued this point many times. The granted legal benefits of marriage can be separated from the actual act of marriage and you should be able to register anyone as a "trusted confidant" for legal reasons where a decision must be made in your absence or inability. It would make the whole gay marriage debate null and void and get the government out of personal mating affairs.

              I'm mostly met with arguments about how I'm trying to weaken the strength of marriage or something.

              • I'm mostly met with arguments about how I'm trying to weaken the strength of marriage or something.

                This is the greatest (hillarious) irony of the homophobic movement. The greatest threat to state sanctioned marriage is going to come from people asking why the government is even involved in the institution of marriage in the first place.

                If they had just let homosexuals marry then this whole non-issue would be gone by now and we wouldn't have given it a second thought. But since they've forced the debate and the evaluation they've actually encouraged a number of people who would have just taken Marriag

    • Ninjas are not amused.
    • They are slightly different from out sect? BURN THE HERETICS! THIS MEANS WAR!!!!!
    • Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)

      by williamhb (758070) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @02:03AM (#36759490) Journal

      That must be some heretical Pastafarian sect. Traditional Pastafarians wear pirate hats, not strainers.

      I just think it'd be fun to see the follow-up each time he's pulled over for any kind of traffic check in the next five years.
      Excuse me, sir can I see your license please. Thank you. Yes, it's all in order, except... why aren't you wearing your confessional pasta strainer today? Go on, you said it's a religious requirement, put it on!

  • Heh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:29AM (#36759292)

    That's using his noodle.

  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:33AM (#36759308)

    If Muslims and Jews can get away with cutting up the genitalia of their completely healthy sons, why can't anybody wear the most preposterous adornments for a license photo?

    • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by obarthelemy (160321) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @02:34AM (#36759652)

      not enough people died for pastafarianism.

      let's make the Mother of all Bolognesas !

    • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AbRASiON (589899) * on Thursday July 14, 2011 @03:09AM (#36759872) Journal

      Ooooh do I spend my mod points to moderate this guy up or do I reply to him?!?

      Your harsh post will no doubt have critics, not just religious ones too! There are 'cut men' who have no medical problems who will defend circumcision simply because "hey I have that, how dare you mock my penis!?"

      As someone who DOES have penis damage thanks to an UN-NECESSARY operation that I didn't opt in to, I'd like to bring everyones attention to this
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer [wikipedia.org]
      http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html [circumstitions.com] - NOT FOR THE SQUEEMISH
      Take note of "Necrotising fasciitis (Galloping gangrene)"

      Just because YOUR circumcision didn't fuck up, that doesn't change the fact that besides antiquated, stupid fucking reasons, literally 99.99% of circumcisions are UN-NECESSARY.

      If I've convinced one, just one man or woman today, to fucking think twice before dicing up their future childs junk, then I've done my job.

      • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zwarte piet (1023413) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @04:04AM (#36760186)
        Yeah, everyone can do what they want with their OWN body once they reached 18. Cutting up babies like that is a violation of basic human rights.
  • by pftdot (1578963) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:37AM (#36759344)
    Authorities say that he did not pick up his license for full 2 years and that the unusual hat has nothing to do with rules for any religious exceptions to *passport photo rules* because it is a drivers license. The law for driver licenses only specifies that the face in its entirety has to visible (spelling that out a bit more, but I did not read the rules myself). This also means that the conclusion "in all official photos" is not quite correct. If he would apply for a passport authorities would have to conduct an in-depth review... The question remains why it took one year for the license.
  • Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Andtalath (1074376) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:48AM (#36759398)

    Seriously, this is so wrong.
    This is the opposite effect of what should be happening.

    This is insane.

    Religions shouldn't get special treatment, it's moronic.

    • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:53AM (#36759428)

      thats the point. by making it so ridiculous people may figure that out.
      if you are telling people religious symbols should not be on the picture, they gonna tell you you are a hater. if you do like this guy and go fuck around a bit, they may have to remove them because its impossible to do otherwise.

    • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @01:57AM (#36759446) Journal
      That is exactly the sentiment he was expressing(and the sentiment that Pastafarianism was originally founded to express: to came into being during the "teach the controversy" creationism period in the US, to demand that its own creation myth be included in official curricula, if other people's were, in order to show how ridiculous going down that path is...)

      The law already makes the pandering exception for religious headwear in ID photos. This fellow chose a (quite successful, it's garnered headlines across the western world, if not further) protest-by-absurdity by demanding that his alleged precious religious sensibilities be respected, no matter how apparently ridiculous.

      The same logic is behind his attempt to have Pastafarianism added to the list of officially recognized faiths in Austria. He isn't actually trying to ensure that His Noodlyness will see fit to allocate him a spot in the afterlife closer to the beer volcano, he is trying to demonstrate what happens when a civil society cowtows to any crazy shit that somebody declares to be an oh-so-important matter of 'faith'...
      • Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

        by impaledsunset (1337701) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @03:19AM (#36759968)

        The question is, should we fight against all our exceptions in that matter? What if, for example, I have a mental illness that manifests itself in a unbearable fear to remove my hat? Should I be forced to remove it for my license photos? Now, what if a part of those religious people do feel the same thing, because of their religion? Sure, it's easy for a hat -- allow all hats that don't cover the face.

        Consider a Muslim woman who's wearing whatever that thing is called. It covers her head, and a part of her cheeks, so it doesn't hinder recognition of her face, but it does make it a bit more difficult. For a Muslim woman who is insisting on that, she'll always wear it, so wherever you see her, she would look exactly the same if she wears it, and she will look different if she doesn't. Moreover, if she's insisting on wearing it, it's probably important for her, and forcing her not to would be invasion. A little one, but still.

        How about allowing people to wear stuff on their license photos if they:
        1. Don't prevent recognition of the face and don't make it too difficult
        2. They wear them all the time
        3. They go through a small psychological evaluation that confirms that it is very important for them to wear them (religious, just crazy, are hiding shameful scars, or whatever reason).
        If this is not true, ask them to remove their ornamentation to make recognition of them easier.

        I'd say this will be fair.

      • Pastafarianism [...] came into being during the "teach the controversy" creationism period in the US, to demand that its own creation myth be included in official curricula, if other people's were

        If I were designing the curriculum, science books would have history sections explaining what people believed before the current models arose. For example, a book about chemistry might open with a progression from continuous matter to indivisible atoms to plum-pudding to Bohr orbits to quantum wave models of the atom. Likewise, the chapter on the big bang in an earth science textbook would list the creation myths of the most famous religions.

  • With all the shit talking that goes on about the bitcoin stories around here, where's the outrage over this story? This is barely idle-worthy.

    • Well let's see. On the one hand you've got daily, if not more frequent, stories pushing the new hotness strewn across all sections of Slashdot. On the other, you've got one story about something actually kind of serious (special consideration given to religion) in idle.

      If a bunch of submitters start trying to get me to buy into pasta strainers, then maybe I'll get annoyed. Otherwise? Not terribly bothered.
  • Ironic Religions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chysn (898420) on Thursday July 14, 2011 @08:49AM (#36762102)
    I suppose that within a few years, Pastafarianism, or the Church of the FSM, will gain earnest followers whose number will eventually overwhelm the ironic followers. Another ironic religion will need to be established, and fought for, to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster really is. The true believers will always chase out the ironic founders. This is what happened with Scientology, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They all started out as jokes or games, and soon became deadly serious. The Church of the FSM thinks it's so clever, but it's just giving the Ouroboros of credulity more tail to devour. Or something like that.

The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.

Working...