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.
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?
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'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.
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
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.
Maybe the men in the culture who insist women cover up lest they get aroused should have *their* heads examined
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.'"
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
It says 'In God We Trust' right on our money. Who's jamming what down who's throats?