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 . . . ?"
If a tax evation group makes a billion and a half dollars on the idea that depression is caused by the souls of aliens tormenting the world than some crap like the spaghetti monster is not really surprising.
As long as it doesn't obstruct her face or otherwise interferes with identification, it is of course acceptable...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is a subtle but important difference between these two situations. In the OP, the religious garb does not impede identification. In your situation it very much does. The best solution available to my mind, is to have the appropriate picture taken but if identification is required later have it performed by a woman.
If the religion is sincerely held, accommodation should be made. However a DMV cannot possible evaluate the sincerity. It seems that the correct approach is to allow the photo. Later if the person gets stopped for a traffic violation and isn't wearing their spaghetti strainer, that should be grounds to investigate and charge them with fraud if it were a sham.
Same rights? Of course not, she'd get more!
An ID photo where you look like any other idiot dressed as a ninja rather defeats the object, does it not?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The key question is: when do the rights to exercise religious freedom conflict with the legitimate interests of the rest of the people? This is not only a hard question but a potentially dangerous one, with plenty of room to go wrong on either side of it.
Is a burka -- which objectively speaking prevents identification of the wearer -- in conflict with the legitimate interest of identifying drivers for the sake of accountability? Does that conflict override the tenet of religious freedom?
Not easy to answer.
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.
It says right in the article that religious head wear is allowed. Other types are not. The lady in the article went though an appeals process that then allowed her to wear her religious spaghetti strainer thing on her head. Sounds legit.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Now she'll have *no chance* at talking herself out of a ticket when a cop pulls her over and looks at her drivers license.
A guy in British Columbia went through that "ordeal" a little while back.
Great interview here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ajGaIUdboA
And another I found of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HlcqQK8Oc
It's easy to answer.
If you want to drive on the same road as me, go in the same supermarket as me, and ride on the same bus as me you should be as identifiable as me.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The rule to allow head wear for religious reasons is stupid, and I can appreciate this stunt as an attempt to protest against it. If your religion doesn't allow you to have your picture taken without head wear, then you can't drive. Tough titties. The "no head wear" rule has a purpose, and just because you believe in imaginary things doesn't mean you get to work around that purpose. Alternatively we could agree that forbidding head wear really serves no purpose as long as the person is clearly identifiable from the picture, but then everybody should be allowed to wear a hat, not just religious people.
I'm a Ninja, you insensitive clod!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
. . .Somebody's off their meds!!!
so devote panty-raiders can wear silk lace panties on their head for picture?
The best solution is to keep the insane in asylums. If they're too crazy to take a pic like a normal person they should not be trusted with a car.
You can't drive with your face covered. So it would be reasonable to require your face uncovered for a driver's license.
As some religions..
In fact, taking the whole FSM idea seriously, and trying to espouse it as if it were a real religion completely undermines the point that Bobby Henderson was trying to make about teaching intelligent design in classrooms in the first place, using the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a vehicle to achieve his ends.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So we live in a world where perfectly normal right thinking people think that it is only natural that the state should have a picture of what every single person looks like so that they might be identified and removed from a crowd at any given time if the situation warrants.
Your grandparents / great grandparents are rolling in their grave. We do not need a facial / finger / genetic database of every single living citizen so that they might be rounded up at the convenience of the state for not paying their parking ticket. What we need is citizens that are empowered to combat criminal (with force if necessary) when they are doing something messed up.
Drivers licenses did not always have pictures on them. We have become the enemy we once mocked. I terrified of loosing my drivers license / social security card. Without my papers I am a non entity and have no right to walk the streets
The US has confiscated Athiest and Lesbian equipment sent through the postal service.
Atheist and Lesbian 'equipment'?
Do tell ....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Plus, you never know when you're going to need to strain some spaghetti.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Drivers licenses did not always have pictures on them. We have become the enemy we once mocked.
It was our parents generation that screwed it up. They abused the pictureless licenses, passing them amongst friends and faking them. So when they got in power, they changed the rules and laws to what we have today. The hippies grew up into fascists, and blamed their children for their actions.
Learn to love Alaska
What if they were arrested and needed to be photographed, would the law require to wait until a strainer is available else face religious backlashes? Would the culprits be required to have strainers available at all time? And if there are non available, would the culprits get away with the crime?
Later if the person gets stopped for a traffic violation and isn't wearing their spaghetti strainer, that should be grounds to investigate and charge them with fraud if it were a sham.
And why is this? Why should the DMV care, why should the police be on the lookout for this, and why should society embroil someone's life in the legal system over something that has no effect on anyone, whatsoever?
People seem to think that we need to uphold some sort of justice against the *intent* of some rule or another(*).
Why bother? Can't we just let little things go?
(*) The one that comes to mind first is the "If you can't be bothered to vote, you can't comment on the voting proceedings", but there are others. People seem caught up in enforcing some sort of "just universe", and take it to absurd extremes.
One covers the face, preventing identification, the other does not.
Learn to love Alaska
You can drive wearing a helmet with a visor which obscured visibility of your face, and many people (like racing drivers) do just that...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.)
There is a subtle but important difference between these two situations. In the OP, the religious garb does not impede identification. In your situation it very much does. The best solution available to my mind, is to have the appropriate picture taken but if identification is required later have it performed by a woman.
You would support institutionalised and government sanctioned sexism? For what? So someone's imaginary friend doesn't get annoyed?
No thanks. Freedom is far more important that supporting crazy, harmful and dangerous ideas.
Not of the religious kind.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Stupid ideas should be attacked. Reason should always win over insanity.
Non-sequitor much?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
I will fight that civil war on the side of the Union, I refuse to be you, to make myself identifiable as you, or even to make myself identifiable to you. And if you want me out of the supermarket because I refuse to tell you my name, you're welcome to bring it up with the store manager. I have a feeling one of us is going to get kicked out of the store. ;)
Its a "drivers license", its intended purpose is simply to prove that you have the skills to control a certain class of motor vehicle. Its disturbing that more and more they are becoming a de facto national ID card which is requiring an ever increasing amount of identifying data (photo, eye color, weight, ss number, etc), something generations of our forefathers fought to prevent.
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 have a real religion like the Disconrdianists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have a hot dog on Friday man.
If you want to drive on the same road as me, you should be as identifiable as me.
FTFY. The other two scenarios are on the other side of the line.
This space unintentionally left blank.
And of course the counter point is that it is illegal for a police officer to order you to remove religious attire, (they would need a court order even if they have a compelling interest) so for the purpose of identification prior to any probable cause for an invasive search they have a hard time showing that the attire is not included in what they have to identify. If they can't tell her to take it off, how is having a picture of the naked skin underneath going to assist in identification? If they were requiring the license to have electronic biometric data, such as a fingerprint, and to provide that to the officer for scanning, that would clearly be legal. And since measures like that are possible, that don't violate the known and bona fide religious restrictions, then that is what they would have to do under the traditional requirement of taking the least suppressive action when balancing against 1st amendment concerns.
The main reason there isn't extensive case law and precedent here is that most women with a religious prohibition for covering their faces are not allowed by their husbands to drive. Generally speaking, if her family lets her drive they're usually going to let her just wear a hijab, which leaves the face uncovered. And the other reason, biometrics are new, even in the case of fingerprints where it is new that the police could do that using a non-invasive scanner, and have a digital version stored in the license. I don't think there are any recent cases that explored the actual alternatives that the government has and how that affects the required balancing.
If you or your religion cannot withstand parody, then you and/or your religion is weak. It's attitudes like yours that result in people being killed for printing cartoons that depict Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
Free speech goes both ways. If you want to have the freedom to express your religion, then you must allow others to express views that oppose your religion. But perhaps what you really want is for the government to adopt and enforce your religion?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This gets tricky. While emotionally I get your argument, do you *really* want to trust the current crop of politicians to write an amendment?
Protection of religion is written into the bill of rights. Sexism is quite a bit later. And, honestly, does it seem unreasonable to you that women would prefer to be stripped by women when identification was necessary? Men might also prefer to be stripped by men. And in either case a lawyer should be present. The tricky part of that is that the lawyer should be paid by the state, but responsible to the subject. Unfortunately, public defenders have a very poor record of honorable behavior. And I'm not just talking about incompetence.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
As a Christian I find this offensive, but I expect no one cares since I'm also a white male.
No one cares because Christians will be offended by anything, as demonstrated by the great Starbucks cup controversy of 2015.
Is that anything like the multitude of thinly veiled attacks by Christians on pretty much everyone else? The "war on Christmas" is the first thing that comes to mind, somehow celebrating the time of year without including numerous references to Christianity draws the ire of their fundamentalist branch. Despite of course the fact that this time of year historically speaking has nothing to do with Christianity, beyond the attempt by the church to bolster their numbers hundreds of years ago by absorbing the winter solstice celebrations of pagan Europe. Constantly trying to attach religion to various government institutions ("In God we Trust" on money, "10 Commandments" in Courthouses, etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
more cowbell
Stripped? We're talking about showing a face.
Treating people as equals trumps protection of fairy tales, er, I mean religion.
You are offended? What is your point? You think you have a reason to be offended because someone makes fun of a belief system? How about being offended because of things that are actually harmful and bad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Nope... no veil at all.
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.
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
"it doesn't have 2000+ years of tradition behind it"
And neither does most Christian sects. Even going back a few hundred years the religion was VERY different from what it is today. Christians often tout "Christmas" as one of these traditions, but what they celebrate today only goes back about 150 years. In early America "Christmas" wasn't celebrated in any real way, in fact in Boston you were fined if you showed any holiday spirit. Going back further to the Middle ages it was much more in common with Oktoberfest then what we know as Christmas.
Butthurt christian detected!
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.
Lesbin equipment I understand - vibrators, strap-ons and stuff like that. But atheist equipment?
Without my papers I am a non entity and have no right to walk the streets
That's not true......more than once I've been pulled over while on foot at night. I had no need to bring my wallet, so I didn't have my driver's license. It wasn't a problem at all. In one case, the policeman looked up my license on the computer, in the other case, he just let me go.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I suspect that most pastafarians don't wear their colanders in day-to-day life, just for official photographs.
"The pasta strainer is obviously an atheist symbol."
Everybody is an atheist.
Since Sumerian times, people have invented 2780 gods, you don't believe in 2779 of them while others don't believe in 1 more.
Former porn star Asia Lemon (aka Asia Carrera) did this in Utah back in 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Nice post.....I think your first paragraph matches federal law, too (at least as far as I understand it).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You've got safe spaces. Lots of them. Too many. But this isn't one of them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's not "impossible" and that is how it was done for decades. The question may not be fully settled yet.
Amish challenge photo i.d. requirement for gun purchases
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Study: Packages Sealed with ‘Atheist’ Tape 10 Times More Likely to Disappear http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/...
I find this offensive
Suck it up. You have no right NOT to be offended, and in any case your lot have been committing myriad offences for two millennia.
Gun license has no such requirement, since it is opposed by the NRA.
http://www.in.gov/isp/images/N...
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
The pasta strainer is obviously an atheist symbol.
If my Muslim wife went to the DMV wearing a burka would she be afforded the same rights? I doubt it.
It is because of your Muslim wife that the exception to the "no headgear" rule exists, so spare us your made-up indignation.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.
This is just another thinly veiled attack on Christianity and other religions. As a Christian I find this offensive,
So fucking what?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
So if I'm John Smith, any John Smith (or even anyone at all, or at least anyone passing as male?) may use the "license" to get a gun?
Convenient.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
And how did they find out whether the license you present is actually yours and not that of your dad?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since it is apparently possible, please enlighten me how I should find out whether a license you present to me is actually yours and not that of your dad or some random stranger and you just found it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait... our forefathers fought being able to identify a person as being who they say they are? Really? All those mass graves of unidentified pilgrims are where again? I really don't think the quote was: "Give me liberty or give me death, just so long as you don't try to identify me." I think, perhaps, you've co-opted reality to fit into your very strange narrative.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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
You missed the bit about the colander on her head.
Required reading for internet skeptics
A picture is not adequate identification. Next step will be a DNA sample.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Years ago, my sig here read, "People who need government to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Lesbin equipment I understand - vibrators, strap-ons and stuff like that. But atheist equipment?
I didn't miss what wasn't there.
As far as the colander headgear from the main story, yes, it's absurd.... which is the intentional meaning (the absurdity) of it by the person wearing it. It's certainly no more absurd than the trappings and dogma of most religions, who do not have those trappings and dogma because they're absurd, but because they live in some warped fantasy land where reality never enters.
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.
Do you have a similar problem with open attacks on each of of homosexuality, gay marriage, atheism, secular humanism, and evolution?
Just curious, because I repeatedly see Christians who fully endorse attacking the beliefs of others because, by God, Christians are right and those others are wrong.
Because I get pulled over while walking on the street at night? I'm sure that happens all the time to white people.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If find the fact that your delusional belief in an imaginary friend has a direct impact on my life offensive.
We'll stop attacking Christianity once you start keeping it to yourselves and stop letting your beliefs dictate our schooling, our laws, and defining our companionships.
Oh and go to hell.
Furthermore...what percentage of Christians (or practicing members of other faiths) do you assume find this offensive. Do you presume to speak for all of them? Because otherwise you might be right to assume that no on cares regardless of your religion or the color of your skin. An important part of a modern society is the ability to peacefully coexist within a group with dissimilar beliefs. If your outlook is so threatened by a person wearing a colander, or a cartoon, or a editorial, or a different religion, perhaps you should more closely examine your own beliefs.
Quack, quack.
Stupid people should not be driving anyway!!!!
Let me guess... You spoke respectfully to the officer, stopped when he said stop, answered his questions, and when it was obvious you were doing nothing wrong, he let you on your way, because actually that is what most cops do.
Not all, mind you, but most.
And of course the counter point is that it is illegal for a police officer to order you to remove religious attire, (they would need a court order even if they have a compelling interest) so for the purpose of identification prior to any probable cause for an invasive search they have a hard time showing that the attire is not included in what they have to identify. If they can't tell her to take it off, how is having a picture of the naked skin underneath going to assist in identification?
Are you so sure of all that? Everywhere?
It's true that he has no right to not be offended. He's also free to express his discontent when he's offended.
Equally, you are free to say and do offensive, inconsiderate, or just plain mean things. You're under no obligation to do so, however. The choice is yours.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Yes, it is absurd. There's nothing rational about going around wearing a colander on your head. It's not even particularly sane.
To equate atheism with rationality in this context undermines your point considerably.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Yes, that's roughly how it went. It was kind of spooky getting pulled over, with bright lights shining on me, I couldn't see who it was, etc
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You might want to actually read history beyond a decade or two. When Social Security numbers were created they explicitly placed requirements (virtually ignored) making it illegal to use for unique ID for citizens. Some of these requirements have quietly been removed in the name of "fighting terrorism". Virtually every attempt at the federal level to openly create a national ID card has been crushed. If you want to go really far back several of the Founding fathers and influential authors made pushes for independence via pen names (Benjamin Franklin, Washington Irving, John Adams).
Is a burka -- which objectively speaking prevents identification of the wearer -- in conflict with the legitimate interest of identifying drivers for the sake of accountability?
Yes, and people should not be allowed to drive, if they will not remove the burka to have their picture taken, And remove the burka while operating a motor vehicle.
Does that conflict override the tenet of religious freedom?
No it does not, because you are free to not drive. This might limit your options and choices in other areas (For example.... taking on certain jobs and living in certain places might be out of reach without driving), however, you have the religious freedom.
You are conflating the point of the article (religious freedom even in the absurd), and the specific question i was answering (but atheist equipment?).
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Ramen to that!
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.
Dude, if no one thought "god wants me to cut off the end of my dick" was absurd, this one won't even get noticed.
Thank you for demonstrating what a fucking racist fool you truly are.
Terrorists don't have a specific means of dressing.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
FSM wasn't ever particularly funny
It was fucking hilarious, and a work of genius.
Still is.
And yet, we're not talking about Social Security cards... are we. We're also not talking about a federal identification card, we're talking about state issued licensees. As for federal ID, you could probably mention a passport, but we don't require people to have a passport (unless they want to reenter the country, because it verifies citizenship)... EXACTLY like we don't require a person to have a drivers license unless they want to drive.
The problem here, really, is the fact that most people that appeal to the authority of "our forefathers" usually finish that thought with something incredibly stupid; and your premise that they fought for our right not to have to have pictures on our drivers licensees is at it's most basic level, stupider than shit. There is no inalienable right to drive your car, so the licensing authority that deals with cars can develop rules they deem needed to ensure safety. Now, you can go out and protest being required to have your picture on your drivers license, but if you tel people that's how our founding fathers wanted it, all they're going to do is think of you as another rabid anti-government nutcase who probably needs to be in a psych ward instead of a car in the first place.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Wait, you're quoting a work of fiction written between 50 and 200 years after the events it's bullshitting about and pretending that's some form of historical record?
I may have some meatballs to sell you.
Has that ever happened?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...but I expect no one cares since I'm also a white male.
Oh no, is there a war on white males too? You poor thing.
'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.'
Challenge accepted.
Was your religion invented in living memory such that it's un-authenticity can be verified?
I believe Scientology and Pastafarianism both meet this criteria. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism don't.
Of course it doesn't make the latter mentioned religions "true", only non-verifiable, whereas recent religions are verifiably "false" - making them not "as legitimate".
(they did say "any standard"...)
R'Amen!
My first one looked like I had a beard - I didn't back then, it's was just really bad lighting at the DMV. (And one of my recent DLs said I needed to be wearing glasses - I don't need them for distance, and didn't use them for the eye test, but I put them back on to read the forms.)
What you really need as a driver's license photo is one that shows you looking like you're extremely tired and someone's shining a flashlight in your face, because that's how a cop will really see you. If that includes wearing a colander on your head, then go for it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No, no. Your "equipment" was "bottled rationality". The implication being that atheists are necessarily rational; should any such equipment exist, bottled rationality would be standard issue. The absurdity being that we're clearly dealing with an irrational atheist, which undermines your implication.
Though the implication is absurd on it's face. Atheists are, I shouldn't need to point out, no more or less rational than theists. It's simply a delusion held by a minority of atheists. The one's who "live in some warped fantasy land where reality never enters." You'll find no shortage of those irrational or laughably delusional atheists at the forefront of modern atheism, just as you find no shortage among popular/media savvy religious figures. This is simply reality.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Maybe you're smiling because you got through the line at the driver's license bureau in less than two hours. But they want a photo that looks like you do when a cop pulls you over and shines a flashlight in your face.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Without my papers I am a non entity and have no right to walk the streets
That's not true...
CORRECT. If you are not operating a motor vehicle, you have no legal obligation to present a Driver's License.
Name and address ONLY. Nothing more.
The reason people think they're crazy is that aluminum foil hats don't work - they need to be Real Tin.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You can drive wearing a helmet with a visor which obscured visibility of your face, and many people (like racing drivers) do just that...
You mean like motorcyclists wear?
Correction: What most US States require motorcyclists to wear while operating a motorcycle.
Aighearach: Quit your whining, we already have religious freedom for real religions. This is about religious freedom for satirical fake religions.
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."
Precisely. I challenge anyone here to describe the difference between a "cult" and a "religion".
I'll be reading War and Peace while I wait...
Insightful? Clearly the next sensible choice when "+1 Hilariously Sarcastic" isn't an option....
I seriously doubt any religious person is offended by this, or the many other, lunatics wearing colanders on their heads in their photo ID's. If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish.
Christians don't want to be associated with the WBC, nor Muslims with ISIS. They know that those crackpots make them all look bad. Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me. Why the American Humanist Association stepped in and helped to make atheists look like morons is completely inexplicable.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'm a Christian, and Pastafarianism is mocking aspects of people who share my general corner of the religious world, and I'm just fine with that. Not only do some of my fellow believers sometimes act in ways that deserve mocking, we often do it ourselves (at least friendly mocking.) And more importantly, by doing things like this, Pastafarians are protecting other minority religious beliefs and practices. The US Army still hasn't quite figured out how to cope with Sikhs wearing turbans (and sometimes they even have trouble with Orthodox Jews, even army chaplains, because they violate critical military doctrines about gentlemen not wearing hats indoors), the TSA harassed them because they're different even before they decided to start harassing other hat-wearers, schools don't let students wear head-scarves (or mini-skirts) because that's Not How Proper American Girls Dress, Muslim-hating idiots beat up Sikhs, the list goes on.
I attended Quaker meetings for a few years, and we'd occasionally get the question about those hats the oatmeal-box guy wears. Quakerism came from England, where it's beastly cold and rainy and Anglos are prone to male pattern baldness, and moved to Pennsylvania and New England where it's also beastly cold and rainy much of the year, and many of them believed in wearing plain durable clothing instead of wearing flashy stuff to draw attention to themselves. But English social custom and legal practice was big on forcing lower-class people to acknowledge the importance of higher-class people, and taking off hats to your betters (especially government officials and nobility) was a big part of that, and Quakerism believes very radically in equality, so Quakers would often get thrown in jail for not taking off their hats around their betters. I wear hats to keep my head warm (as an Anglo who went bald early), and when my beard was longer I could pass for Orthodox if I was wearing a dark suit and a hat.
Back when the TSA were new, they didn't make people take off hats or coats in security lines, but out here at San Jose airport, the main people who wore them were Mexicans wearing cowboy hats heading down to Mexico, and the TSA were the white guys who'd replaced the previous mostly-immigrant screeners, and they decided to make a local rule telling the Mexicans to take their hats off. My first reaction was "if they tried this at LaGuardia the Hasidim would been in the mayor's office in an hour telling him to fire the bigot who thought up that nonsense", but as a Quaker I felt I ought to argue with them because they're clearly just doing it to bully people, and I was successful at making it difficult for them to avoid the bigotry issue for a while.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people.
What frightens me is that you actually believe this is the message that wearing a colander on your head in a photo ID sends to others.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I see someone isn't familiar with reductio ad absurdum.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Stripped? We're talking about showing a face.
Treating people as equals trumps protection of fairy tales, er, I mean religion.
Stripped of the covering that they feel is properly modest.
Just because YOU are fine with uncovering your face for all to see does not mean that everyone is. Similarly, some people do not want everyone to see their naked chest, and many (but not all) are uncomfortable exposing their genitalia. There is no "logical" reason to keep these covered up, and there are examples of cultures where covering these body parts is no big deal.
Potentially, treating people as "equal" could mean placing equal importance on people's feelings of privacy and/or modesty, it does not necessarily mean treating everyone identically.
With all that said, I don't have any Solomonic solution to this type of situation where a person's desire to remain covered could work against a legitimate "state" desire for ease of identification. I suppose it is fortunate we don't typically identify each other by the shape of our penises or vulva, but I suppose if we did than there would not be as much of a social taboo against allowing them to be seen....
A similar case happened recently in Canada. The courts denied a man's right to wear a colander in a government ID photo.
Why?
The official verdict stated that nowhere in Pastafarian dogma does it say that adherents must wear a colander at all times. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
I'd love to see a reference. Of course one could easily counter that while Reformed Pastafarians do not require the colander, the Orthodox Pastafarians do. Or maybe it was the other way around.
George Washington celebrated it by rowing an army across a half-frozen river in small boats during a storm at night, so there must have been plenty of eggnog involved.
Now there's a bit of Puritanism I can get behind. Corporal punishment for caroling, too.
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 ...
Not always. Sometimes the First Amendment gives grounds for challenging legislation to prove that there is a legitimate reason for "prohibiting the free exercise therof". If there is a law, regulation, or other governmental requirement that can be shown to unreasonably impact the "free exercise" of someone's religion, then the First Amendment comes into play, and the courts might correctly strike down such laws and/or do whatever other things courts can do to prevent such unreasonable impact.
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.
There was one locally who wore it every day, back in the `80s. He was known around the neighborhood as Zeus. There were Pastafarians even before there was a manifesto or a fake founder. It goes back to the 1960s, at least.
Precisely. I challenge anyone here to describe the difference between a "cult" and a "religion".
I'll be reading War and Peace while I wait...
The problem isn't in any difficulty coming up with an answer. The problem in fact is somewhat opposite; almost everybody will find an answer, and they'll all be different!
Even the real religions don't want to agree. Some Christian factions refuse to agree that it is a "religion." That is why "creed" is protected, even though legally it just means "religions that don't agree to be called religions, or other similar things that people don't want to call that."
Where to begin? The question I have here is what you believe they're taking to an absurd conclusion? I'm not convinced you know. There's also the implication here that what other groups are doing is necessarily less absurd than wearing colanders in their ID photos. Is that intentional or did you simply not think this all the way through?
Moving on, if there is some message here, it's certainly not being communicated to the audience they're intending to reach. (I say "if" as it look a lot more like a cry for attention than a serious attempt to do ... whatever it is they're trying to accomplish.) The obvious end result being that they make atheists look foolish, rather than the religious. It's counter to their goals.
Actively working against your own interests is just as ridiculous as going around wearing cookware on your head. They're doing both in tandem.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Goodness, "everywhere?" No. I'll leave it up to you to find the context, but I can promise you the discussion of laws and rights is never in the context of "everywhere," at least not anywhere on Earth.
Policeman shines his lights on you and tells you to stop and come over.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Apparently someone figured out how to bottle rationality.
It's called Vodka. Unfortunately, overconsumption has the reverse effects.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am not white. I've had very similar things happen - even recently. Even very recently. Hell, I've been caught driving without my license. They just look me up, confirm my SSN, and I'm on my way. Worse, not too long ago, I drove straight across a park (it was raining and looked like a one way street) and was just let go before I even found my license.
Err... I'm a little white? I'm a mutt. The largest percentage of me is Amerindian, then comes Western European, and then some Black African. I actually look Asian or Hispanic and am kind of a chameleon. But no, I'm definitely not white looking - except in the summer when everyone else gets dark.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You're the one who made the absolute statement...
I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where a police officer cannot ask a woman wearing a face covering to remove it, if he has stopped her for a traffic violation...
If you know of a place, I'm all ears...
I'm rather disappointed by your reply. Think of the poor Juggalos in their make up!
Seriously, for the purpose of driving a car - I agree, to some extent. For everything else, I disagree. I think that should be setup by the owners of the facilities. If they wish to disallow facial coverings then, by all means, they should be able to do so but it needs to be enforced consistently and equally - the same with a bus, be it municipal of private. I don't think you should be telling those facilities how they must operate their business.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If you don't know enough about the subject to engage on it, then just asking general questions that are disbelieving but ignorant is not really useful. It doesn't convince there is utility in attempting to get into the details with you.
Except for Atheism of course, which is real and genuine! (thumbs up)
I had an old Saab 900S Turbo that was set up to rally. Well, more a cross between rally and still being street legal. We have something called "The Golden Road" in Maine.
You can read a little about the road here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyhow, the car had helmets that affixed to the rear of the seats and five point restraints, etc... It was loads of fun. Wearing a helmet was optional while on the main road but was mandatory when we left the pavement or got onto private drives.
The car developed severe mechanical issues that were more effort to repair than it was worth so the bits were stripped out and it was junked. They've not yet made their way into a new automobile but I'm actually thinking about putting a skid plate under an R model Volvo from the mid 1990s and stiffening it up, adding the cage, and changing the seats and restraints.
Point being, yeah, you can wear a helmet. We wore them in the car all the time. It was just too fun. Sure, sometimes we'd get the cops following us but it was worth it and having them waste time following us was a bonus.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They could always stand on the side of the road and pray for a ride. I'm reminded of Emo Philips, at this point, and as digression is the name of the game, you too will now be reminded of him. To paraphrase...
All summer long, I wanted a bicycle just like Jimmy Peterson's. So, every night, I prayed and prayed and prayed for God to give me a bicycle. Then, I realized God doesn't work like that. So, I stole it and prayed for forgiveness.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Don't care about demanding a single standard, reasonable enough on the surface claims, boondoggle away.
More concerned about legal aid going where it's needed. Particularly in today's world of arbitrary enforcement and arbitrary judgement. Particularly when those who aren't Our Betters have shit support and shit access.
*in best Souther drawl*
Now, I ain't never been no scholar of Mooslims but it says in the Crayon, Haji Al Quadia, verses 15-22; "Achoo Akbar and blessed is his Profit (PBUH). Bitch, you so ugly that you've doomed all women from here to the hereafter. You shall go and covereth your ugly mug so as to stop the dogs from howling in pain whenever you pass. And if thoust doth remove thy covering then thoust shall be neigh more than a prostitute and the punishment shall be swift and mighty. For lo, doth Allah and the Profit (PBUH) despiseth the ugly ones and need to protect our vision so that we might be holy in front of the LORD."
See? It is too! It's right there in the Crayon.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Christians in the US have something of a persecution complex. They want to be persecuted - their holy book tells them to expect it - but they are really a powerful majority. They solve this problem by imagining persecution wherever they can see a hint of it.
Stores not saying 'merry christmas?' Persecution.
Requiring a government clerk to process all marriage forms, even those her religion forbids? Persecution.
Christian parents facing legal action because they believe schooling of any kind for their children is pointless when Jesus is on his way? Persecution.
A town government threatened with legal action for erecting a nativity scene on public property and using tax money? Persecution.
They tend to ignore actual persecution going on in other parts of the world in much the same way that their political opposites will scream about trivial or outright imaginary sexism in the US while ignoring the dismal state of womens' rights elsewhere.
Can you even see well enough to drive while wearing a Burka?
There is nothing rational about religion and this is just a parody of religion. Whats rational about wearing an instrument of torture/death (crucifix) around your neck or a turban on your head or a burka etc etc
More people should have their photo taken with a colander on their head to highlight the absurdity of religious symbols.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'd hate to be mistaken for the age of my dad..... :o)
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
the hat could be hiding an identifiable feature
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Anyhow, the car had helmets that affixed to the rear of the seats and five point restraints, etc
While I probably haven't understood the design completely, but this appears dangerous. Some structural bend in the car which directly doesn't impact the driver fatally can now uproot his head because of this helmet?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Sorry - that was for storage purposes. However, they do make special restraints (called a Hans device) that tie one into the vehicle (since the death of a famous NASCAR racer they've been mandatory) that tie you into the vehicle, this was not the case with mine. No, the helmets were affixed to the backs of the seats when not in use. My bad. I probably should have been more articulate.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
http://www.americasfreedomfigh...
Quit your whining, we already have religious freedom for real religions. This is about religious freedom for satirical fake religions.
What's the difference? They both look the same from over here.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
But perhaps what you really want is for the government to adopt and enforce your religion?
No, just protection from the toxic hate speech inciting verbal violence directed at religious followers. We deserve our safe spaces too.
Why don't you try praying for it?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If you want to drive on the same road as me, go in the same supermarket as me, and ride on the same bus as me you should be as identifiable as me.
I'm an identical twin, you insensitive clod!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's an attack on a special privilege only granted to religious people.
What frightens me is that you actually believe this is the message that wearing a colander on your head in a photo ID sends to others.
You appear to be alone in your interpretation of the message. Just about everyone with enough brain cells to rub together gets that this is parody. Regardless if they are offended or entertained by it, they agree that FSM is parody.
The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody. In this case, the object of the parody is religion. FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish
Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me
Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists. They don't have to congregate in communes to "practice" their "persuation". Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons. Just like you are "associated with" any /. poster with user name starting with n. Or moron posters with user IDs divisible by 12 make you look like a moron.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
"And from this same book, you get the definition of what a "Christian" is. " strange you didn't include the genocidal, homophobia, misogyny or the stoning to death parts in your definition of a christian - very selective as most christians are about their interpretation.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
no, the WBC are the true christians who follow their religion literally.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody.
You don't seem to realize that it has failed to convey that message.
FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.
Nonsense. All it's done is to give a few attention-starved people a few minutes of fame and to make atheists, not theists, look foolish. It has had the exact opposite of it's intended effect. By any measure, it's an abject failure.
Required reading for internet skeptics
So in other words, you were talking out your bottom end and can't back it up with anything.
Got it...
since i don't like stray hair in my food, often problematic when using my sacred coliander
Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists.
Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.
Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
That's no different than any other religion. No central authority, singular group, or means by which to communicate directly with most adherants. Even the Moroms, small and young as they are, have multiple groups that don't answer to the same central authority. There are groups and people influential across multiple groups, naturally, but, again, the same is true for atheism. There are media personalities that speak on behalf of atheists, just like there are media personalities that speak on behalf of Christians. There are even organized atheists groups, just like there are organized groups for virtually every religion. There are even atheist churches.
You may not like it, but that's reality.
So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons.
That's just delusional. Particularly in this case as the Pastafarians appear to be exactly what you think doesn't exist: an organized atheist group with a central authority. It could be argued that is just that, offering ordinations, handing down edicts, and providing a way for followers to interact -- even organized in-person meetings.
As an atheist, these people make you look foolish. There's simply no way around that. You can deny it, as you've been doing, or stand-up and face reality.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.
So you are a member of the group with UID divisible by 12 and are judged by the actions of other members of that group?
And donate my nickel to EFF on my behalf.
Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.
That's no different than any other religion
Just like snake is no different from any other mammal.
As an atheist, these people make you look foolish
Is there a nickel available to me for you suggesting incorrectly that I am an atheist? If yes, add it to the EFF pile.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
its in your bible so its fair comment. so yes, you are being very selective. Nothing in the new disavows or repudiates the old. You either take it all or you cherry pick the good bits
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The pasta strainer is obviously an atheist symbol.
If my Muslim wife went to the DMV wearing a burka would she be afforded the same rights? I doubt it.
The burka is not required by Islam.
http://www.quran-islam.org/art...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
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.
At what point do you draw the line?
You cannot control someone's belief. They are therefore free to believe whatever religion they choose and the clothing they wear will not limit this in any way.
They are not free to kill people in the name of that religion, so there is a line drawn somewhere - it's just a question of where we choose to draw the line.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
And here I thought this was just some idiot thinking she was clever and ever-so-quirky by using defense of religion to get around the rules for having a goofy picture taken for her driver's license.
I'm not quick to call someone an idiot, but if you're going to make a legal case for trying to get a government-issued ID photo done by wearing a colander on your head, it's because you're a bored idiot who can't come up with better things to do with your time besides clogging up the legal system with your petty need to be special.
Now, I'm no religious expert, since I don't follow any one of them, and I don't know the reasons that evolved for wearing a hat for religious purposes, but, much like the Quaker example posted elsewhere on this page, I'm willing to extend the notion that there's a practical reason built from thousands of years of tradition for it. Not that I agree with wearing the hat for the specific purpose of the photo (law >>>>> religion), BUT, if you're going to go around wearing a colander on your head, it doesn't matter what the reason is, I'm going to call you an attention-seeking drama-whoring idiot, no matter what pseduo-intellectual and/or obscurel logical reason you might give.
This woman should not have even been given a driver's license at all.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
The NRA opposes the very concept of needing a license to license to own a weapon. Which makes sense, because you don't need a license to post on Slashdot or publish a news paper.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As Robert A. Heinlein said "“Look, Ben, a roller skating rink is a church—as long as some sect claims that roller skating is essential to their faith and a part of their worship. You wouldn’t even have to go that far—simply claim that roller skating served a desirable though not essential function parallel to that which religious music serves in most churches. If you can sing to the glory of God, you can skate to the same end. Believe me, this has all been threshed out. There are temples in Malaya which are nothing—to an outsider—but boarding houses for snakes . . . but the same High Court rules them to be ‘churches’ as protects our own sects.”
how could i be the first to realize this?
The problem, you see, is that most "cristians", are "remarkably ignorant about what's actually in the Bible, what the actual beliefs of Christianity are, and the history of modern science. ." this is not an attack on your "true biblical things" but on the deeply problematic "Christian nation"
So, "You might want to learn a bit more before further embarrassing yourself"
Why don't we all cut this religious crap and just love each other? in the end, only love will prevail.
So we live in a world where perfectly normal right thinking people think that it is only natural that the state should have a picture of what every single person looks like so that they might be identified and removed from a crowd at any given time if the situation warrants.
Unless, of course, you don't want to drive an automobile, in which case you don't need a picture identification.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
"The pasta strainer is obviously an atheist symbol."
Everybody is an atheist.
Since Sumerian times, people have invented 2780 gods, you don't believe in 2779 of them while others don't believe in 1 more.
I believe in one true god, with a margin of error of +/- 1.
You should really not be giving legal advice. Laws on identification vary by state. and not all of them allow for verbal id.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Gun license has no such requirement, since it is opposed by the NRA.
What's a "gun license"?
If you're referring to a concealed weapon permit (authorizing the bearer to carry a gun, and to hide it), AFAIK every single state that issues such permits puts photos on them. Every state except Vermont issues such permits (in Vermont no permit is required). If you're referring to some document giving permission to own a gun, there is no such thing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The problem is that I think state law IS religious bullshit. I don't see any evidence for the proposition that state law works. It's just a tool of tyranny and control. It's just proof that we are animals on big giant farms being herded for the benefit of others. I'd rather lots of small, tiny, vulnerable, distributed bullshit systems than one big system over everybody.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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'm a fundamentalist Christian and I don't feel that way at all. This is a highlight of how some beliefs are singled out for special legal privilege, which is a serious problem. The law ought not to discriminate between religious belief and beliefs that are not religious. The law ought to uphold freedom.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
For the record, I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I agree.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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 went and looked at your posting history and saw you calling people fools and calling for people to be killed with nuclear attacks. As a Christian, this is distressing and offensive to me. Our Lord said "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. ".
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
So in other words, you were talking out your bottom end and can't back it up with anything.
Got it...
Dude, you didn't provide a shred of support for your claim that police can require women to remove their niqab, either. You just said "I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where a police officer cannot ask...", but your lack of knowledge isn't evidence of anything.
Googling a bit seems to show that it's not really well-settled. I can find comments from police officers who say that they aren't sure if they could ask a woman to remove a face covering, and that they'd refer it to their supervisors, or if absolutely necessary get a female officer to handle it in a private location. I can't find anyone saying "sure, I'd tell her to take it off". After being sued by a woman who was required by a male officer to remove her hijab (which doesn't cover the face), Detroit instituted a policy that officers may not require the hijab to be removed, but that's quite different from a niqab.
There's also the story of Sultaana Freeman, who was required by a Florida judge to remove her niqab to be photographed for her DL, but with a female photographer in a private location. The question of what would be done in a traffic stop seems not to have come up, but it seems consistent with the ruling that she could not be required to remove her face covering in public or in front of a male police officer.
There are a handful of other states that have explicit policies permitting photo-less DLs for people who have religious objections to having their faces photographed.
It appears to me that this is an open question, which hasn't really come to a head yet because not many niqab-wearing women drive. When it does, though, I'd expect police to make allow reasonable allowances, which would just require getting a female officer to check the woman's identity.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Former police officer Eric Parker, who is accused of injuring Patel, was fired from the Madison Police Department and charged with third-degree assault. In March 2015, Parker was charged by the FBI with felony civil rights abuse.
You act like this is normal acceptable behavior by police, it seems like it was not deemed to be so.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Freedom of religion trumps your theories on how this should work. The state can't make any law that conflicts with the freedom of religion in the way you suggest.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
In fact I'm not even sure you're a mammal.
Clearly, he is a martian...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Burkas are worn by women, the majority of terrorists are not women, therefore you are a racist fool.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Hey, all you have to is confess it and feel bad about it and you're good!
By that system, being a criminal ain't no big deal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, if I break into your house, steal your license and your gun, I rightfully have that gun?
If possession of a license implies legality, the license can as well not exist if there is no way to prove that you have that license legally.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least you could tell if the guy in front of you CAN be who the license belongs to.
I can't believe the NRA is against being able to find out whether some $racist_slur not only stole the gun but also the license!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not quite.
Pastafarians are secularists who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely as any other deity.
Source: I'm an ordained minister of the CoFSM.
Asia Carrera, who used to be fairly known in the Unreal Tournament and Quakecon communities (not to mention porn), did this over a year ago. http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
"The bible has never been discredited"
Buwahahahahahaaahaha, Ah. Either you're lying or you have some very selective perceptions of reality. First of all science is based on proving something did exist/happen, you don't "prove" your argument by someone else not disproving it. It is the burden of the person making the claim to back up that claim with facts & evidence, especially when it is about events that supposedly occurred around/over 2,000 years ago when we can't keep our history from around a hundred years or more ago perfectly straight. Secondly the "Noahs flood" stories in the bible would pretty much blow your statement out of the water, millions of years of global geological/biological evidence with hundreds of years of empirical scientific study show that it is impossible that the entire planet flooded, and we're not even getting to the fact lumber isn't physically capable of taking the stresses necessary to build an arc as described in the Bible.
Which does not show an official policy of the US. US government workers have indeed acted, frequently illegally, against atheists and various other groups, but you can't really say the US did it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Pure delusion.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Nobody cares because there's so many Christians who want things set up the way they think their religion demands, ignore or disparage people who don't follow their religion, and take offense from people who criticize their religious beliefs or demand that public funds not be spent on their religion. Pastafarianism actually helps minority religions out, by insisting on the rights due a religion.
In my experience, there are people who believe deeply in their religion, and people who don't really get it but cling to their religion for some purpose (avoid going to hell, fit in socially, whatever). The former are comfortable in their beliefs, and don't take offense at people arguing against religion. They disagree with atheists, of course, but they aren't offended by it. The latter are insecure in their religion, perceive about 2000% of the attacks on it, and get offended.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Officially, Pastafarians are not atheists. An atheist would not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In any case, you're talking about atheism as if it were a religion, which it isn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes. Now, if their religion had some smidge of resemblance to anything Jesus would recognize, I wouldn't dislike them as much.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm looking at my national ID card right now. It is called a passport. The only national ID card available to the general population.
It isn't a mandatory ID card but it trumps any other form of ID. But, presenting a passport or passport card when asked for ID rather flummoxes clerks in stores.
NRRPT/RCT
I've never heard of a law against driving with a covered face. Laws against refusing to show your face for proper identification to authorities, yes. But, never heard of a law against driving with face covered.
NRRPT/RCT
Actually, driving a car with a helmet on is often against state laws as it restricts peripheral vision and restricts the ability to hear emergency vehicles.
Yes, the same helmet that is mandatory on a motorcycle is unlawful in a car... go figure.
NRRPT/RCT
The difference in a cult and a religion is linked to sufficient funds to buy enough politicians to get declared a religion.
(tongue firmly in cheek)
NRRPT/RCT
It's my understanding that more-or-less that idea is what we've tended to interpret the establishment clause to mean; but that implementation sometimes drifts(often pretty markedly if something whips congress into a frenzy, usually somewhat moderated by the courts, though even there we have fictions like 'ceremonial deism' that allow people to claim that overtly religious rituals are actually not religious, because reasons, with a straight face.) It's unfortunate; but a manifestation of the fact that there are so many ways to throw a coat of nominal nonsectarianism over a sectarian policy, especially one popular enough that most people just think of it as 'true' rather than as being a position particular to their sect. It's a good ideal, in any case.
In this case, it seems like the state could have saved itself a lot of trouble by adhering more closely to this principle: by allowing exceptions for 'religious' headwear, rather than saying 'eh, hair is noncritial for ID purposes, you can dye, cut, style, wear a Yarmulke, wear a colander, wear a fedora, wear a headscarf, whatever' or 'nope, everyone gets their picture taken with their hair uncovered and neutrally styled, no exceptions'. Once you give 'religious' objections more weight than other objections, you inevitably fall into the 'well, what's a "real" religion?' problem; at which point the state ends up in the goofy-at-best-and-dangerous-at-worst business of deciding whose religion is 'real', who is a freaky cultist, and who is just a snarky punk with a bad attitude. It's not as serious as just going all in and establishing an officially blessed religion; but it still unnecessarily mires you in the pointless and endless task of compiling The List of Real Religions.
Long live the IPU!
Your assumption about the bombers is that anything that they did was religiously driven. I seriously doubt that. These were just people who took the first excuse for murder and ran with it. Calling it "religiously motivated" is IMHO silly.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
if you've turned to God, you've accepted the old testament. if you don't, you'll have to throw out the 10 commandments etc but seeing as Mark and John (interesting Jewish names for that time) attribute them to Moses
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
thats the problem, conflicting messages throughout the bible. i don't know why they don't extract the good stuff and throw away the crap, making changes to a made up book should not be an issue.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
As in this case, where I think that the state were utter morons for having a 'no hats, unless you think god says so' rule, rather than a 'no hats, period' or 'yeah, hats, whatever' rule; I would be opposed to religion-based exemptions from uniform standards for animal slaughter.
The reason I included that example was not personal agreement or disagreement; just that it is a case, unlike IDs, where state interest in animal welfare(especially when the animals aren't pets or lab animals) is really pretty new; and it is easier to find people who don't give a damn about weak animal welfare protections or documented violations of animal protections; but develop a sudden interest if they are specifically for the purposes of the other guy's freaky religion; rather than just efficiency and cost.