• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Colander Hats on IDs: Legitimate Religious Statement or Atheists Acting Childish?

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
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 like the Sikh turban actually, it is a beautiful work of art.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I think the point being made here is quite important, the law can not dismiss ANY religious belief on the basis of it's absurdity - because none of the major faiths would pass that test either.
 

methylatedghosts

Can't brain. Has dumb.
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?

Yes, that kiwi is one of our special ones. We like to let them out every now and then to see what other creative ways they can make international news.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
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?

Not only that, but at least here is the US you're not required to update your photo regularly. Until I moved to New York when I was 30 I had the same picture on my license since I was 18. I don't know what the laws are about how long that would have been allowed to continue, but my appearance from 18 to 30 changed quite a bit. When my license expired I send them a check and they send me a new license, no questions asked.

Makes you wonder what the point of it all is.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
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.

It is, however, funny. You remember fun? It's that thing god forbids.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Given 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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Given 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.
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?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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 Driver’s License Picture, Much to the Delight of Everyone

Another Pastafarian Gets His Drivers License with a Colander on His Head

q1gBZ8L.jpg
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??
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
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 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.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
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??

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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
It could be Pastafarian pride too.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
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.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.

Personally, I take these photos as a way to start conversations about the role of religion in society, especially about the (at least perceived) tendency to give special regard to "religious" things without worrying about their merits.

IMO, he was going for "silly". By getting you to recognize that wearing a stupid colander on his head shouldn't be considered part of a specially privileged level of expression, he'll hopefully get you to start thinking about what criteria we ought to use for such special privileges... or if we should have such privileges at all.

That's my take on it, anyway.
 
Top