Slashdot Mirror
Pastafarian Wins Right To Wear Colander In License Photo
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 is news for nerds!
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.
Huh? Do you not understand the point of Pastafarianism? It is to mock religion through demostrating equally ridiculous claims as religions and demanding that they be recognised to be as important as those other claims. No-one actually *believes* in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (no-one sane anyway) and that's the point.
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.
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 instead and had Mr. Alm examined by a medical officer regarding his mental health. Luckily the examination only took 5 minutes and Mr. Alm now has it in writing that he is mentally sane and fit to drive a vehicle.
The DMV then issued the driving license after about a year but did not contact Mr. Alm so that he could pick it up, that's where the long delay came from.
That's the whole story as told at http://blog.alm.at/2011/07/12/hl-fuhrerschein-episode-6-das-finale/ (translation: http://goo.gl/MOsG1)
Yes, it is only a moral victory. For a real victory, somebody would have to do that with a passport photo where headgear really is only allowed for religious reasons. But hey, given the even international publicity, somebody might... :-)
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.
...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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Incorrect and stupid response.
Ranting is more than justified on an cosmetic UN-NECESSARY medical procedure being inflicted on a person incapable of defending themselves.
There are no 'risks' on both sides, it's plain FACT that 99.99% of circumcisions are simply not required.
Learn about the subject, don't make stupid posts as if you've got the sensible, sitting in the middle, adult angle on this.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html
Do some reading.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
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?