Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo

Posted by samzenpus on from the how-do-you-like-me-now dept.

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.

21 of 535 comments (clear)

  1. Hey by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't think of a better symbol for atheism than someone wearing a bowl on their head.

    1. Re:Hey by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agnostics do not know whether they are supposed to wear funny hats or not.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Hey by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Interesting

      THIS! A MILLION TIMES THIS!

      Earlier this month I explained to the admin of an evangelical atheist FB page that I didn't want to see his sponsored posts. He accused me of being an overly sensitive Christian and of being afraid that my faith couldn't stand a little self-examination. I explained to him that I'm not a Christian and merely found him to be as annoying as any other evangelical with the audacity to intrude upon my day with his proclamations of good news. He was, in essence, acting like a non-believing Jehova's witness.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:Hey by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Atheism is the most retarded and violent religion on this planet"

      You forgot that not playing tennis is our sport while not collecting stamps is our hobby, both evil.

    4. Re: Hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, (a)gnosticism is entirely separate from (a)theism. A gnostic atheist believes he knows there is no god. A gnostic theist believes he knows there is a god. An agnostic atheist believes there is no god but that it isn't possible to know for sure. An agnostic theist believes there is a god but that it isn't possible to know for sure.

    5. Re:Hey by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      If you think Pastafarianism is just small-minded mockery, you're missing the point. It's not intended to be.

      The reality is that the US government offers preferential treatment to individuals based on religious beliefs. The DMV has an official "no hats" policy that prohibits headwear of any kind in official drivers license photographs. Naturally, this would mean that Jews have to remove their yarmulkes/kippas, Sikhs have to remove their turbans, and so on. However, that's not what actually happens. Individuals that claim belief in one of the mainstream religions are allowed to break this "no hats" policy on the grounds of religious freedom. Note, professed belief is sufficient; despite being an atheist, I can walk into a DMV and get my license photo taken with a yarmulke with no questions asked. Nobody will grill me about whether or not I'm a legitimate Jew, or if Judaism is a legitimate faith. If the DMV takes the religion-friendly stance of allowing exceptions to the "no hats" policy on the grounds of religious expression, then it legally cannot discriminate between different faiths. If you allow someone to wear a turban in their license photo solely because they claim to be a Sikh, then legally you have no grounds to deny a self-described Pastafarian the right to wear a colander.

      If this seems silly or pedantic to you, then I would argue that it is you who are suffering from small-mindedness. Discrimination against atheists is very real, and very widely accepted. Atheists are tired of being second class citizens, and this colander issue is a great way of raising awareness about the issue without "offending" the theists among us (to whatever extent that is possible, since many theists find the very idea of atheism offensive).

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Hey by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate getting into definitions - Agnostic, Athiest, Theist, and all the middle crap is annoying. That said: I'm very annoyed by true Athiests and here's why.

      ...waiting with baited breath...

      In my mind, the true Athiests are the ones who don't believe in god and mock and attack anyone who says otherwise.

      Then perhaps your mind should read a dictionary?

      a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
      "he is a committed atheist"

      I don't see anywhere there that requires preaching or coercion, which tells me that you're pissed off at Atheists because you want to use your own definition of "Atheist". That's like being pissed off at catfish because of all of their fur and incessant barking.

      These people are on the exact same level as the theists who believe in god and attack and mock anyone who says otherwise.

      Some are, yes, but that's like equating WBC with Christianity. (neither of which I support, I'm just illustrating a similar comparison)

      This is why I equate Atheism with Theism.

      Well, as long as you realize that you equating one with the other makes you "wrong". Words have definitions, dictionaries enumerate them. If you don't like the definition then act to get it changed, but you don't suddenly get to decide for the rest of the world what words mean.

      The truth is, it's not religion or lack thereof that's the problem. It's the people who feel the need to jam their opinion on the subject down other peoples throats.

      I agree, despite your hypocrisy.

      This is the true reason that Athiests believe religion is the source of all evil, and it's the real reason Theists roll their eyes at athiest arguments on the matter: they're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

      Based on the content I assume that you're not an Atheist, yet you'll deem to speak for us? Let me simplify this for you. I can't speak for all Atheists, obviously, but I can speak for myself.

      Why do I believe that religion is "evil"? It's because spiritual leaders rely on various forms of deception to identify the "truth", even if (as you did above) it means re-defining words to mean what they WANT them to mean. In a nutshell: I respect honesty too much to be a supporter of religion. Find me an honest religion and then we can talk about my potential conversion from Atheism.

      That said, the regular old Athiests - just like the regular old Theists and regular old Agnostics - are in no way a problem. These are the people who have their own opinion and allow others to have a separate opinion.

      Then you have allowed the real definition of "Atheist" become altered in your head. Re-read your dictionary...people that try to force their beliefs on other people already have a perfectly good name: Douchbags.

  2. What a victory for Noodly Rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodly Appendages!

  3. Good decision by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Good decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What exactly is the difference between 'religion' and 'preference'? Why should we treat them differently?

      Why should the religious get special privilege when all they are doing, essentially, is making a series of choices they prefer to make over other choices? How is that different to how everybody else makes decisions?

    2. Re:Good decision by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You find me a pastafarian who actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster and isn't just "holding a mirror up to the other religions" or whatever other things are cool at the moment and then we'll talk.

      I have absoloutely no idea what your point is. You seem to misunderstand mine. Let me rephrase:

      1. You're not allowed headgear in government ID photos.

      2. People beleiving in certain magical sky faries get cross because the voices in their head from the faries tell them to wear hats.

      3. People with voices in their head get to wear hats because of the voices.

      4. Non religious people object on the grounds that people with weird irrational beliefs and voices in their head are more free in that they have special exemptions under the law.

      5. Man fights for freedom of religion (and non religion) in order to be allowed the same special exemptions without having the requirement of having voices in your head telling you that you need to be exempt.

      This is therefore a milestone for freedom because freedom no longer requires you to have voices in your head.

      Yes, I have intentionally used very inflammatory language about religion because you persist in believing that religious beliefs are somehow special. They are not. For the record, I do not believe that all religious people are mad loonies with voices in their head.

      You find me a pastafarian who actually believes in the flying spaghetti monster and isn't just "holding a mirror up to the other religions"

      You have managed to miss the point *completely*. Finding such a person would indeed completely destroy the point of this man's actions. The WHOLE POINT is that you shouldn't get more freedoms simply by believing in the right kind of deity.

      or whatever other things are cool at the moment and then we'll talk.

      It's kind of naive that believe that religious beliefs and trends are not also subject to fashion.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Psychological Fitness by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course he is psychologically fit, the pasta strainer will shield his brain from the orbital mind control lasers.

  5. I wear a pasta strainer on my health card by saibot834 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  6. Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... by sFurbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:A more accurate title by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  9. Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Re: Fit to drive? by vesuvana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the men in the culture who insist women cover up lest they get aroused should have *their* heads examined

  11. Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.'"
  13. In God We Trust - NOT by emorning9707 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It says 'In God We Trust' right on our money. Who's jamming what down who's throats?