Touched by his noodley appendage

[Andara Bledin]

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.

How does the legitimacy of the religion have any bearing on my question?

There are no passages declaring the idea that specific headgear is required or even desired. How can one win an argument that your faith requires you to be allowed to do something when your own holy book fails to make any such mention?

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I wasn't answering your question. I was making an observation.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

And the Qu'ran doesn't say anything about women having to wear burquas.

[Andara Bledin]

I wasn't answering your question. I was making an observation.

Well, based on your observation, practically everything ever written and discussed by two people could qualify as a " 'true' religion."

Although I don't get why you would quote the part of my post that poses a completely unrelated question instead of the part where I mention the idea that it might not be legitimate. It's confusing, at best.

And the Qu'ran doesn't say anything about women having to wear burquas.

It does have a passage that states that men and women should "dress modestly." Obviously, what some people consider "dressing modestly" is more than a bit outmoded.

Does the Loose Canon have a similar passage regarding mode of attire that would make this comparison relevant?

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Well, based on your observation, practically everything ever written and discussed by two people could qualify as a " 'true' religion."

In a nutshell was my point made.

It's confusing, at best.

I live but to serve.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

The point isn't what is or isn't "religious clothing." This story (whether it was Alm's intention or not) points out the absurdity of making exceptions to laws on the basis of religion.

If a governing body makes an exception for a yarmulke, it must make an exception for a strainer.

[Hyena Dandy]

Not only do they have to, they did. Which is a good thing. If that's his faith, he should feel free to express it and follow any rules he needs to.

I don't think he's expressing his beliefs in good faith though, honestly. I think he's doing it to be an asshole. Of course I could be wrong.

Ghel, are you saying we should not allow jews to wear yamulkes in their license photos?

[Andara Bledin]

If a governing body makes an exception for a yarmulke, it must make an exception for a strainer.

But there's a major difference, here. The yarmulke will always be worn while the wearer is driving, thus a driver's license should depict the individual how they will be when pulled over.

This man probably has no intention of ever sticking a colander on his head again except to do re-enactments of his little "triumph." Thus, his license photo is not a reflection of how he is likely to look should he be pulled over.

If you want to go completely secular, they don't allow people to wear glasses for their photos unless they are legally required to wear glasses when driving. So, are you saying that because some drivers will have glasses on in their photos we should allow all drivers to have glasses on despite the fact that more often than not they will be sans glasses while behind the wheel?

^-.-^

[linguist]

If you want to go completely secular, they don't allow people to wear glasses for their photos unless they are legally required to wear glasses when driving. So, are you saying that because some drivers will have glasses on in their photos we should allow all drivers to have glasses on despite the fact that more often than not they will be sans glasses while behind the wheel?

^-.-^

i'm legally required to wear glasses while driving, and i was told to take them off when i had my license picture taken.

[Andara Bledin]

i'm legally required to wear glasses while driving, and i was told to take them off when i had my license picture taken.

Interesting. My ex is legally required to wear glasses, and all of his license pictures included the glasses. It's interesting to learn about differences in photo requirements.

Australian photo ID requirements

Australia requires a specific type of photo for facial recognition purposes. Therefore, they do not allow anything to obstruct the face when the photo is taken. Given that information, the fact that he had a colander on his head should have been irrelevant from start to finish, as it does nothing to obscure his face.

^-.-^

[Rebel]

Interesting.
Australian photo ID requirements

Australia requires a specific type of photo for facial recognition purposes. Therefore, they do not allow anything to obstruct the face when the photo is taken. Given that information, the fact that he had a colander on his head should have been irrelevant from start to finish, as it does nothing to obscure his face.

^-.-^

Ha! I knew someone would eventually do this.

The guy is AUSTRIAN, not AUSTRALIAN.

Quite a huge difference.

And I love the fact that the gentleman was allowed to wear his strainer for his photo. The only requirement that the Austrian licensing agency had was that his face was in no way obstructed.

And he was made to take a psychological exam before he could get his license. Can you imagine the cries of outrage members of other religions would raise if they had to do the same thing?

Just because YOU don't recognize it as a religion, doesn't mean that it isn't nor that it should be ignored by government agencies and it's followers treated like insane people. And a lot of people I've talked to have argued that CFSM is just all made up. They don't like it when I point out that it's most likely how all religions started.

[Andara Bledin]

The guy is AUSTRIAN, not AUSTRALIAN.

Gah. That's what I get for posting when I should be in bed. >_<

The only requirement that the Austrian licensing agency had was that his face was in no way obstructed.

And yet, despite your claim that there is a "huge difference," their licensing photo requirements are the same.

Which means that the whole thing was stupid from the get-go, since the colander does not, and likely never did, obscure any part of his face.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Just because YOU don't recognize it as a religion, doesn't mean that it isn't nor that it should be ignored by government agencies and it's followers treated like insane people.

He wasn't treated as insane. He was treated as POSSIBLY insane. He was then determined to be sane, and allowed to wear it.

If nobody had heard of people wearing collanders, its reasonable to think he just made this up. There was no tradition behind it, nobody else they'd seen do it. In an agency regulating speeding tons of metal its reasonable to administer a test to see if he's prone to making other things up as well. He was, as I pointed out, determined to be competent.

[Ghel]

From the pictures, Alm's "hat" looks like a metal yamulke. (I'm not picking on Judaism - that's just what it looks like to me.) Why should Alm's request to wear his metal hat garner that sort of reaction (the requirement that he undergo psych eval) when someone else's request to wear a yalmulke doesn't? Appealing to tradition or social norms doesn't make this any less religious discrimination.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yes. Yes it does. I have explained why it does. You have not explained why it doesn't, you have just said it doesn't.

You asked why his hat should garner a different reaction. I told you why, but (for reason you haven't explained) you said that appealing to tradition doesn't count.

Why shouldn't it? Its reasonable to expect someone to behave according to traditions that you are familiar with. This was a tradition they had not encountered. Its a reasonable reaction to try to find out of he is prone to making up other rules as well.

It was determined he is not. That he is safe.

You have also not answered the question I asked earlier. If you did, I must have misread or misunderstood it. Do you think jews should not be allowed to wear yamulkes in license photos?