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.
Can't think of a better symbol for atheism than someone wearing a bowl on their head.
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodly Appendages!
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?
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Of course he is psychologically fit, the pasta strainer will shield his brain from the orbital mind control lasers.
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?
Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin. How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism? They are completely disconnected in just about every way.
As for your other assertion, yes, billions of people still think of religions in terms of sky-fairies as opposed to philosophies and systems of ethics. Perhaps not those who study these systems, but for your average religious person, of course that still applies.
You give too much credit to the "religious faithful". I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
I think the general point of movements like this is to remind people that they can *have* their "philosophy or systems of ethics" - they're welcome to them - but there's no need to have the group-rituals and sky-fairy baggage that go along with it. And once you stop doing that then there's no need to call what you're involved with a "religion" any more.
How is this the least bit on topic? This highlights not what religion is about, but that governments have been giving people special privileges based on their religion.
Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't.
In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion?
In the second case, why is the rule there?
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.
It's curious you assume he wants more restrictions, rather than more freedoms. I would argue his efforts are more about pointing out the arbitrariness of religion. If some people are allowed to do X, it stands to reason that everyone should be allowed to do X.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes, they do, that's the entire reason for pastafarianism existing. To push back against people demanding that we teach things about sky fairies in science classes.
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.
Yes.
Cultural behaviour is almost entirely driven by self-identity. Most first world, western (I'm assuming this is what you meant by "in 2013" - otherwise your statement is farcical) people self-identify with their neighbours rather than with their "religion". Behaviour differences due to religion barely register when we all watch the same TV, go to the same schools / shops / workplaces, etc.
Religion comes down to the particular brand of irrational to which you subscribe. This usually manifests itself as odd thoughts about natural processes like death and sex.
Your last sentence naively negates my argument by implying that any identifiable system of human behaviour can be labelled a religion. Labelling communism and capitalism "religion" demonstrates a lack of understanding of all three phenomena.
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.
I can't believe I'm having to actually debate such stupid points on /., but here we go.
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god(s).
The two have no connection to each other. Nada. In fact, here's a link to help you out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Sorry, logical argument doesn't work that way. The original sentence was "...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?". Given the prevalence of God(s) in just about every major religion still practised in this day and age, there needs to be evidence to back up this claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person calling it into question.
...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?
Yes. Because you can have a system of ethics without religion, and therefore religion is just about the magic sky-fairies. Or, you know, about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?
Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?
Economic systems are not religions.
Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.
I'm not going to argue about Capitalism here. But Communism is not just an economic system. Its most famous version, the Marxist–Leninist version, but also the maoist version, provide a full-fledged philosophical world view. They have unverifiable dogmas, their own version of heaven. (On Earth, after the communist revolution is completed) They have rituals that mirror Christians Rituals. They sing songs in groups to the honor of the party, just like Christian sing songs to honor god. They claim superhuman status for their leaders. So these versions of Communism are religions, at least under functional definitions of religion.
And these versions are also atheistic, because a important part of their world view is also atheism.
Jan
There are many definitions of religion that do not involve supernatural beliefs, e.g.:
Clifford Geertz: "Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [people] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
Schmidt, et al.: "Religions, then, are systems of meaning embodied in a pattern of life, a community of faith, and a worldview that articulate a view of the sacred and of what ultimately matters."
J. Miltion Yinger: "Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggle with the ultimate problem of human life."
Durkheim: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
Jan
six of one, half a dozen of the other.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It does not require blind faith to have a general policy of rejecting unfalsifiable things as false.
Going from "there is no evidence of any gods" to "there are no gods" isn't any different than going from "there's no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to "there is no teapot orbiting the sun." It's not blind faith; it's common sense.
Blind faith is when you go from "there is no evidence of a teapot orbiting the sun" to the amazing fantastical "there is a teapot orbiting the sun."
The two different conclusions stemming from the initial unknown condition aren't equivalent, because one takes a falsifiable position and one does not.
The guy who believes in the orbiting teapot and the gods, is no longer able to learn anything, because no new evidence can ever possibly change his estimate of how correct his belief is. Evidence plays no role at all; he has ceased to be able to obtain information. He doesn't have a theory and nothing ever happens to increase or decrease his estimate of his belief's truth. His "knowledge" is a pure fantasy with no connection to truth (except perhaps accidental).
The guy who says there are no orbiting teapots and no gods, has a falsifiable theory. Discovery of an orbiting teapot or a god will invalidate it, and continued absence of contrary evidence (especially after deliberate searches) will confirm the theory. His position contains knowledge. You can build on that kind of knowledge, as you might have noticed with all the rocket ships and cellphones and medicines.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Yes, and? He did not claim otherwise,
Yes, and? I did not claim otherwise.
and your statement has nothing to do with the argument that religions include a code of ethics.
That is not the argument.
Need a car analogy?
I cannot wait, since I know of no one on slashdot who is better at them than I am, he said modestly.
If someone describes their car as wheels and an engine to drive the wheels, you don't say that your truck has wheels and an engine, therefore a car is just so much painted fiberglass.
Nobody said that. What was said was that a car is not a spoiler, aftermarket bumper cover, or underbody neon, because none of those things are necessary to have a car. If your car includes those things, it's not because it's not a car without them. It's because they make you feel better. Ethics doesn't become not-ethics because religion is not associated with it. But ethics does become religion when you associate magic sky fairies. And it becomes goddamned fantasy when you suggest that you can't have ethics without religion — or morality, for that reason. I regularly see assertions that both things are products of religion, but I didn't say that, nor did I say that religion is inherently unethical or immoral.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It says 'In God We Trust' right on our money. Who's jamming what down who's throats?
>>>about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.
Not only "stupid shit", and not only "exchange for lies". Religions, like any other set of arbitrary values and believes, can impose benevolent or harmful world view. You have to evaluate its effects as a whole, and by only focusing on negatives you are not being objective.
For example, "Do not kill" part of Christianity can be credited with sufficiently stabilizing society that scientific progress became possible, directly leading to establishing Western Civilization as a successor to Roman Civilization. You can correctly point out that morality/ethics does not require religion, but this only holds true in already civilized society. Now try to stop Viking raiding party from pillaging, raping, and burning crops with appeals to morality. You need something stronger, like a set of superstitions that designed to scare you into normality (or else you eternally burn in hell, and who wants to chance that?).
Han shot first!
Wait... what forum is this again?