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."
That must be some heretical Pastafarian sect. Traditional Pastafarians wear pirate hats, not strainers.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
That's using his noodle.
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?
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.
Do you feel that a driving an automobile does not require a license that shows at least minimum capacity to actually operate said vehicle?
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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.
The correct utterance for this occasion-most-touched-by-His-Noodly-Appendage is 'Ramen!'
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!
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...
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 ?
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.
Two virtually impossible to compile statistics:
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...
He needs psychiatric help.
Apparently, the professional who conducted his psych evaluation disagrees.
Do you think that religion's utility as a smokescreen is unrelated to the degree of reverence that common opinion affords it? (or, for that matter, that every would-be theocrat is, in fact, insincere?)
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.
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.
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.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
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."
To be fair, given enough extremely good weed...
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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... :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
I suppose that within a few years, Pastafarianism, or the Church of the FSM, will gain earnest followers whose number will eventually overwhelm the ironic followers. Another ironic religion will need to be established, and fought for, to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster really is. The true believers will always chase out the ironic founders. This is what happened with Scientology, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They all started out as jokes or games, and soon became deadly serious. The Church of the FSM thinks it's so clever, but it's just giving the Ouroboros of credulity more tail to devour. Or something like that.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If it doesn't cost anything, why aren't everyone allowed to wear hats on ID photos?
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?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!