Pastafarian Wins Right To Wear Colander In License Photo 689
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."
See now... (Score:2, Informative)
THIS is news for nerds!
I think that you are missing the point of... (Score:5, Informative)
...mock-religions.
Which is... wait for it... to mock religions. ReligionS. As in plural.
Not "one sect's beliefs". That would be religious bullying, which is the first cousin (on its mother's side) of religious persecution.
Besides. Every religion out there already has its own methods and channels for that particular activity, on sect by sect basis.
Mostly based around claims that everyone else who is NOT a member of their sect is going straight to hell.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you're a christian, you believe that "God" is an asexually-reproducing...
The concept of sexuality is not necessarily defined in the dimension of a possibly existing god. Whatever your conclusions are, you have to start assuming to reach them: welcome to the wonderful world of believers.
Re: (Score:3)
If I had modpoints, I'd mod this up.
All religions have a serious amount of silliness to them if you look at it objectively. A lot of "commandments" that are either artifacts of the time/place in which they were created, artifacts of the mind-altering drugs or other wackiness the people who created them were into, or artifacts of the people who have altered/rewritten/co-opted them for political purposes since their founding.
I was told once by a Muslim woman that there is a requirement for women to veil their
Re:See now... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an exercise in mocking the "special considerations" given for religion.
There are presumably good reasons for prohibiting headwear in ID photos. If so, then why are these reasons suspended because you belong to a particular Imaginary Friend Club? By drawing attention to how ludicrous it is to be permitted to wear a colander because you claim that you worship a being composed of pasta and meatballs, he draws attention to how ludicrous it is to claim special headwear privileges for other, similar beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:See now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See now... (Score:5, Insightful)
It clearly costs something, otherwise arbitrary headgear would be permitted. Why can't I wear a hat anyway? Maybe I'm bald and sensitive about it. Maybe I just think hats are awesome. Why should those reasons not be respected, but a "belief" or "faith" should?
Heresy (Score:5, Funny)
That must be some heretical Pastafarian sect. Traditional Pastafarians wear pirate hats, not strainers.
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly some sort of Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox Pastafarian. Probably celebrates all the key holy days a week off, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)
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)
A heretic is someone who shares almost all of your beliefs. Kill him.
-- Paranoia
Re: (Score:3)
+1. Depressingly true.
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3)
UCC is not a doctrinaire sect, that's kind of the point. Rev. Wright does not represent the views of the entire UCC. In fact, the UCC supports rights for gays--including gay marriage. They also allow female pastors and support women's abortion rights. Yeah, you can pick out one example showing one crazy UCC pastor, but those are Wright's views, not the positions advocated by the UCC as an organization. Each church is self-governing and may have its own doctrines which could be more or less conservative than
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:"treat others as you would want to be treated." (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Heresy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)
Q: Why won't Southern Baptists have sex standing up?
A: They're afraid someone will see them and think they're dancing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, like any other religion? Most of the things taught to the religious today are "on faith" that the pastor is telling you what actually happened and/or what will happen. Actual evidential religions don't really exist. That's part of what makes them religions.
Heh. (Score:5, Funny)
That's using his noodle.
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
not enough people died for pastafarianism.
let's make the Mother of all Bolognesas !
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
So, first, I don't see anything in that post which says anything about belief in God. Maybe you read something else by the same person, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I really can't see how you get from "Don't cut up babies" to "There is no God."
But since I don't believe in a God, maybe I can help you out here...
what gives you the right to judge these parents?
I have the right to judge anyone and anything. My judgment doesn't necessarily carry any weight, but this is pretty well identical to the freedom of speech thing.
What's more, it's
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)
Practice of circumcision has been long established as both religious
Which has zero importance.
and medically beneficial procedure.
Medicinal benefits are very minor, especially in typical climate in Western countries, and are completely negated by modern hygiene practices . The risk of things going wrong during circumcision should be accounted for, as well.
All in all, this is completely unlike, say, vaccination where the benefits are very significant. Furthermore, this is not your average medical procedure - most of those don't result in permanent body modifications. It's the latter part which matters most - a surgical change that stays with the person for the rest of his life is not something to be considered lightly, and should certainly require his consent.
The campaign against religious circumcision is nothing but an political religiophobic atheistic campaign that is gaining momentum as a reaction to the growing percentage of Muslims in Western countries.
Most people circumcised in US are not Muslims, so I have no idea where you pulled that from. Got any numbers to back the claim?
While we're at it, do you think that female circumcision is a great idea as well?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such basic human right. Practice of circumcision has been long established as both religious and medically beneficial procedure.
Medically beneficial? That's just bullshit, it has been refuted countless times. Religous procedure? Indeed, but so if female circumcision.
Obligatory Hitchens (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DVWX96PNg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reduced infections and HIV are urban legends. Please do some googling before bringing cobblers like that here.
Re: (Score:3)
The reduction in risk in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases is pretty small if it exists at all. This compares very poorly with condoms which reduce the risk by ninety something percent and which protect both you and your partner.
As for cancer, you can reduce your risk of testicular cancer by 100% simply by amputating your testicles, but you're not going to do that, are you.
The main issue with circumcision as far as I am concerned is that it is an elective procedure usually performed on an individ
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
I only have a fairly basic 'flaw' which can be corrected (google images "penal scrotal webbing") this is 100% caused due to an operation I didn't want, need or have a choice in.
It's barbaric and stupid, how anyone DARES think they have the right to make that decision for someone else is fucking beyond me. My parents are forgiven, they weren't to know but it's 2011 now and shit like that needs to stop.
People defending it saying it reduces the chances of disease are fucking retarded.
Re: (Score:3)
If you'd slice off your daughter's clitoris, I don't give a fuck about your opinion, you do not get to "mind your own business," you get stopped. And yes, people do this -- look up female circumcision.
Male circumcision is not as severe, but it is mutilation. If we're "imposing" for telling you off about it, how much more "imposing" are you for cutting off a body part of your child?
What makes our way right? Well, in this case, we at least offer the child a choice. When they are of age, if they still want to
Re: (Score:3)
Mastectomies would reduce the odds of breast cancer but I don't see people advocating lobbing off a girl's breasts for that modest medical benefit.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Being a bit snippy aren't we ;)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Counter Points (Score:4, Informative)
Do you enjoy the tactile feedback that your finger tips provide? A super nerve dense area of skin that allows your hands to do delicate stuff. Imagine if as a baby someone came along and shaved off all of your finger tips. Do you think you'd be able to do the types of work that an 'un shaved' would be able to do? You wouldn't know any different. As far as you know that's how fingers are supposed to work.
"Ribbed for her Pleasure" condoms. Where the heck do you think 'rib' was supposed to come from? Prosthetics are nice but not quite the same.
Re: (Score:3)
How the hell is circumcision in any way connected to AIDS?
I don't really get the almost religious battle between those that like to cut their flap off and those that don't. Personally, I'd say let the child decide himself once he's able to make that decision, cutting parts off babies is just kinda wrong. You make a non-reversible decision for a human being, it's not like you choose his religion or something similarly irrelevant and easily corrected.
Not quite the entire story (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not quite the entire story (Score:5, Informative)
From the story I read on another site (I forget which), part of the reason for the delay was to perform a court ordered psychiatric evaluation. They needed to confirm that the man who wanted to wear a colander wasn't insane, just smug.
To give the whole story: (Score:3, Informative)
There was a brochure issued by the DMV that said that you only may wear headgear for religious reasons on the photo. That was the initial trigger why @NikoAlm started the whole thing. The law regarding driving licenses says nothing about religion, only that the head must be "fully visible", but that came up only recently.
The clerk at the DMV initially refused to issue the driving license, asking for a photo without headgear. When Mr. Alm asked to get that in writing, the DMV issued a (kind of) subpoena inst
Re:Not quite the entire story (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think they probably would do a psychiatric evaluation on anyone who attempted to wear a mutilated penis on their head in an Australian driving licence photo.
Re:Not quite the entire story (Score:5, Insightful)
Mutilate what? They just nip the tip to make it look bigger. You don't get upset about breast enlargements do you ;-)
I do get upset when they are performed on infants...
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
History of science (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Much of that apocalyptic stuff was oriented towards the end of Roman rule in Judea. 'A better world coming' is basically 'a world without Roman centurions in Jerusalem.' Much of the belief surrounding Jesus as the Messiah meant that he was to be King of the Jews and thus lead them all to freedom, starting with kicking the Romans out of Judea. That's why the Pharisees handed him over to Pilate -- they didn't want the Jews who believed Yeshua to be the Messiah to come for THEIR heads, so they foisted him o
Re: (Score:3)
He showed all apparent seriousness in the belief that the apocalyptic end of history was Coming Real Soon Now
What the fuck?
http://bible.cc/matthew/24-36.htm
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,f but only the Father.
And, moments before in Matthew 24-34 [bible.cc], "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Unless you want to put the world "generation" on the rack and really get your exegesis on, he is providing a fairly tight upper bound. He is, as you say, explicitly saying that no more detailed information is available within that bound; but the passing of a generation, best case, is the work of just over a century. That doesn't tell you how to allocate your sick days in order
news for nerds? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you feel that a driving an automobile does not require a license that shows at least minimum capacity to actually operate said vehicle?
You just don't understand Libertarianism. In Libertarian Fantasy Land (tm), the Free Market (tm) solves all problems. Got run over by a guy without a license? Guess you'd better vote with your wallet next time!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So in addition to needing the ability to drive safely, they also need to be able to drive ecologically. And this somehow means that it has "nothing to do with safety" ?
And because there are currently dangerous drivers, we should allow even more dangerous drivers?
Where did you learn basic logic?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to have an official photo or even a license to drive... so long as you stay on your own property, and off of *public* roads. If you haven't proven you can drive, I don't want you doing it anywhere near me.
You're a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a combo mod for dumbass AND troll? Trollass? Dumbtroll?
Kristopeit., Michael Trollack
Re: (Score:3)
Somalia doesn't - off you go, I'm sure you'll love it there!
Re:Pastafarian escapes from retardatorium... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What an ass (Score:5, Funny)
Those people, who ordinarily would keep their faith to themselves, get pissed off at the trolls and fight back.
You, er, might want to re-calibrate your sample...
Re:What an ass (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody not throwing their religion in my face could either be keeping quiet or not have one. Similarly, you can be pretty sure that smugly atheistic posts are posted by smug atheists; but you'll have a bit of trouble determining how many other posts are or are not posted by 'internet atheists' whose primary definition is not the god they don't believe in.
More to the point, two not clearly relevant statistics: People who merely proselytize in public, while somewhat irritating(and definitely nonzero in number), are making a basically harmless use of their rights to freedom of religion and speech. Similarly, 'internet atheists', while potentially obnoxious, are at worst a minor subcategory of the trolls of the WWW.
What counts is how efficiently well placed people throw their metaphysical positions, or the consequences thereof, into your face, your laws, or other aspects of your society. And on that metric, the news ain't pretty...
Re:What an ass (Score:5, Insightful)
While there is certainly some good, old-fashioned, trolling just for its own sake among atheists as elsewhere, the whole point of exercises like Pastafarianism, getting a driver's license with a colander on your head, Draw Mohammed Day, and the like is to corrode, by public display of irreverence, the great power of automatic deference traditionally enjoyed by assorted religious symbols.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for at least admitting that your sole goal is to mock people until they don't dare speak against you. That puts you a step above most.
Of course, in reality, mocking people simply makes them harden their stance. But hey, don't let basic knowledge of human nature get in your way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes atheists are assholes but, bright side, there are no atheism-motivated wars or ethnic cleansings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes what an ass. The right attitude is to sit in the middle, never challenge any stupidity, never take any risks, never try to change the world for the better by confronting harmful superstitions. It feels nice to hand out judgments to both sides of the argument wearing the "reasonable guy in the middle" hat.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the right to choose what headgear to wear on your official photo is restricted if you don't belong to a particular religion. Either it is important that people don't wear
Re:What an ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue a million posts by smarmy fuckers about how religion is the only thing harming society, and if we could just make one more smug internet post about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would all go away!
You complain about people who do not share your myths as ''trolling religious people'' and then proceed to do the same. What you are doing is to discourage discussion by getting those who might reply to think ''am I a troll and asshole?''.
People might not get so upsed about beliefs if everyone did indeed ''keep their faith to themselves'', but this generally does not happen with the result that you irritate non believers and induce those who adhere to different myths to shout back to show that their myths are the true ones ...
No: I don't think that ''religion is the only thing harming society'', there are plenty of other things as well.
What Mr Niko Alm is doing is to raise the question as to why religious people can bend society to give them special privileges. Why should everyone not be allowed to wear what ever they want on their head in their driving license photograph? Why restrict this right just to those who believe some mythologies to be true ?
Re: (Score:3)
I am pointing out that anyone who pretends to believe in a fake religion to mock real ones is a troll.
I think you're missing the real point of the Pastafarianism thing; that all religions are fake. Most people are used to treating them as "real", and most believers are afraid of examining their core beliefs; by pushing the absurdity of a colander in their faces, this guy and others are forcing them to look again at the basic issues, and maybe help a few of them realize the absurdity of the whole concept of a religion,or at least help them take it less seriously. That's a GOOD THING.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What an ass (Score:4, Insightful)
If a Jew really wants to wear a skullcap in their picture, let them. You know it's important to them. Far more so than it is to you to be able to wear a baseball cap. So why mock them? Why go through this complicated three year ordeal just to try to convince people that the Jews shouldn't be allowed to wear their hats?
Had it occurred to you that perhaps this guy believes that all should be equal under the law more as or more strongly than other people believe in their religion? This is something that I believe very strongly too: I feel very strongly that I and others should not have fewer rights because we don't profess an allegience to something that clearly does not exist[*]. So, he's doing the best that he can and is mocking the official position, and raising the issue publicly.
[*] Many religions get special dispensation. Only one can be right at most, so this is a fair claim even if you are religious.
Re: (Score:3)
When the religious stop trying to force their set of believes in my laws (from school curriculum to sex laws), I'll stop mocking them. Deal?
Separation of church and state, it's about time we finally do it.
Re:Un-enlightened Austrian authorities? No. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Un-enlightened Austrian authorities? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blasphemy! May His Noodleyness strike you down with one powerful touch of his appendage!
Pastafarians rise up and smite the non-believer!
Seriously, you cannot be an atheist and beleive in the FSM. Atheists who use the the FSM to premote their agenda totally miss the point and aren't really welcomed in the church.
R'amen.
I know, I know. But people can't have it both ways.
Re:Un-enlightened Austrian authorities? No. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Un-enlightened Austrian authorities? No. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He needs psychiatric help.
Apparently, the professional who conducted his psych evaluation disagrees.
Re:What a waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)
BULL FUCKING SHIT. You want to know what is a REAL waste of taxpayer money? Having organized religion manipulate the government to pass legislation that favors their goals. Granting tax-exempt status for religious institutions. State funding for social services managed by religious institutions. Having to fight the legal impact of religious indoctrination in the courts, per evolution vs. creationism. The so-called "war on terror" would not exist if people weren't so goddamned busy blowing each other up over fairy tales.
And the coup de grace: The lives damaged and lost due to the decades-long history of CHILD RAPE that was condoned and hidden by the Catholic church.
Don't get all whiny about one guy costing taxpayers money because he wants to point out the hypocrisy and idiocy of pandering to religious nutjobs. Religion has cost humanity far more in terms of lost lives, productivity, education, and money, than it will ever be able to repay in the form of "goodwill" and "spiritual comfort."
Re:What a waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't be such a strain if they didn't force him to do a psych test. In fact, if they just treated him like any other religious person, it wouldn't cost more than what the license costs to make for anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a colander after all - straining is its job.
Thank you, thank you... I'll be here all night!
Re: (Score:3)
. Glad he's fighting for the rights of people who really aren't discriminated against in today's society instead of actually helping people.
He is in fact fighting against preferential treatment for mainstream religions, i.e. for secularism, which is often not really thorough in so-called modern democracies. Members of the Catholic Church get tax cuts to compensate their membership fees, religious people get to teach ethics classes at school, crosses are still hanging on the wall in many classrooms. He chose this way to protest against lack of secularism and will apparently try to claim all other unjustified favours the Catholic Church gets for