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."
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:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meh (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.
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:Pastafarian escapes from retardatorium... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What an ass (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: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: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:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
not enough people died for pastafarianism.
let's make the Mother of all Bolognesas !
Re:What a waste of time. (Score:3, Insightful)
He needs psychiatric help.
Apparently, the professional who conducted his psych evaluation disagrees.
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.
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: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...
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: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.
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:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Cognitive Dissonance". Look it up!
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Heresy (Score:5, Insightful)
A heretic is someone who shares almost all of your beliefs. Kill him.
-- Paranoia
Re:All religions are useless in today's context (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though I'm an apostolic atheist, I'd like to moderate this: Religions are part of nature, as much as humans are, and any other human behaviour. They've emerged as a primal means of organising society, making those societies more succesful, and spreading the meme of religion further.
But I have a BIG problem with anyone forcing their religion on me, trying to pass their fairy tales as truth, making me pay for their religion, killing for religion, using religion to get power over their peers, etc, etc...
Re:Why not? (Score:0, Insightful)
Yeah, they should do it before birth, before the baby is even considered human. It works for the pro-choice people!
Re:Heresy (Score:0, Insightful)
"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."
"And you Jehova's Witnesses, GET OFF MY LAWN!"
LOL, as with most (not all) professing "Christians" you are just another total hypocrite.
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: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: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.
Ironic Religions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:See now... (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?
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hair and fingernails grow back, and removing the placenta is only accelerating a natural process of childbirth.
But hey, if you really want to go this route, maybe you think your child doesn't need his left arm. Who are we to stop you, if you're the one who gets to decide what's best for him?