FSM believer is sent for psychiatric assessment

[fireheart17]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226961620238

So a guy went for his gun licence and got it. However, in his licence photo, he wore a colander on his head, claiming it was part of the Flying Spaghetti Monster movement.
The police got hold of his licence somehow and confiscated everything. He then had to get a psychiatric assessment to keep said guns (and yes, he passed-Australia has quite strict laws concerning gun usage.) and while he was allowed to keep his guns, his licence was destroyed. He now has to get a new one, sans colander.

He plans on putting the colander on his head for his drivers licence photo...at least he can't get THAT yanked!

I just find this hilarious to be honest.

[HYHYBT]

This is supposed to get into the whole area of what constitutes "real" religion and what doesn't and all that, but it doesn't. And the reason it doesn't is that FSM was specifically created, not as anything anyone actually believes, but as a deliberate mockery of religious belief in general, and it's well known as exactly that. And exactly because it's well known as that, anyone who really does believe it anyway is mentally suspect (as in, it makes sense at least to check them out before letting them have guns) and anyone who doesn't actually believe it is lying when they say they do and therefore has no legitimate reason to have a colander on their head in an ID photo.

[fireheart17]

I should've clarified...what I found hilarious about the whole thing is the fact that the DMV (known as Service SA in the article) didn't have an issue with it. NOBODY else had an issue with it. It was only when the police got hold of it that it became an issue.

[Jester]

I disagree about the mental competence bit. Who is to say that this made up religions is any less valid than any other made up religion?

Which is precisely the point of the whole FSM religion and Pastafarianism.

[protege]

Which is precisely the point of the whole FSM religion and Pastafarianism.

Yep, that's it. It's all about "my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend." Most people have moved away from that after the age of two

[Hyena Dandy]

Who is to say that this made up religions is any less valid than any other made up religion?

Quite honestly, the people who made it up.

Orthodox Jews sincerely believe that they must have a head covering, beards, etc. Sikhs believe that they must wear a turban. The things that people insist on come from a religious belief that they sincerely hold.

If you're an atheist, the Christian God and the Hindu gods and all the rest are just as real as the FSM. But from the perspective of the followers of those faiths, their god is real, and thus, they must behave like members of that faith. Even Scientologists, whose guiding organization has engaged in some truly abusive practices, do at the very least believe

The point in question is not that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real. It's that its followers don't think its real.

I won't rule out the possibility that some of its followers do sincerely believe in the tenets of Pastafarianism, which would require them to wear a colander on their head. Most people, however, seem to know its history, as a thought experiment related to creationism. It seems reasonable to think that most anyone who does claim to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe actually does not believe there is any god at all, because most people who claim to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are atheists who are trying to make a point.

And in the context of 'Teaching creationism to children' it's a good one. If someone thinks it's true, must we have it taught? What if someone said this, would you still support it? In other contexts, though, it loses its point. It becomes a way to make fun of religious people.

The title of the thread is (probably) untrue. The man was almost certainly NOT an FSM believer, because almost no-one is. To be a believer, you have to actually BELIEVE. I've never met someone talking about the Flying Spagheti Monster, who actually believed that the flying spaghetti monster existed. If this man is an exception to that, I'd be surprised. People don't tend to talk about it in a sincere way. If he is, though, then yes. This is a problem. But it seems far more likely that he doesn't think that the flying spaghetti monster exists. As Protege says, the point of the FSM is that every religion is imaginary and equally stupid, and the FSM ALSO DOESN'T EXIST. Not that it does, and has these commandments or desires or whatever.

[Jester]

The point in question is not that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't real. It's that its followers don't think its real.

I beg to differ. My comment about what makes the FSM more or less valid was directed at the idea that anyone who does sincerely believe in the FSM must be nuts, therefore a psychological exam makes sense. My question was, why? Why does belief in this particular entity engender one nuttier than belief in another?

I know what you're saying, and you're right. Most Pastafarians ARE making a point. But I disagreed with the idea that someone who honestly DID believe in the FSM must need their head checked, any more or less than you would need to check the head of someone who sincerely believed in Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, the Greek gods, the Norse gods, or the Egyptian gods.

[Hyena Dandy]

In a way, you're asking the wrong question. It's not the substance of the belief that causes this. It's the societal position of the belief.

In psychology, deviance is one of the aspects of a mental disorder that's considered. If a lot of people in one culture or subculture believe it to be true, or behave in a certain way, then it's not something to bring one's sanity into question. Believing Galactus was coming to eat the world isn't suspicious because Galactus isn't real. It's suspicious because society knows and presents Galactus as false. There is not, to my knowledge, a significant subsection of society believing Galactus to be real.

Nor is, necessarily, belief the FSM is real something that should be disqualifying. It is not IN AND OF ITSELF a dangerous thing. Only unusual. But it is worth psychological evaluation because, if someone believes something that is presented in society as categorically false, you want to know if they hold any other beliefs that COULD be dangerous, or if this conclusion specifically leads them to be a danger to themself or others.

[Jester]

In other words, if it's popular, no matter how insane it is, your belief is fine. If a lot of other people don't believe as you do, though, you may need to have your head checked.

More proof that society is fucked up.

[Kheldarson]

In other words, if it's popular, no matter how insane it is, your belief is fine. If a lot of other people don't believe as you do, though, you may need to have your head checked.

More proof that society is fucked up.

That isn't what HD was saying. In the cases of the main religions (the Abrahamic and Eastern styles), there is a baseline teaching that this is a true reality. It is part of the assumed beliefs of the followers that this is a Truth. In the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, part of the baseline teaching is that it is false. To declare otherwise means you're either a) not a true follower anyway, b) trying to mess with the system, or c) gone off your rocker. I mean, we'd be concerned if someone started insisting that the sky was neon green, right? Even though they truly believed it?

[Hyena Dandy]

In other words, if it's popular, no matter how insane it is, your belief is fine. If a lot of other people don't believe as you do, though, you may need to have your head checked.

More proof that society is fucked up.

You seem to not understand my point at all, because that's not the point. The commonality of the belief is not what's at stake. What's at stake is that the belief is presented as false by all those who discuss it. Since its presentation is always false, a psychologist would question why this person believes it to be true. The first guess would be that he might not be able to tell fact from fiction. Not in a "But God isn't real either!" way because God is presented as real by the people who discuss it. This is a gun license. If I'm looking at this from a psychological perspective, questions start popping up. What else does he think is real? If he saw Ian McKellan on the street, would he shoot him to stop Magneto from taking over the world? If someone says "Yeah, and if that's true then I'm Hitler" will he attack him or try to kill him because, after all, this man is Hitler! Belief in God or Thor is less crazy than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because their being true or thought to be true is how they're presented.

The question isn't what he believes. It's why he believes it, and what made him come to that belief. You're focusing on the substance of the belief. That's not how this is looked at.

As for "If you're different you're BAD." Deviance is an important part of psychological diagnosis, yes. If you think it shouldn't be, then you don't get psychology. Suppose that someone didn't bathe, or shave, rolled in mud regularly, when they blew their nose they rubbed it on their face, and they talked to people by standing only about six inches from them. A psychologist would think that this person likely has some psychological issue. But an encounter with a group of people who acted like that was the first thing that was mentioned in my sociology book. A psychologist would look at those people and say "They're pretty much normal" because 'common in culture/subculture' is part of the study.

The substance of the belief is irrelevant. And this isn't religious oppression, either. Trying to make it either of those two is ridiculous.

[Jester]

Suppose that someone didn't bathe, or shave, rolled in mud regularly, when they blew their nose they rubbed it on their face, and they talked to people by standing only about six inches from them. A psychologist would think that this person likely has some psychological issue.

Actually, I would just assume they were French.

[lordlundar]

In other words, if it's popular, no matter how insane it is, your belief is fine. If a lot of other people don't believe as you do, though, you may need to have your head checked.

More proof that society is fucked up.

Well, the only difference between an organized religion and a cult is the former is recognized by governing bodies.

[crashhelmet]

Looks like the struggle is now being fought by those in Canadialandia

'Pastafarian' fights to wear colander in B.C. driver's licence photo

The ICBC has a good counter for their defense:

But, the insurer disagreed. In a letter, they told him “there is no religious requirement that prohibits you from removing the colander for the purpose of taking the photo to appear on your driver’s license.”

[Hyena Dandy]

Well, the only difference between an organized religion and a cult is the former is recognized by governing bodies.

Cults are fine, too. If your cult believes that, then it's not likely to be a sign of a mental problem. Just a sign you belong to a weird cult. What's not okay is if it's always been presented as false, there's no real evidence it was presented as true, and you are aware of all the same information that the other people are.