Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo 535

Posted by samzenpus
from the how-do-you-like-me-now dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo

Comments Filter:
  • Hey (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Cat (19816) * on Thursday August 29, 2013 @03:31AM (#44704301)

    Can't think of a better symbol for atheism than someone wearing a bowl on their head.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617)

      You must understand the whole idea is to show theists what they look like in the mirror.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Charliemopps (1157495)

        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 he

        • Re:Hey (Score:5, Informative)

          by firex726 (1188453) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {627xerif}> on Thursday August 29, 2013 @07:12AM (#44705215)

          Minor point, your Atheist POV is that of a Gnostic Atheist which has all the same burden of proof as the Theist.

          Most Atheists seem to be more on the Agnostic side of things; in that they acknowledge there might be, or there might not be a god. There is no solid proof either way though it's looking less and less likely given the claims of the Theists.

        • Re:Hey (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Lord Kano (13027) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @07:37AM (#44705351) Homepage Journal

          THIS! A MILLION TIMES THIS!

          Earlier this month I explained to the admin of an evangelical atheist FB page that I didn't want to see his sponsored posts. He accused me of being an overly sensitive Christian and of being afraid that my faith couldn't stand a little self-examination. I explained to him that I'm not a Christian and merely found him to be as annoying as any other evangelical with the audacity to intrude upon my day with his proclamations of good news. He was, in essence, acting like a non-believing Jehova's witness.

          LK

        • Re:Hey (Score:5, Informative)

          by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @07:50AM (#44705439)

          That last one would be an atheist as well. In fact almost all atheists are like that.

          The default when you don't know if something exists is to assume it does not. This is why I am not worried about the invisible dragon in my garage.

        • Re:Hey (Score:4, Informative)

          by happy_place (632005) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @08:11AM (#44705603) Homepage

          There aren't just three options, though.

          There is the "I've experienced some unexplainable events in my life, and so I'm open to the possibility of God," group.
          There is the "I've had bad experiences with religion, and so I'm not interested in any of it..."
          There is the "I just want to party, be sarcastic, and mock anything that's an easy target" group.
          There is the "I feel threatened by these people that don't share my personal beliefs, philosophy or antireligious sentiments" group.
          There is the "I couldn't live by X religion's basic tenets, and so now I try to define discredit it" group.
          There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X religion" group.
          There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X philosophy or nonreligion or antireligious" group.
          There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), so I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious)"
          There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), and now I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) because I've found personal evidence of it."
          There are those who claim to have experienced direct and divine personal revelation regarding their religion, have tested it, and live it.
          There are those who are naturally skeptical who never found any evidence convincing enough to enable them to commit to religious affiliation, all with varying degrees reaction to this failed search...

          In reality, there are thousands of other ideas floating around out there, and we weakly associate one with another to form religious, nonreligious or antireligious groups... religions do have a powerful sway, they convey commonalities that many people feel are truth in their lives, and can be used to affect remarkable compassion and human decency. When threatened humans can also join as a group (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) and do terrible things...

          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. One does not make one's own beliefs more true by mocking or tearing down the beliefs of others. Even if you were to completely and utterly disprove a body of religious thought, it would do not prove your own.

          But in the same sense, if they wish to embrace a fabricated tasty cthonic diety my personal response is, "Meh."

          Truth is personal. Most of us are in a constant state of flux, trying and learning and exploring different ideas and ideaologies as we age and wizen and mature. I've come to the conclusion that religious freedom is one of the most fundamentally sound and civil ideas that humanity has embraced. It is the ultimate freedom and for those who wish to control others, or must belong to the one and only true group of humans (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), the most threatening.

          • Re:Hey (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NoImNotNineVolt (832851) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @10:30AM (#44706909) Homepage

            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:4, Insightful)

          by Sloppy (14984) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @08:11AM (#44705607) Homepage Journal

          Normal Person: I don't know, don't care and don't think it's possible to prove a damned thing

          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.

        • Actually atheists don't (by their very nature) worry about the afterlife. That's like saying dog's are worried about books, because they don't read them.
          Many atheists these days are more vocal because of the growing attacks on science. If people want to believe that we can be healed from the sin of an ancient relative (who was talked into eating an apple by a talking snake), by a human sacrifice, where god had his own son (who is himself) killed. That's fine. Just stop trying to force it on everyone el

      • No. One does not encourage a change in behavior by openly mocking the behavior of others. That method only works if the others respect the opinion of the one doing the mocking. If my friends or family make fun of me for doing something, I feel shame because I care about and respect what they think. If some stranger does it, I just think he's an asshole. If I don't respect what a stranger thinks, it merely serves to encourage division if he makes fun of me.

        More to the point, the offensive and destructiv

    • Am I the only person who thinks this story is so old it's just come back into fashion?
  • He'd look just like Eddie Castillo.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29, 2013 @03:37AM (#44704327)

    Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodly Appendages!

  • by Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @03:39AM (#44704331)
    It's all just an attempt from NSA and CIA to create more news, driving attention from Snowden's leaks, plus to show the whole world that USA is still more free and open country than Russia and China.

    What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?
    • "It's all just an attempt from NSA and CIA to create more news, driving attention from Snowden's leaks"

      Riiiight, THIS is the story they created for that.

      *coff* twerp *coff*

      "What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?"

      Do you mean fnord?

  • Fit to drive? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • Re:Fit to drive? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tempmpi (233132) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:27AM (#44704523)

      Even a religion with a book does not need to have everything in that book. "Sola scriptura" is a part of protestant Christianity, but there are many book based religions without such a rule.

      • Re:Fit to drive? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by T.E.D. (34228) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @09:05AM (#44706055)

        "Sola scriptura" is a part of protestant Christianity, but there are many book based religions without such a rule.

        "Sola scriptura" came out of protestant theology, but that doesn't mean all protestants believe that. Calvinists and Lutherans tend to, but In fact, most others don't. The Methodists, for instance, base their faith on what they call a "quadrialteral", only one vertex of which is scripture.

        The confusion comes in because the protestants that do believe it also tend to be quite vocal (that's part of being "evangelical" after all), and tend to insist everyone else isn't a real Christian [wikipedia.org]. It serves the purpose of a lot of vocal atheists to agree with them (as absolutists philosophies are far easier to refute). So an appalling amount of discussion about Christianity gets carried out with an implicit assumption that the majority of professed Christians don't actually exist.

    • Re: Fit to drive? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vesuvana (1166821) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:11AM (#44704675)
      Maybe the men in the culture who insist women cover up lest they get aroused should have *their* heads examined
      • There is a simple solution for that. And it works.

        My dog sure got a lot more docile after the procedure.

  • Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @03:54AM (#44704397) Journal
    It highlights the idiocy in having special laws for religious beliefs. If something should be illegal, it should be illegal for everyone. If something should be legal, it should be legal for everyone. You shouldn't get special privileges for holding certain beliefs. If it's fine for some people to wear hats or other head coverings in official photographs then it should be legal for everyone.
    • by jklovanc (1603149)

      I disagree. Most rules are about preferences. For example, most people do not wear a head covering except if it is part of their religion. Requiring photos without headgear makes identification easier. In this case religion trumps preference. "I want to" is not a similar reason.

      By the way "not allowed" is not the same as "illegal". Illegal means against the law and there are consequences for breaking the law. Not allowed means they won't take the picture with the headgear on. The prohibition of headgear is

      • Re:Good decision (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29, 2013 @05:08AM (#44704659)

        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?

        • by jamesh (87723)

          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?

          Special consideration for disability. If you've been brought up to believe that you are required to hide your face, whether you want to or not, because an invisible unprovable deity says so (do any religious texts actually say such things?), then your brain has been well and truly washed. You've been brainwashed probably since birth by people who want to control you. It's not your fault, and your disability should be given some respect like any other disability.

          As far as I can see the guy in TFA believes no

          • I find the whole thing a bit distasteful. I see being allowed to wear a colander on your head in an official photo as more a "milestone for fail.

            It's a milestone for not getting special priviledges because you believe in the *correct* magical sky fairy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

  • by puddingebola (2036796) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @03:58AM (#44704417) Journal
    Of course he is psychologically fit, the pasta strainer will shield his brain from the orbital mind control lasers.
  • by saibot834 (1061528) on Thursday August 29, 2013 @04:06AM (#44704447) Homepage

    I submitted a photo where I wear a pasta strainer for my official electronic health insurance card in Germany -- and it got accepted, no questions asked! Always good to get some laughs when I have to go to a doctor.

    Head coverings were not allowed, but religious ones were exempt. Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?

    • He's from the church of alcoholics.
    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?

      No that's just good old fashioned German patriotism.

  • Outrageous (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It is ridiculous that people are allowed to hide their face on ID photos by wearing headgear. No kind of headgear should be allowed on ID photos for any reason whatsoever, no exception allowed.

    • by Jesrad (716567)

      And thus achieving a more perfect Bureaucracy for all. Amen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Perhaps you mean, "Ramen".

  • Showbiz Pizza was a front for the Pastafarian movement.

  • give the middle finger to any camera that can or is taking a picture of me.

    And no, I don't have a current I.D. card. So when someone asks me for my I.D., i just show them what it would of looked like. Needless to say, this gets me in trouble.

    Religions seems to be nothing but trouble...

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.

Working...