Slashdot Mirror
Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo
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.
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodly Appendages!
Pastafarians make fun of the archaic aspects primarily.
They also attack special prvileges given out to religions.
This attack is against religions requiring you to always wear some type of hat and thus people of that religion are allowed to take their photo with this hat.
They find this to be wrong since other poeple are not allowed to use hats on the photo.
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.
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.
Jan
Lord. As I recall this was a contraction of `hlaf` (bread) and `weard` (ward, guardian). Keeper of the Bread.
Food certainly is an important thing to guard, but it kind of ruins the luster of the term "lord" duddinit?
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism
Such ignorance I've only seen from A.C.s.
atheism n. - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's it. It's not a religion. It's not about ethics. It's not about economics. Fuck right off you simple minded slanderous twit.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.beanleafpress.com