In the USA, women are allowed to drive...except in parts of upstate New York.I.don't think women are allowed to drive.
Tom
But Europe or Canuckistan....who knows.
Last edited:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In the USA, women are allowed to drive...except in parts of upstate New York.I.don't think women are allowed to drive.
Tom
Maybe the OP should have asked whether religious hats are a legitimate religious statement or just religious people acting childish in order to establish a base line for measurement of the responses to its main question.
Personally, the above hats are not to my taste, but I don't have anything against people wearing them.
I don't know anything about the story except what was in the links. That wasn't much information. But I bet I know.
Around here the rule for a drivers license photo is you can't wear anything above the neck. Unless you are required to wear glasses to drive like I am, then you are required to wear them in the photo. This is simply so that the photo accurately represents what you look like. It is a sensible precaution against fraudulence. Head wear impedes this function.
Religionists who want a drivers license should follow the same rule as everybody else. But they want special dispensation. I think they should choose between head wear and a license. But they think their religion entitles them to do whatever they want.
I expect that is what is going on here. I could be wrong, maybe the kiwi is just nuts.
Tom
I'm not sure I agree that wearing headgear impedes identification. People change their hair all the time, so what's true for photo day, may be drastically different on identity check day. On top of that, if anything, wearing a religious hat on photo day - one that you wear all the time, regardless of hair style - would actually make you more easy to identify, no?
I wonder what these atheists will feel compelled to do when religious people are granted the right to jump off bridges for their religious reasons.
If I were an atheist I would feel really embarrassed by this ridiculousness. I can't wait to see how they are going to rationalize it. Because guess what? It is not rational.
We would doff our colanders in memoriam.I wonder what these atheists will feel compelled to do when religious people are granted the right to jump off bridges for their religious reasons.
Is the protest really against the head coverings of others, or isGiven that the lowly colander has never been regarded as or used as a type of headgear, anywhere on the planet, it is more than a bit silly to use them as a protest against religiously mandated head-coverings. Hopefully this fashion statement stays down-under.
This whole religious entitlement "I can't take my hat off, because I'm Religious" crap reminds me so much of this Eddie Izzard sketch (particularly between 1:15 and 2:00):There has been a growing trend among certain atheists to fight for the right to wear colanders on their heads when having their photo taken for government issued IDs. It is meant to be a political statement against the allowance of religious head gear. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Is it a legitimate statement? Should religious believers not be allowed to have any religious headgear, what so ever, in government issued IDs? Or is it a childish act that does more to harm the already very poor view that people have of atheists?
New Zealand Pastafarian Wears Colander in Drivers License Picture, Much to the Delight of Everyone
Another Pastafarian Gets His Drivers License with a Colander on His Head
If it is about the government giving preferential treatment to some religions, I think their protest failed due to them being allowed to wear their "religious" head gear.Is the protest really against the head coverings of others, or is
it about government's preferential treatment for some religions?
....or the mocking of silly hats which are treated as solemn & sacred?
If I were an atheist I would feel really embarrassed by this ridiculousness. I can't wait to see how they are going to rationalize it. Because guess what? It is not rational.
This whole religious entitlement "I can't take my hat off, because I'm Religious" crap reminds me so much of this Eddie Izzard sketch (particularly between 1:15 and 2:00):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma3a7hqZer4
If the government doesn't allow headgear in ID photos, then the person should have to Take. It. Off. Regardless of how religious the person is.
And I say that as a religious person. What's next? Muslim women getting photo IDs taken in full burqa?? Native Americans wearing ceremonial masks??
Is satire truley appropraite in this context though (presented on official government issued documents)?Some people can't appreciate satire, it seems.
It could be Pastafarian pride too.If it is about the government giving preferential treatment to some religions, I think their protest failed due to them being allowed to wear their "religious" head gear.
I just don't quite understand something that is so purely reactionary in nature. I mean, I could see protesting against allowing certain things that completely cover the face. But I am not sure that is even allowed anywhere, and it seems this is directed at any kind of religious head gear, not just complete face coverings.
But to each their own I guess. If they really want to wear a colander, it doesn't look like anyone is stopping it. So more power to them.
I don't think it's reasonable to allow any kind of headgear on a photo ID. Headgear can dramatically change the appearance and can be used as a disguise. The photo ID needs to present a baseline appearance for comparison.When you hear about religious accommodation it is usually attached to the word "reasonable". And I think that is the key word. Allowing something that does not obstruct the facial features would seem, IMO, to fit the definition of reasonable. However, a complete face covering would not.
If it is about the government giving preferential treatment to some religions, I think their protest failed due to them being allowed to wear their "religious" head gear.
I just don't quite understand something that is so purely reactionary in nature. I mean, I could see protesting against allowing certain things that completely cover the face. But I am not sure that is even allowed anywhere, and it seems this is directed at any kind of religious head gear, not just complete face coverings.
But to each their own I guess. If they really want to wear a colander, it doesn't look like anyone is stopping it. So more power to them.