Touched by his noodley appendage

[The Shadow]

"An Austrian atheist has won the right to be shown on his driving-licence photo wearing a pasta strainer as "religious headgear".


BBC News - Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity


Go, Pastafarians!

And may The Sauce be with him - RAmen!

[HYHYBT]

However anyone may choose to word it, this serves no purpose whatsoever except to be obnoxious.

[The Shadow]

Or maybe he was also making a point about the ridiculous breaks given to religious people that non-religious or non-theist people don't and how those rules serve no useful purpose.

[Ghel]

Additionally, he was the subject of religious descrimination, since they required him to undergo psychological evaluation before issuing the license. They wouldn't have required that if someone wanted to wear a yamulka, for example, in their license picture.

[Boozy]

However anyone may choose to word it, this serves no purpose whatsoever except to be obnoxious.

Good point.

Or maybe he was also making a point about the ridiculous breaks given to religious people that non-religious or non-theist people don't and how those rules serve no useful purpose.

Another good point.

I don't know where I stand on this.

[Skunkle]

If they required him to undergo a psych evaluation because he decided to follow what they thought was a made-up religion, I support him in pushing it.

A guy I know (Christian - it's germane to the story) asked me why the Muslim women who wear headcovers can't just assimilate and stick to American customs of dress when they live in America. I told him that this was a religious and not a cultural thing, to which he replied, "That's funny, considering the fact that their religion is bullshit."

[Andara Bledin]

If he honestly follows pastafarianism as a religion, then more power to him. But he'd better have that thing on the first time he gets pulled over if he wants to not be prosecuted for whatever it would be considered for lying to the state about your religion for the purpose of being an asshole.

^-.-^

[insertNameHere]

Well, some religious headgear isn't required to be worn all the time. So I don't know how they could do anything about it. I love when people hand me an ID and are wearing aviators and get pissed I have them remove them to see you know their face that is in the photo

[Andara Bledin]

I do have a question: Where does it state that a colander on one's head is part of the religious observance for members of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There is one sole mention of a colander at all in the Loose Canon, and that was one person's response to the direction to, "Gird up you loins and follow."

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

More power to him, I think. So what if he's being obnoxious. A long time ago people said someone was obnoxious for trying to sit up front on the bus or drinking out of the wrong fountain.

My only argument against him would be rather he actually believes in it or is just doing it for fun. But again, if they're going to say he can't follow his "religion" because he doesn't really believe in it, we have to start doing that to everyone. If you don't perfectly follow the tenets of satanism, you don't get to call yourself a satanist.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't see how its religious discrimination to require he undergo a psych eval. If he wanted to wear a yamulke, there's precedent there. A lot of people want to wear yamulkes, because Judaism is a major religion in this country. To wear a collander on his head is something most people have not encountered, especially as I can't find anything about wearing collanders in the Loose Canon, or anywhere else until him really. That he has created this ritual on his own is reason for a psych evaluation to see why he created it, and if he's likely to do things like create his own rules to the road while he's driving. Its a reasonable reaction. And as far as I can tell, he PASSED the Psych Eval. Insisting on wearing something that's never been insisted on before is a bit of an odd request, on whatever grounds you insist on. Once he was judged that he was competent, he was granted his request.

Since Dr. Faroohk brought up the Civil Right's movement, I suppose I can use a metaphor from that. If this was a world where nobody had ever seen a black person, and suddenly a black person showed up, he would likely be examined. He is an abnormality, and not only that, a one of a kind abnormality. In an ethical society, once it was determined the only difference was in bone structure and melanin, he would be let go. But it would still be reasonable, if you had never seen or even heard of a black person before to assume, when you saw one, that there was something physically wrong with them.

A long time ago people said someone was obnoxious for trying to sit up front on the bus or drinking out of the wrong fountain.

If this is like the civil rights movement, what rights is he fighting for? Sitting at the front of the bus or drinking from the whites fountain has a clear message. I don't understand his message.

[HYHYBT]

The only time I remember ever seeing anybody wearing a colander on his head was in Ghostbusters... and he was possessed.

[Ghel]

Who determines whether a religion is "valid" or "recognized"? If a religion is a minor one, or even a religion of one, it's still a religion. If they're going to allow one religion's headgear without question, it is religious discrimination to require a psych eval for a different religion.

The only appropriate response is to disallow any headgear (including hats, scarves, etc.) on government-issued ID. To make exceptions on religious grounds is religious discrimination.

And, yes, it is a civil rights issue when religious groups are given preferential treatment simply for being religious.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not even touching on the whole question of whether the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be considered valid or otherwise. It's honestly rather irrelevant.

But my earlier question still stands: Where does it say, anywhere, that a colander worn on the head is some sort of religious tenet? As I stated earlier, the only time it's mentioned in their acknowledged holy book (which is still being written, so may get altered at any time) is when one person, a woman, grabs one in order to "Gird up you loins and follow." It's possible from the passage to argue that men shouldn't wear them at all just as easily as arguing that anyone at all should. And nowhere does it say that anything colander or strainer related is required.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

But my earlier question still stands: Where does it say, anywhere, that a colander worn on the head is some sort of religious tenet? As I stated earlier, the only time it's mentioned in their acknowledged holy book (which is still being written, so may get altered at any time) is when one person, a woman, grabs one in order to "Gird up you loins and follow." It's possible from the passage to argue that men shouldn't wear them at all just as easily as arguing that anyone at all should. And nowhere does it say that anything colander or strainer related is required.

^-.-^

Seems to me that arguments are being made over the meaning of certain passages and that therefore that qualifies it to be a 'true' religion.

Rapscallion