Slashdot Mirror
Spaghetti Strainer Helmet Driver's License Photo Approved On Religious Grounds (immortal.org)
PolygamousRanchKid writes with the news (widely reported, here an excerpt from the story as carried by Immortal News) that [i]n the Massachusetts city of Lowell, a woman identifying herself as a follower of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), otherwise known as Pastafarianism, has been approved by the state's Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) to wear a spaghetti strainer on top of her head in her state issued driver's ID. The approval to wear the helmet was initially denied. However, citing religious grounds, Lowell resident Lindsay Miller filed an appeal. Following intervention by the American Humanist Association's Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the RMV reversed their decision and allowed her to put on her colander and get her driver's license picture taken. According to the church's website, while there are those who perceive the religion to be satirical in nature, it "doesn't change the fact that by any standard one can come up with" the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is "as legitimate as any other" religion.
Asks PolygamousRanchKid: "Now what about my tinfoil hat . . . ?"
I don't know if making fun of a delusion is worth looking like a dork on your driver's license.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wanting to make fun of other people's religions and laugh at them for being superstitious is one thing, and not wanting to have intelligent design taught in schools is fine, but then turning around and calling that whole idea a religion of its own that deserves to be taken seriously by society seems nothing less than self-defeating.
You're not getting it. This case (the colander on the head) is pointing out the absurdity of "god makes me wear this" headware generally, and of state-government-level capricious laws/policies with respect to it in particular.
The only way to point out how ridiculous religion is, is to do something just as ridiculous, and force the government to treat it with the same level of credulity and absurd dignity. So this is just a case of the same tools (satire generally, and the FSM's teachings in particular) to point out another area of nonsense, separate from the intelligent design masterstroke with which it all started.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
As with most things not amenable to being hammered out in syllogism, it's a trifle fuzzy around the edges; but the basic outline(which I think we owe to Locke and derivatives heavily influenced by him) that 'if there is a suitably compelling interest behind some requirement, like making 'IDs' that actually identify, the fact that your objections are religious is irrelevant; but if the requirement is imposed to inconvenience some unpopular sect, without compelling interest, or with compelling interest that could be achieved by some less inconvenient means, then it's effectively just harassment with a greater or lesser degree of dishonesty.' has always seemed pretty compelling to me.
The 'not easy' part isn't so much in the theory, as in the myriad ways people can come up with to develop 'suitably compelling interests' that just so happen to rub sects they dislike the wrong way.
Where available, chronology clues are always useful: if the policy was in place before the people who feel excessively burdened by it were even a matter of much thought among the policymakers; it is substantially less likely that the policy was devised primarily to harass them. It might still be possible to amend it to suit people better without harming the interest it was put in place to achieve; but that's a good sign that it was imposed with some non-sectarian objective in mind.
If, by contrast, the arrival of some new and controversial sect prompts an...unrelated...interest in achieving some purportedly non-sectarian goal that just happens to ruin the new guy's day springs up; you should probably look more carefully at the idea.
(By way of example, 'making photo-IDs that are actually useful' is a fairly obvious matter of state interest, and dates back about as far as the techological viability of taking and reproducing photographs at acceptable cost; which makes the idea that it was concocted as a scheme to outrage modesty and crack down on assorted religions' preferred funny hats difficult to take seriously. There is a strong argument to be made that, given the easy and pervasive use of haircuts and dye jobs to change the appearance of hair, there isn't any good reason to crack down on headscarves, colanders, etc. while allowing people with dyed and styled hair to go about their business; either hair isn't a core ID feature, or you should be putting greater effort into worrying about any way of concealing or modifying it. By contrast, when people with no prior interest in slaughterhouse standards start freaking out about the chilling barbarism of kosher or halal butchery, it's worth a raised eyebrow. Such practices may well be incompatible with acceptable standards of animal welfare; but if you didn't care about any of the delightful things done in meatpacking plants because they are the cheapest, fastest, methods; some skepticism is in order when you develop a sudden interest in the subject.)
Stupid ideas should be attacked. Reason should always win over insanity.
http://www.americasfreedomfigh...
Quit your whining, we already have religious freedom for real religions. This is about religious freedom for satirical fake religions.
What the FUCK are you talking about?
Could you please provide any kind of model where a license of any kind works where it is impossible to find out whether a person holding said license is the rightful holder of it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There are two reasons. Because if you commit fraud, you should be prosecuted for fraud. That's pretty easy to understand.
And here I thought we prosecuted fraud because of the damage it does to others.
You can't sue someone unless you can show damages. Shouldn't the legal system work the same way?
Are we to completely circumscribe behaviour now, prosecuting things that have no effect on others whatsoever, based on a petty definition?
This is just another thinly veiled attack on Christianity and other religions. As a Christian I find this offensive, but I expect no one cares since I'm also a white male.
And a great many people find Christianity and other religions offensive, and consider them to be a thinly veiled attack on rationality. The great thing about society in the more enlightened parts of the world is that we have these things called freedoms, which protect our rights to do, say and believe things which others may find offensive.
As a corollary of this while anyone can consider something to be offensive, NO ONE should have the right to demand that other people do not offend them. As a christian you ought be particulary willing to defend this freedom; particularly given the persecution those of your religion face in some parts of the world.
The problem with this is, there is no sincerity test for religion available, as a religion can state any number of weird things and their followers believe only in a part of it or violate rules on purpose or because of ignorance. For example Catholics (at least in Europe) they use condoms. This is not really allowed especially not when having sex with different people. So total commitment is not a necessary criteria. And as they do joke about their religion, this cannot be a criteria either. If you look at the Discordianists, part of their believe is it to make fun of believes (including their own). And Christians believe that a cookie wafer is a part of their beloved god or symbol for his body and that they have to eat it in remembrance. So in the end you have to accept any weirdo with any hat like thing as long as the face is visible..
How does this get referred to as an atheist symbol?? I have read about the Pastafarianism religion enough to understand that it is NOT atheistic. It does believe in a higher power, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a god by any other name.
Atheist means a belief that there is NO god, not a belief in a god that happens to be different from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one.
No, it is not. It is actually a very clever way to highlight the importance of the separation between church and state.
The very first part of the First Amendment is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and, making explicit exceptions for religious attire in legislation breaks not only the spirit but also the letter of that text.
Making an exception in the law for religious reasons (like in this case, no head gear except for religious reasons) undermine that very principle and opens the door for other kinds of abuse and, in the future, even in the establishment of a state endorsed religion, one that may not even be the one you profess if you think about it.
Downvoting. Your haiku lacks an evocative appeal to the senses.
This photos shows how absurd the world is getting. Religion has to bend over the law, not the other way around. It the law says "no hat", it should be no hat, and fuck religious zealots that want to have their hat of the photo.
If sate laws and your religion laws are incompatible, then forget about your religion laws, they just don't apply.There are many religions - all of them incompatible, and pretty irrational to say the least -, whereas there is only one state law at a given place, and in many decent countries it gets decided by collective discussion. So the state law always applies while the religious laws are just a pile of bullshit.
Sadly, people that are not OK with that are bombing Paris, and our response is to make more space for religious bullshit. At some point, it has to be enough. Religions have to get the fuck off politics. You are free to believe whatever bullshit you want, to do whatever fucking dumb rituals you like, but it has to have no impact whatsoever on society. Simple, reasonable, and safe for everybody.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
If you are offended by a woman wearing a spaghetti strainer on her head, perhaps you should critically examine some of your own beliefs and whether your religion really offers a compelling source of information about the mysteries of the world.
no you wouldn't. religions get the religious breaks whether they are one or not. charities have to PROVE their actions are charitable causes and will lose their status if not.
and churches could STILL get tax exempt on their charitable works. Just not on the non-charitable stuff.
Just like every other charity.
So, no, you wouldn't in the least.
>Your failure is not your fault
That has been the mantra of Christianity for 2,000 years. Being poor is good, rich is bad, ignorance is good, worldliness bad, meekness is good, strength bad, and so and so forth.
This is just another thinly veiled attack on Christianity and other religions. As a Christian I find this offensive, but I expect no one cares since I'm also a white male.
I care very much and I say; FUCK YOU! You have no right to not be offended.
Your position indicates that you regard Christianity and the only allowable or acceptable religion. That it should be some right that no one else offend you and your selfish beliefs. Fuck you!
No one mentioned Christianity, God, Jesus or you. You have no justification for being offended and you have no right to not be offended. This is a suit about a driver's license picture and a completely other religion. It had nothing at all to do with Christianity, until you chose to make it about your own self-centeredness.
Pastafarian is about mocking all religions in general. It is a belief system, and therefore a religion, whose central tenet is that the belief in omnipotent magical beings is illogical and absurd. Your resentment of Pastafarianism is as unacceptable as Muslims and their insistence that no one create images of the prophet Mohammed.
Do you think that American Indians smoking peyote, taking spirit journeys and worshiping a Great Spirit and totems is ridiculous? To the Pastafarian and atheists and agnostics, worshiping God and the totem(Jesus on the cross) is exactly the same. Exactly the same.
But, what you completely fail to understand is that you would have Pastafarianism outlawed, banned, negated, stifled while they are making absolutely no such attempts on your own bizarre primitive rituals. They are simply saying that they feel that if you get special treatment, then they should too, because your system is as absurd to them as theirs is to you.
This is my issue with all religions except possibly Buddism and Sikhism. They all try to convert or persecute non-believers, especially Christianity and Islam. It's their way or eternal damnation. Meanwhile the atheists are very reasonably saying, that's not for me and I don't think that your sky fairy should entitle you to any more than I am entitled to.
Apparently someone figured out how to bottle rationality. I'm aware of many places that are in desperate need of it, but it'd have to go by supertanker to make a dent in the problem.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people. If everyone could wear whatever headgear they wanted, we wouldn't be having this argument. The church of the FSM isn't making fun of your or anyone else's beliefs, it's just making sure that if the government recognizes one of them it must recognizes all of them as equally valid. That the government got no right to say that your religion is "true" so you can wear your headgear and my religion is "false" so I can't, or that you can teach your religious beliefs about the creation of the universe or the human race but I can't. I know you have faith in your religion, here's a newsflash: So does every other religious person. Maybe you as a person can dismiss everyone else's beliefs. But as a society with freedom of religion, it can't. Even when they don't comply with your ideas of what a religious conviction should look like.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Oddly enough, "real religions" and "satirical fake religions" are equally valid, not only in the eye's of the legal system, but in their "truth."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Because it is in your possession, how else?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Grow up, girl, Get a cute boyfriend to hump your brains out on a regular basis and you won't feel the need to go around with a fucking pot on your head.
You do know that while sex is enjoyable and all that, it really is not the solution to all of life's problems, and not everyone you disagree with is suffering from sexual frustrations. This is not totally unlike telling a woman to "get back in the kitchen (or bedroom)", or telling a young person to "go back to the kid's table", or telling a black person to "get back out into the fields". While it might be an effective technique to belittle others, It is dismissive, petty, rude, and does little to actually advance the discussion.
While you might like to think that you can tell what everyone's sincerely held beliefs might be - you really can't. While you might like to be the arbiter of what is important and what is not important - others are going to disagree with you. Clearly in this case, this person does sincerely believe that this issue is important to them - important enough to go through all the legal necessities to get this type of ruling.
Religion has had the first mover advantage. Law has had to ask for permission of religion for its very existence. Bending over is nothing in comparison.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Freedom of religion is fine. Nobody is preventing you from practicing/worshiping. But if you want an optional license, one of the requirements being a clear, unobstructed photograph, you now have a choice to make between your religious requirements and your desire to get that license.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.