Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo 535
An anonymous reader writes "Eddie Castillo is the first American to successfully have his government-issued photo identification taken while wearing a colander, though DPS officials are reportedly planning to follow up with Castillo in order to 'rectify' the situation. Others have tried unsuccessfully, and Castillo told KLBK that he was surprised at his victory, which he called a 'political and religious milestone for all atheists everywhere.'" Two years ago Niko Alm won the right to wear a pasta strainer on his head although Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.
Fit to drive? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, so what about the women who INSIST that their religion says they MUST wear a full-face Burka in public? NO SUCH DEMAND EXISTS IN THE QURAN!
Surely, then, these people should have to have a phsychologists' report to see if they are fit to drive.
Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin. How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism? They are completely disconnected in just about every way.
As for your other assertion, yes, billions of people still think of religions in terms of sky-fairies as opposed to philosophies and systems of ethics. Perhaps not those who study these systems, but for your average religious person, of course that still applies.
You give too much credit to the "religious faithful". I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the general point of movements like this is to remind people that they can *have* their "philosophy or systems of ethics" - they're welcome to them - but there's no need to have the group-rituals and sky-fairy baggage that go along with it. And once you stop doing that then there's no need to call what you're involved with a "religion" any more.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't.
In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion?
In the second case, why is the rule there?
Re:A more accurate title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes, they do, that's the entire reason for pastafarianism existing. To push back against people demanding that we teach things about sky fairies in science classes.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
Cultural behaviour is almost entirely driven by self-identity. Most first world, western (I'm assuming this is what you meant by "in 2013" - otherwise your statement is farcical) people self-identify with their neighbours rather than with their "religion". Behaviour differences due to religion barely register when we all watch the same TV, go to the same schools / shops / workplaces, etc.
Religion comes down to the particular brand of irrational to which you subscribe. This usually manifests itself as odd thoughts about natural processes like death and sex.
Your last sentence naively negates my argument by implying that any identifiable system of human behaviour can be labelled a religion. Labelling communism and capitalism "religion" demonstrates a lack of understanding of all three phenomena.
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the difference between 'religion' and 'preference'? Why should we treat them differently?
Why should the religious get special privilege when all they are doing, essentially, is making a series of choices they prefer to make over other choices? How is that different to how everybody else makes decisions?
Re: Fit to drive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)
You must understand the whole idea is to show theists what they look like in the mirror.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe I'm having to actually debate such stupid points on /., but here we go.
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god(s).
The two have no connection to each other. Nada. In fact, here's a link to help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Sorry, logical argument doesn't work that way. The original sentence was "...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?". Given the prevalence of God(s) in just about every major religion still practised in this day and age, there needs to be evidence to back up this claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person calling it into question.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes. Because you can have a system of ethics without religion, and therefore religion is just about the magic sky-fairies. Or, you know, about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Their delusions are not my problem. Nor should the state attempt to make them so.
Re:Good decision (Score:2, Insightful)
If headgear can be allowed for an ID document under a specific circunstance then it should be allowed under every circunstance. It's either valid for identification or it isn't.
Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
To many people religion is the core of their very being.
So?
I, and very many others, including the subject of TFA feverently believe in equality under the law.
For most people removing a hat is not an issue. For some religious people it is."I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul" is very different than "I prefer to keep my hat on because I want to".
And allowing some people to not remove their head imperils those ideas of equality under the law and freedom of religious (or lack of) expression.
Due to the right to freedom of religion, religion is a good reason.
By freedom of religion, you mean of course: "you get special freedoms only if you have the correct religion".
Where the hell does that end?
Re:Hey (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, the Atheists are identical to the theists. 2 groups of people obsessed with the nature of the afterlife to the point that they identify their entire existence by it. Christian, Muslim, Atheist. It's all the same damn thing.
There's 3 points of view on this:
Christian: I believe! It's a fact!
Atheist: I don't believe! It's a fact!
Normal Person: I don't know, don't care and don't think it's possible to prove a damned thing leave me alone... why do the two people above me have weird shit on their heads?
Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)
You find me a pastafarian who actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster and isn't just "holding a mirror up to the other religions" or whatever other things are cool at the moment and then we'll talk.
I have absoloutely no idea what your point is. You seem to misunderstand mine. Let me rephrase:
1. You're not allowed headgear in government ID photos.
2. People beleiving in certain magical sky faries get cross because the voices in their head from the faries tell them to wear hats.
3. People with voices in their head get to wear hats because of the voices.
4. Non religious people object on the grounds that people with weird irrational beliefs and voices in their head are more free in that they have special exemptions under the law.
5. Man fights for freedom of religion (and non religion) in order to be allowed the same special exemptions without having the requirement of having voices in your head telling you that you need to be exempt.
This is therefore a milestone for freedom because freedom no longer requires you to have voices in your head.
Yes, I have intentionally used very inflammatory language about religion because you persist in believing that religious beliefs are somehow special. They are not. For the record, I do not believe that all religious people are mad loonies with voices in their head.
You find me a pastafarian who actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster and isn't just "holding a mirror up to the other religions"
You have managed to miss the point *completely*. Finding such a person would indeed completely destroy the point of this man's actions. The WHOLE POINT is that you shouldn't get more freedoms simply by believing in the right kind of deity.
or whatever other things are cool at the moment and then we'll talk.
It's kind of naive that believe that religious beliefs and trends are not also subject to fashion.
Comment removed (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
It all comes down to definitions... I regard myself as both as I regard them two answers on two different (but related) questions.
When someone asks me wether god (pick your favorit) exists I answer 'I don't know' since I have no proof either way. This is the agnostic part.
When someone asks me wether I believe in god (pick any flavour), I answer 'No' since I don't see any reason to blindly put my faith in any of the various religions. This is the atheist part.
Re: Fit to drive? (Score:1, Insightful)
In pretty much every region, there are males who can not suppress that urge.
It's common sense to not be the low hanging fruit. I'm not saying that women should wear burqas, I am saying that it's a good idea to not be the least clothed woman in any venue.
LK
Re: Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. And an atheist is a normal person, who has learned how to learn. When faced with an "I don't know" situation where there is no shred of evidence to make them even suspect that a very strange possibility even might be true, he uses Occam's Razor. This is how people figured out there aren't any unicorns, for example, instead of going around, hilariously saying, "I don't know if there are unicorns." Indeed, it's how we know there exists gravity and light, instead of thinking "I don't know for sure that I'm not in The Matrix, where those phenomena are simulated." The atheist thinks in terms of evidence, rather than mathematical proofs.
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
But Charliemopps is belittling a serious problem - many Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and members of other religions are trying to inject their religious beliefs into civil law. You want to live your own life based on selective interpretation of the Bible? Fine. You want me to follow the same rules? No. That is why atheists and agnostics need to have a public presence in our modern time - to keep the people who think the creator of the universe is intensely concerned with whether they eat shellfish or what days of the week they pray from writing the laws.
Re: Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, (a)gnosticism is entirely separate from (a)theism. A gnostic atheist believes he knows there is no god. A gnostic theist believes he knows there is a god. An agnostic atheist believes there is no god but that it isn't possible to know for sure. An agnostic theist believes there is a god but that it isn't possible to know for sure.
Re:Hey (Score:0, Insightful)
I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why. In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise. These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise. This is why I equate Atheism with Theism. The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats. This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.
Blind Faith (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not require blind faith to have a general policy of rejecting unfalsifiable things as false.
Going from "there is no evidence of any gods" to "there are no gods" isn't any different than going from "there's no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to "there is no teapot orbiting the sun." It's not blind faith; it's common sense.
Blind faith is when you go from "there is no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to the amazing fantastical "there is a teapot orbiting the sun."
The two different conclusions stemming from the initial unknown condition aren't equivalent, because one takes a falsifiable position and one does not.
The guy who believes in the orbiting teapot and the gods, is no longer able to learn anything, because no new evidence can ever possibly change his estimate of how correct his belief is. Evidence plays no role at all; he has ceased to be able to obtain information. He doesn't have a theory and nothing ever happens to increase or decrease his estimate of his belief's truth. His "knowledge" is a pure fantasy with no connection to truth (except perhaps accidental).
The guy who says there are no orbiting teapots and no gods, has a falsifiable theory. Discovery of an orbiting teapot or a god will invalidate it, and continued absence of contrary evidence (especially after deliberate searches) will confirm the theory. His position contains knowledge. You can build on that kind of knowledge, as you might have noticed with all the rocket ships and cellphones and medicines.
In God We Trust - NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks. A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing.
If you think Pastafarianism is just small-minded mockery, you're missing the point. It's not intended to be.
The reality is that the US government offers preferential treatment to individuals based on religious beliefs. The DMV has an official "no hats" policy that prohibits headwear of any kind in official drivers license photographs. Naturally, this would mean that Jews have to remove their yarmulkes/kippas, Sikhs have to remove their turbans, and so on. However, that's not what actually happens. Individuals that claim belief in one of the mainstream religions are allowed to break this "no hats" policy on the grounds of religious freedom. Note, professed belief is sufficient; despite being an atheist, I can walk into a DMV and get my license photo taken with a yarmulke with no questions asked. Nobody will grill me about whether or not I'm a legitimate Jew, or if Judaism is a legitimate faith. If the DMV takes the religion-friendly stance of allowing exceptions to the "no hats" policy on the grounds of religious expression, then it legally cannot discriminate between different faiths. If you allow someone to wear a turban in their license photo solely because they claim to be a Sikh, then legally you have no grounds to deny a self-described Pastafarian the right to wear a colander.
If this seems silly or pedantic to you, then I would argue that it is you who are suffering from small-mindedness. Discrimination against atheists is very real, and very widely accepted. Atheists are tired of being second class citizens, and this colander issue is a great way of raising awareness about the issue without "offending" the theists among us (to whatever extent that is possible, since many theists find the very idea of atheism offensive).
Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why.
...waiting with baited breath...
In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise.
Then perhaps your mind should read a dictionary?
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
I don't see anywhere there that requires preaching or coercion, which tells me that you're pissed off at Atheists because you want to use your own definition of "Atheist". That's like being pissed off at catfish because of all of their fur and incessant barking.
These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise.
Some are, yes, but that's like equating WBC with Christianity. (neither of which I support, I'm just illustrating a similar comparison)
This is why I equate Atheism with Theism.
Well, as long as you realize that you equating one with the other makes you "wrong". Words have definitions, dictionaries enumerate them. If you don't like the definition then act to get it changed, but you don't suddenly get to decide for the rest of the world what words mean.
The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats.
I agree, despite your hypocrisy.
This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Based on the content I assume that you're not an Atheist, yet you'll deem to speak for us? Let me simplify this for you. I can't speak for all Atheists, obviously, but I can speak for myself.
Why do I believe that religion is "evil"? It's because spiritual leaders rely on various forms of deception to identify the "truth", even if (as you did above) it means re-defining words to mean what they WANT them to mean. In a nutshell: I respect honesty too much to be a supporter of religion. Find me an honest religion and then we can talk about my potential conversion from Atheism.
That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.
Then you have allowed the real definition of "Atheist" become altered in your head. Re-read your dictionary...people that try to force their beliefs on other people already have a perfectly good name: Douchbags.
Re: Hey (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also apatheism [wikipedia.org], in which one simply doesn't care whether gods exist or not and doesn't think the question whether this can or cannot be known is important. Buddhists tend to be apatheists: some think gods exist (but meh) while others think they don't (but whatever).
Re: Hey (Score:3, Insightful)
They all do; you just don't know Christianity as well as you think. Who the hell (excuse the pun) do you think is being referenced by the line Thou shalt have no other gods before me ? Even good ole' God "himself" openly states that there are other gods whom one might hold before "him".