×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the how-do-you-like-me-now dept.

Government 535

An anonymous reader writes "Eddie Castillo is the first American to successfully have his government-issued photo identification taken while wearing a colander, though DPS officials are reportedly planning to follow up with Castillo in order to 'rectify' the situation. Others have tried unsuccessfully, and Castillo told KLBK that he was surprised at his victory, which he called a 'political and religious milestone for all atheists everywhere.'" Two years ago Niko Alm won the right to wear a pasta strainer on his head although Austrian authorities required him to obtain a doctor's certificate that he was "psychologically fit" to drive.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

535 comments

Hey (5, Funny)

The Cat (19816) | about 8 months ago | (#44704301)

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

Re:Hey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704339)

First post wins. Thread closed.

(Posting AC so as to not lose my mod funny on this post)

Re:Hey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704399)

Agreed.

Re:Hey (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704937)

Atheism is the most retarded and violent religion on this planet

Heckler's Veto? (-1, Troll)

MickLinux (579158) | about 8 months ago | (#44704507)

So this is an attempt at a heckler's veto? How do Austrians feel about hecklers attempting to sdestroy their freedoms?

Afaik, it's not supposed to be permitted by the US Supreme court, but sometimes it happens --such as with the heckler's veto that won the day in the case of Âanta Monic Holiday displays.

But you have to expect some level of 'least resistance' from some politicians. So the Heckler's veto CAN win the day. Sometimes. Even if illegal.

Re:Heckler's Veto? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704553)

Um, what?

Re:Hey (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704683)

more to the do they ask any of the believers of the various sky fairies to provide such a certifcate?

Re: Hey (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704721)

I'm just glad atheism is finally being recognized as a religion. Those people have more mindless faith than anybody!

Re:Hey (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 8 months ago | (#44704719)

You must understand the whole idea is to show theists what they look like in the mirror.

Re:Hey (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 8 months ago | (#44705065)

The point is, the Atheists are identical to the theists. 2 groups of people obsessed with the nature of the afterlife to the point that they identify their entire existence by it. Christian, Muslim, Atheist. It's all the same damn thing.

There's 3 points of view on this:
Christian: I believe! It's a fact!
Atheist: I don't believe! It's a fact!
Normal Person: I don't know, don't care and don't think it's possible to prove a damned thing leave me alone... why do the two people above me have weird shit on their heads?

Re: Hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705085)

atheists and Christians differ only slightly because atheists only believe in just one less god than Christians do.

What a victory for Noodly Rights! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704327)

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

It's a government cover up! (4, Funny)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about 8 months ago | (#44704331)

It's all just an attempt from NSA and CIA to create more news, driving attention from Snowden's leaks, plus to show the whole world that USA is still more free and open country than Russia and China.

What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?

Re:It's a government cover up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704543)

Careful, they might come after you for trying to expose the conspiracy.

Re:It's a government cover up! (2)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 8 months ago | (#44705019)

"It's all just an attempt from NSA and CIA to create more news, driving attention from Snowden's leaks"

Riiiight, THIS is the story they created for that.

*coff* twerp *coff*

"What would you say on that, cold fjord, eh?"

Do you mean fnord?

Fit to drive? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704391)

OK, so what about the women who INSIST that their religion says they MUST wear a full-face Burka in public? NO SUCH DEMAND EXISTS IN THE QURAN!

Surely, then, these people should have to have a phsychologists' report to see if they are fit to drive.

Re:Fit to drive? (4, Informative)

tempmpi (233132) | about 8 months ago | (#44704523)

Even a religion with a book does not need to have everything in that book. "Sola scriptura" is a part of protestant Christianity, but there are many book based religions without such a rule.

Re:Fit to drive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704609)

Well, perhaps one should require everyone who follows a ruleset blindly to have a phsychologists' report to see if they are fit to drive.

I agree that it is irrelevant if something is written down or not. The real problem is organizations that require obedience without questioning and anyone who subscribes to such an organization ought to have their head examined.
This shouldn't be limited to religions. People who volunteer for the military or who says that a law should be followed no matter how stupid it is fall into this category.

Re: Fit to drive? (5, Insightful)

vesuvana (1166821) | about 8 months ago | (#44704675)

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

Re: Fit to drive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704997)

if males in the region have yet to develop the mental sophistication to suppress the urge to rape everything that shows skin in public
it is probably best to cover up

Re:Fit to drive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704971)

try to look up what a burka is, it is probably not what you think

And I doubt those who wear burka intend to drive, the mere suggesting that they could would probaly get them in trouble with their
male masters

In saudi arabia (remember good guys they sell us oil) women aren't allowed to drive

OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0, Troll)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 8 months ago | (#44704393)

...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?

I know the loudest and the ones who receive all the press coverage from the people who can take advantage of their extremism seem to be all about mindless devotion to a higher power, but the billions of "religious faithful" tend to be more sophisticated than that.

And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism - show that even the modern human mind is not lifted out of reach of objects of mindless worship.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704445)

Not sure if serious? Doesn't take much to see religions are still all about egocentric sky lords watching over us and determining our rights and wrongs.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (3, Informative)

pspahn (1175617) | about 8 months ago | (#44704541)

Lord. As I recall this was a contraction of `hlaf` (bread) and `weard` (ward, guardian). Keeper of the Bread.

Food certainly is an important thing to guard, but it kind of ruins the luster of the term "lord" duddinit?

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704461)

Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin. How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism? They are completely disconnected in just about every way.

As for your other assertion, yes, billions of people still think of religions in terms of sky-fairies as opposed to philosophies and systems of ethics. Perhaps not those who study these systems, but for your average religious person, of course that still applies.

You give too much credit to the "religious faithful". I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 8 months ago | (#44704481)

How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?

Really?

but for your average religious person

Almost everyone thinks they're above average, and can make sweeping statements about the "average" xyz...

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704573)

How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?

Really?

Good argument there...

Are you religious by any chance?

Go religion, yeeeah!11!1!

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705067)

How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?

Really?

Don't leave me hangin bro.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (-1, Troll)

tempmpi (233132) | about 8 months ago | (#44704667)

Saying communism and capitalism are "atheistic religions" is a comment so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin.

Communism, at least in most versions of it, is a atheistic religion because it requires its followers to be atheists. Just like Christianity is a theistic religion because it requires it followers to be theists.

How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?

Being an atheists does not make someone automatically a follower of communism or capitalism. Just like being a theist does not make someone a Christian or Muslim or worshipping the Christian God or Alah. Someone is an atheist if he or she does not believe in a theistic god, nothing else. Someone can still be an atheist, even if he or she believes in something that is structurally similar to traditional religious faith.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.

Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704727)

I can't believe I'm having to actually debate such stupid points on /., but here we go.

Economic systems are not religions.

Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.

Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god(s).

The two have no connection to each other. Nada. In fact, here's a link to help you out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism

I've seen no evidence to suggest that, en masse, they think about religion from a philosophical point of view.

Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?

Sorry, logical argument doesn't work that way. The original sentence was "...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?". Given the prevalence of God(s) in just about every major religion still practised in this day and age, there needs to be evidence to back up this claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person calling it into question.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (3, Interesting)

tempmpi (233132) | about 8 months ago | (#44705083)

Economic systems are not religions.

Capitalism and Communism are economic systems.

I'm not going to argue about Capitalism here. But Communism is not just an economic system. Its most famous version, the Marxist–Leninist version, but also the maoist version, provide a full-fledged philosophical world view. They have unverifiable dogmas, their own version of heaven. (On Earth, after the communist revolution is completed) They have rituals that mirror Christians Rituals. They sing songs in groups to the honor of the party, just like Christian sing songs to honor god. They claim superhuman status for their leaders. So these versions of Communism are religions, at least under functional definitions of religion.
And these versions are also atheistic, because a important part of their world view is also atheism.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704865)

Can you then point me to any evidence that the "religious faithful", think about god in terms of a big guy on a cloud or something like that?

Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (1)

tempmpi (233132) | about 8 months ago | (#44705145)

Ever seen the roof of the sixtine chapel?

Yes. But I have also seen many physics textbooks, but I'm quite sure that most Physicists do not imagine electrons as middle sized dots or colorful bubbles. Humans are able of abstract thought. Just like you can not illustrate electrons exactly how they really look like, you can not illustrate god. The ban of images of god that exists in many religions is clear sign that people always have been aware of this. Banning images of god is way to deal with this problem, symbolic images like the ones in the sixtine chapel are a different way of dealing it.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704831)

> How in the world do atheists "worship" [...] capitalism?

With a credit card?

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (1)

Circlotron (764156) | about 8 months ago | (#44704939)

How in the world do atheists "worship" communism or capitalism?

Millions of them have have sworn allegiance to a piece of cloth fluttering in the breeze. So very similar to those who bow and scrape before a statue. Many of them have given their lives for whom the statue or flag represents while killing those who put faith in a different statue or flag.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704467)

I think the general point of movements like this is to remind people that they can *have* their "philosophy or systems of ethics" - they're welcome to them - but there's no need to have the group-rituals and sky-fairy baggage that go along with it. And once you stop doing that then there's no need to call what you're involved with a "religion" any more.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704503)

there's no need to have the group-rituals

It seems odd that you would feel a need to convince others to not do things as a group. Is that just not doing things as a group -- as a group? Even counter-culture gets more obscure as time goes by, it seems....

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704805)

Two people united by their shared "not doing something" does not unite them in all other facets of their life.

A little less with the sectarian rhetoric, please.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (5, Insightful)

sFurbo (1361249) | about 8 months ago | (#44704491)

How is this the least bit on topic? This highlights not what religion is about, but that governments have been giving people special privileges based on their religion.

Either there is a good reason for the demand that you shouldn't wear anything on your head on official photos, or there isn't.
In the first case, why are we allowing people to forgo it because of their religion?
In the second case, why is the rule there?

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (4, Informative)

Andtalath (1074376) | about 8 months ago | (#44704495)

Pastafarians make fun of the archaic aspects primarily.
They also attack special prvileges given out to religions.

This attack is against religions requiring you to always wear some type of hat and thus people of that religion are allowed to take their photo with this hat.

They find this to be wrong since other poeple are not allowed to use hats on the photo.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704521)

...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?

Yes, they do, that's the entire reason for pastafarianism existing. To push back against people demanding that we teach things about sky fairies in science classes.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704529)

The billions of "religious faithful" are not at all sophisticated. Just have a look at Ireland, El Salvador or Ecuador with their anti-abortion laws. Then there are southern states of US with creationism in schools and the church in TX opposing measles vaccination which lead to a mini-outbreak. Or maybe the Buddhist monks killing Muslims in Myanmar.
Communism is not a religion, as opposed to Capitalism (which just like Democracy are based on blind faith and the believers cannot accept rational critique of them - basically religions).
Religion is a form of governance and population control which cannot be criticized because "peoples feelings will be hurt" or the critic might get shot (like that doctor providing abortion services in Kansas, who was killed in a church).

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (1)

Circlotron (764156) | about 8 months ago | (#44705001)

Religion is a form of governance and population control which cannot be criticized because "peoples feelings will be hurt" or the critic might get shot

Makes me think of when a religious person posts an opinion on Slashdot.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704561)

Yes.

Cultural behaviour is almost entirely driven by self-identity. Most first world, western (I'm assuming this is what you meant by "in 2013" - otherwise your statement is farcical) people self-identify with their neighbours rather than with their "religion". Behaviour differences due to religion barely register when we all watch the same TV, go to the same schools / shops / workplaces, etc.

Religion comes down to the particular brand of irrational to which you subscribe. This usually manifests itself as odd thoughts about natural processes like death and sex.

Your last sentence naively negates my argument by implying that any identifiable system of human behaviour can be labelled a religion. Labelling communism and capitalism "religion" demonstrates a lack of understanding of all three phenomena.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (5, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 8 months ago | (#44704585)

And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism

Such ignorance I've only seen from A.C.s.

atheism n. - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That's it. It's not a religion. It's not about ethics. It's not about economics. Fuck right off you simple minded slanderous twit.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

tempmpi (233132) | about 8 months ago | (#44704717)

And the primarty atheistic religions of the 20th century - Soviet communism and American capitalism

Such ignorance I've only seen from A.C.s.

atheism n. - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

That's it. It's not a religion. It's not about ethics. It's not about economics. Fuck right off you simple minded slanderous twit.

That is not how your language works. In "atheistic religions" atheistic provides a qualification to the word religions. "atheistic religions" is just the subset of religions, that have "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" as a part of their teachings. Just like "red apple" refers to the subset of apples that is red. It does not say: all apples are red nor does it say all red things are apples. So Soviet communism is a atheistic religion because it is a religion and disbelief in the existence of god is a part of it. That does not say that every atheist is also a Soviet communist.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704769)

Religion: 2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Religion does not need a god. Only belief in a system.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704653)

...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?

One word. Scientology.

Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 months ago | (#44704801)

...do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?

Yes. Because you can have a system of ethics without religion, and therefore religion is just about the magic sky-fairies. Or, you know, about controlling a bunch of sheep into doing stupid shit like giving you money in exchange for lies.

Good decision (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 8 months ago | (#44704397)

It highlights the idiocy in having special laws for religious beliefs. If something should be illegal, it should be illegal for everyone. If something should be legal, it should be legal for everyone. You shouldn't get special privileges for holding certain beliefs. If it's fine for some people to wear hats or other head coverings in official photographs then it should be legal for everyone.

Re:Good decision (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#44704579)

I disagree. Most rules are about preferences. For example, most people do not wear a head covering except if it is part of their religion. Requiring photos without headgear makes identification easier. In this case religion trumps preference. "I want to" is not a similar reason.

By the way "not allowed" is not the same as "illegal". Illegal means against the law and there are consequences for breaking the law. Not allowed means they won't take the picture with the headgear on. The prohibition of headgear is a rule not a law.

Re:Good decision (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704659)

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

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

Re:Good decision (0)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#44704735)

To many people religion is the core of their very being. To not follow the precepts of the religion would be tantamount to suicide as their soul would be in peril. That is much more important than an autocratic rule about headgear. For most people removing a hat is not an issue. For some religious people it is."I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul" is very different than "I prefer to keep my hat on because I want to".

Why not make the same rule for everyone? There is a good reason for the rule but a some exceptions are not a problem if the reason is good enough. Due to the right to freedom of religion, religion is a good reason.

Re:Good decision (2)

zebidee (40430) | about 8 months ago | (#44704771)

To not follow the precepts of the religion would be tantamount to suicide as their imaginary sense of being would be in an imaginary sense of peril. Fixed that for you.

Re:Good decision (4, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | about 8 months ago | (#44704819)

Their delusions are not my problem. Nor should the state attempt to make them so.

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705033)

So brave.

Re:Good decision (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 8 months ago | (#44704895)

To many people religion is the core of their very being.

So?

I, and very many others, including the subject of TFA feverently believe in equality under the law.

For most people removing a hat is not an issue. For some religious people it is."I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul" is very different than "I prefer to keep my hat on because I want to".

And allowing some people to not remove their head imperils those ideas of equality under the law and freedom of religious (or lack of) expression.

Due to the right to freedom of religion, religion is a good reason.

By freedom of religion, you mean of course: "you get special freedoms only if you have the correct religion".

Where the hell does that end?

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705101)

Scientology made it onto the list of those "correct" religions.

If they can do it, anyone can.

Re:Good decision (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704917)

Original AC here.

I'm not suggesting that the religious be prevented from following the precepts of their religion (except perhaps where public safety is concerned - i.e. nobody's religious precept should be permitted to place someone else at risk of injury).

What I see as wrong is the non-religious being prohibited from choosing the exact same behavior. Bringing intent into the issue and stating that only a certain group of people are of the correct intent serves to divide people and make them unequal on the basis of their beliefs. It changes from objective assessment to subjective judgment - how religious are you really?

The fact that someone has a world view where their soul is imperiled by being prevented from doing something (in this case, keeping the head garment on) should have no bearing on whether the non-religious are prevented from the same. There is no good reason for it.

On the other hand, there is a good reason to allow the non-religious to choose the same behaviors as the religious if they so decide. It affords society the distinction of equal treatment of people - regardless of belief.

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704975)

Since driving is a privilege, and a license is not necessary, I see no reason to make an exception to the rule. If you don't want to take an identification photo, then don't get an identification card. Note the key word in there - burka's and other head gear interfere with this purpose. AC to preserve mods.

Re:Good decision (2)

mrbester (200927) | about 8 months ago | (#44705003)

"I prefer to keep my hat on as taking it off will imperil my soul"

If anyone truly believes that then *they* are the ones who need psychological testing.

Re:Good decision (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 8 months ago | (#44704785)

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

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

Special consideration for disability. If you've been brought up to believe that you are required to hide your face, whether you want to or not, because an invisible unprovable deity says so (do any religious texts actually say such things?), then your brain has been well and truly washed. You've been brainwashed probably since birth by people who want to control you. It's not your fault, and your disability should be given some respect like any other disability.

As far as I can see the guy in TFA believes no such thing and is just making fun of these people, and I find the whole thing a bit distasteful. I see being allowed to wear a colander on your head in an official photo as more a "milestone for fail" than a "milestone for atheism"

Re:Good decision (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 8 months ago | (#44704911)

I find the whole thing a bit distasteful. I see being allowed to wear a colander on your head in an official photo as more a "milestone for fail.

It's a milestone for not getting special priviledges because you believe in the *correct* magical sky fairy.

Re:Good decision (0)

jamesh (87723) | about 8 months ago | (#44705023)

I find the whole thing a bit distasteful. I see being allowed to wear a colander on your head in an official photo as more a "milestone for fail.

It's a milestone for not getting special priviledges because you believe in the *correct* magical sky fairy.

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

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705111)

To make people truly believe in unfounded fairytales so secure you place at the top of the power structure requires
many generations of brainwashing and indoctrination under the treat of eternal damnation from a very young age, something the old religions accomplished a long time ago

Re:Good decision (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704709)

It's not an "I want to" it's pastafarianism. A religion that might or might not reuquire one to wear a colander in photos. I have many similar religions myself, I switch them on and off when needed. Religion is just a preference, an "I want to". It should be same rules for everyone, regardless of ones religion. This should be very clear for everyone. Either you rule that no headgear mean no headgear. Or you let everyone wear any headgear they damn well please. IF someones religion is so strict to not allow taking photos with no headgear they may move somewhere else, or not get a drivers license.

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704711)

Isn't religious discrimination illegal in the US?

Re:Good decision (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704855)

If headgear can be allowed for an ID document under a specific circunstance then it should be allowed under every circunstance. It's either valid for identification or it isn't.

Re: Good decision (0)

techprophet (1281752) | about 8 months ago | (#44705043)

Consider this: if your religion requires you to wear headgear always, then your profile will always match the photo iff they are allowed to wear the headgear in the photo. Of course, that is assuming that the individual in question isn't fibbing about their religion.

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705021)

"I want to" is just as good a reason as any religion

Re:Good decision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705053)

here they made the rule that on photo in a bus pass had to show the face, those who would not show face on the picture and/or when entering the bus could not get a bus pass simple as that

US Licence Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704401)

Being from Australia I'm not sure what the US licence laws are.
Does the fact he has it on his licence photo and seems to be using religion to get that, mean he is required by law to wear it while driving and travelling etc?

Re:US Licence Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704741)

See the comment [slashdot.org] above. Hats are generally not allowed in license photos, but he gets to wear it in his license photo because he says his religion requires it. However, only his religion, not the law, requires him to wear the hat, as the law is not allowed to enforce the religion. Hats get a pass, but veils don't, as a hat doesn't do much to conceal identity, whereas a veil does a pretty good job of concealing identity.

Psychological Fitness (5, Funny)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 8 months ago | (#44704417)

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

A more accurate title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704427)

Atheist wins a minor victory in his campaign against arbitrary rights granted to religions.

Dude, nobody's fooled that you're actually a "pastafarian." We all know you just want an excuse to try to make the lawmakers outlaw wearing anything semi-nonconformist in a government-issued ID. Just let them wear their religious paraphernalia. It's not hurting you, and nothing good can come from trying to force them to change.

Re:A more accurate title (5, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 8 months ago | (#44704515)

It's curious you assume he wants more restrictions, rather than more freedoms. I would argue his efforts are more about pointing out the arbitrariness of religion. If some people are allowed to do X, it stands to reason that everyone should be allowed to do X.

Re:A more accurate title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704615)

You apparently don't understand how governments work.
If someone points out something unfair, government will either ignore it or say "okay, you win! nobody gets to do that."

Anyone who understands this knows that calling attention to an unfair practice means you're trying get the government to ban it.

Re:A more accurate title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704645)

He's talking about the guy's intentions, not the likely outcome. Sure, it will probably result in more restrictions, but it's not fair to say that the guy wants more restrictions.

Re:A more accurate title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704729)

Anyone who understands this knows that calling attention to an unfair practice means you're trying get the government to ban it.

I'd like to see the fallout from anyone in government suggesting that such a blanket ban should be instigated.

Re:A more accurate title (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 8 months ago | (#44704983)

Exactly. For instance, you declare yourself a member of the Church of Caruso. A tenet is that you wear sunglasses (type is not important, so go nuts with the design if you want). This isn't allowed in ID photographs as it obscures your eyes. Yet a burka / turban / etc is allowed which obscures your hair, an arguably larger and more noticeable feature.

Re:A more accurate title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704551)

No, what's hurting us is that we're banned from the same right that's granted to them.

I wear a pasta strainer on my health card (5, Interesting)

saibot834 (1061528) | about 8 months ago | (#44704447)

I submitted a photo where I wear a pasta strainer for my official electronic health insurance card in Germany -- and it got accepted, no questions asked! Always good to get some laughs when I have to go to a doctor.

Head coverings were not allowed, but religious ones were exempt. Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?

Re:I wear a pasta strainer on my health card (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704661)

Oddly enough however, a friend of mine got a photo accepted where he poses with a beer mug (Maßkrug, you know, the typtical bavarian 1l mugs). Maybe because that's a religious symbol as well?

...and that is why I love Germany.

Outrageous (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44704509)

It is ridiculous that people are allowed to hide their face on ID photos by wearing headgear. No kind of headgear should be allowed on ID photos for any reason whatsoever, no exception allowed.

Re:Outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44705045)

I always thought of ID photos in burka fascinating...

My religious practice says I must (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 8 months ago | (#44704795)

give the middle finger to any camera that can or is taking a picture of me.

And no, I don't have a current I.D. card. So when someone asks me for my I.D., i just show them what it would of looked like. Needless to say, this gets me in trouble.

Religions seems to be nothing but trouble...

Alcoholism (0)

Cyfun (667564) | about 8 months ago | (#44704807)

If they recognize Pastafarianism and being able to wear a colander in photos on government-issued IDs, then I insist that I be allowed to have a martini in hand as I subscribe to the religion of Alcoholism.

Yet another opportunity for real discussion gone (1)

techprophet (1281752) | about 8 months ago | (#44705017)

I half-heartedly await the day on which we can have a decent discussion about social issues without people being so vile. Somehow I don't expect this will happen in my lifetime.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...