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
The correct utterance for this occasion-most-touched-by-His-Noodly-Appendage is 'Ramen!'
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.
That is exactly the sentiment he was expressing(and the sentiment that Pastafarianism was originally founded to express: to came into being during the "teach the controversy" creationism period in the US, to demand that its own creation myth be included in official curricula, if other people's were, in order to show how ridiculous going down that path is...)
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'...
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.
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.
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.
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."
...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?
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!