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

[ChristineES]

My question was serious. Why can someone who in jest wear a colander for their ID when I cannot wear my glasses? What really has society come to?

It is the same as when I was a child. If my brother got a cup of 7-UP, I needed to have one, too. It didn't even matter that I did not even like 7-Up, it was just that it was a treat. People want what everyone else gets, or else they feel it isn't fair.

Edited to add: This is just my opinion and observation and it isn't true of everyone.

 

[LuisDantas]

Define 'better than' and 'nominal' in this context.

Taking seriously and caring about the consequences; not really significant except as a means of appeasing peer pressure.

 

[Aquitaine]

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

Legitimate statement, regarding special treatment and concessions granted to people of *certain* beliefs.

One rule for all - the way it should be in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

It reminds me of long ago Korean fashion (the guy in the pic)....

 

[Sir Doom]

Taking seriously and caring about the consequences;

So it is your opinion that some religious people do not take their religion seriously enough? Or do not care enough about the consequences? That's the only way they could 'believe better than' a Pastafarian?

not really significant except as a means of appeasing peer pressure.

So, then when you say nominal believers, you mean people who don't actually believe any of it, and just act like they do in order to 'follow the crowd' as it were? Aaaannnnnddd why are we calling these people believers when they clearly don't believe?

Essentially it seems like you are saying that Pastafarians believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster more than liars believe their own lies... which is zero. So... what?

 

[steeltoes]

A pastafarian wearing a colander seems rational enough, I mean, what else would appropriate pastafarian head wear consist of?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A pastafarian wearing a colander seems rational enough, I mean, what else would appropriate pastafarian head wear consist of?

A beer volcano, possibly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its not a religion because that would defeat the entire purpose. There is no movement to get the flying spaghetti monster included in scientific texts, yet that is exactly the purpose of the being's existence. Its a gag. You aren't supposed to take it seriously. That there happens to be a group that has taken this idea as a figure head to combat legislation that tries to get creationism included in science does not suddenly transform that group into a religion. Its a political organization with a clever mascot.

PS: There's nothing wrong with that.

What would make a group a religion? From my perspective, the line between "a political organization with a clever mascot" and a religion is rather blurry.

What that his teachings are good regardless of his voracity?

It varies from believer to believer. It's not like Pastafarian has a magisterium making decrees about what is and isn't "proper" Pastafarianism.

And the ones I knew were on the FSM Discussion Board (back when it still existed) and based their beliefs on the "Loose Canon" that had been developed by the members there, long before Bobby Henderson published the Gospel of the FSM.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My question was serious. Why can someone who in jest wear a colander for their ID when I cannot wear my glasses? What really has society come to?

Why can't you wear your glasses?

Here, if your licence says you need corrective lenses, you can wear glasses in your driver's licence photo.

For my passport, the onmy requirement is that the photo doesn't have any glare on the glasses that obscures the eyes. A decent photographer can usually handle this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Legitimate statement, regarding special treatment and concessions granted to people of *certain* beliefs.

One rule for all - the way it should be in my opinion.

I agree.

Many people feel very strongly about their headgear. Who am I to say that a baseball fan's passion for his team is any less important than someone else's religious rules?

More importantly, regardless of the relative importance of these things, if we've established that the government can achieve its legitimate goals while religious people wear headgear in photos, why should the government be constraining the freedom of everyone else by telling them they have to take off their hats? Doesn't the fact that we let some people wear theur hats or head coverings undermine the justification for making people remove their hats generally?

 

[LuisDantas]

So it is your opinion that some religious people do not take their religion seriously enough?

Certainly, and I can testify for that. It is not really unusual for that to have worse consequences than if they took it serious or neglected it entirely, either.

Or do not care enough about the consequences?

Oh, that definitely happens quite a lot, too.

That's the only way they could 'believe better than' a Pastafarian?

Pastafarianism only came to be due to a perceived need to point out certain contradictions and unreasonable expectations of religious groups.

In that sense it was created as taking itself far more seriously and more responsibly than those groups, and it is a safe bet that this still holds largely true.

It is no coincidence that Pastafarianism is also gloriously atheistic except by the most transparently nominal of criteria; rejecting theism avoids many of the worst frustrations and dangers of religion right out of the gate.

So, then when you say nominal believers, you mean people who don't actually believe any of it,

Those too. But most often people who don't really care a lot either way and just go with the flow of the social expectations because it is more confortable than taking a stand either way.

and just act like they do in order to 'follow the crowd' as it were?

Indeed, I do mean those people.

Aaaannnnnddd why are we calling these people believers when they clearly don't believe?

For the same reasons why I am still considered a believer in the statistics of the Vatican, I assume.

And the same reasons why atheists are not exempt from a lot of the social expectations of largely Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities.

Namely, and far as I can tell, because there is a misperception that it is somehow more respectful to assume belief until proof of its absence; and because some religious groups do expect to muscle people into quiet subservience to their expectations, out of various combinations of hubris, political ambitions, or good old-fashioned fanaticism.

Essentially it seems like you are saying that Pastafarians believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster more than liars believe their own lies... which is zero. So... what?

So Pastafarianism is demonstrably no less legit than any other religion, particularly when it comes to the demands it should be allowed to make to the larger society and how they should be handled.

 

[LuisDantas]

Legitimate statement, regarding special treatment and concessions granted to people of *certain* beliefs.

One rule for all - the way it should be in my opinion.

I agree, and I will add that rules are so easily turned into tools of undue favoritivism and/or repression (which are ultimately perhaps one and the same thing) that is is only rarely true that making them more specific leads to better justice.

There is no good reason, religious or otherwise, to make exceptions for photo ids out of religious beliefs. Or if there are, they should be presented as practical considerations without relying on doctrine points if at all possible. Because otherwise we are talking about special exemptions for religion. If there is some religious group out there that is indeed demanding special rules for photo ids that would be seem as unreasonable for someone else, we need to be made well aware of which group is that and decide whether they should be granted such an unusual privilege.

Religious beliefs and demands can be unreasonable. And when they are, we should point that out without fear or ambiguity.

 

[McBell]

Why can't you wear your glasses?

Here, if your licence says you need corrective lenses, you can wear glasses in your driver's licence photo.

For my passport, the onmy requirement is that the photo doesn't have any glare on the glasses that obscures the eyes. A decent photographer can usually handle this.

The local BMV here in Indiana told me to remove my glasses for the driver license picture because glasses can interfere with facial recognition software.

 

[Willamena]

Why can't you wear your glasses?

Here, if your licence says you need corrective lenses, you can wear glasses in your driver's licence photo.

For my passport, the onmy requirement is that the photo doesn't have any glare on the glasses that obscures the eyes. A decent photographer can usually handle this.

Can't wear glasses in Alberta, either.

 

[Sir Doom]

Certainly, and I can testify for that. It is not really unusual for that to have worse consequences than if they took it serious or neglected it entirely, either.

Oh, that definitely happens quite a lot, too.

Please do testify to that. Show me a person taking their religion less seriously than they should, what 'damage' it causes and then compare that person to everyone who takes their religion 'seriously enough' and how much less 'damage' they cause because of it. Have fun making up those examples.

Pastafarianism only came to be due to a perceived need to point out certain contradictions and unreasonable expectations of religious groups.

In that sense it was created as taking itself far more seriously and more responsibly than those groups, and it is a safe bet that this still holds largely true.

It is no coincidence that Pastafarianism is also gloriously atheistic except by the most transparently nominal of criteria; rejecting theism avoids many of the worst frustrations and dangers of religion right out of the gate.

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson. Now answer the question.

Those too. But most often people who don't really care a lot either way and just go with the flow of the social expectations because it is more confortable than taking a stand either way.

Ah, so I am correct in assuming you favor religious extremism vs. religious moderation. Good to know.

Indeed, I do mean those people.

For the same reasons why I am still considered a believer in the statistics of the Vatican, I assume.

So, you think that people who do not actual believe what they profess to believe are still believers because the Vatican says so? I find that hard to swallow, Luis. I don't give a good god damn what the Vatican does, and I highly doubt you do either. I'm asking YOU why YOU still consider those people believers.

And the same reasons why atheists are not exempt from a lot of the social expectations of largely Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities.

Not relevant. You are just soap-boxing. This has nothing to do with the question.

Namely, and far as I can tell, because there is a misperception that it is somehow more respectful to assume belief until proof of its absence; and because some religious groups do expect to muscle people into quiet subservience to their expectations, out of various combinations of hubris, political ambitions, or good old-fashioned fanaticism.

But these people don't take their religion seriously enough... :thud:

So Pastafarianism is demonstrably no less legit than any other religion, particularly when it comes to the demands it should be allowed to make to the larger society and how they should be handled.

You have demonstrated no such thing. All you are doing is defending the right to speak, which has never been in question at all. Do you honestly think that religions have more of a right to free speech than non-religions? They do not. Its all equal. But to say that the specific mockery of religion is actually a religion is just boneheaded. You are making a terrible case. The point is not to legitimize Pastafarianism as a religion, its to de-legitimize religious involvement in political affairs. Are you really that blind that you can't understand the difference? Are you so committed to staying in character that you'll shoot yourself in the foot? Do you not understand that by considering Pastafarianism a religion you are FAVORING religious exceptions, not protesting them? How is this so difficult to grasp? You are defeating the entire purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have demonstrated no such thing. All you are doing is defending the right to speak, which has never been in question at all. Do you honestly think that religions have more of a right to free speech than non-religions? They do not. Its all equal.

That depends greatly on where you are.

Here in Canada, where "blasphemous libel" is still a crime and where inciting violence against an identifiable group is legal as long as it's done in the course of expressing a religious opinion, religious individuals most definitely have a greater right to free speech than non-religious people.

 

[Sir Doom]

What would make a group a religion? From my perspective, the line between "a political organization with a clever mascot" and a religion is rather blurry.

Only in politics. Out in here in reality its pretty clear. I don't have to believe what's shoveled my way out of courtesy.

It varies from believer to believer. It's not like Pastafarian has a magisterium making decrees about what is and isn't "proper" Pastafarianism.

And the ones I knew were on the FSM Discussion Board (back when it still existed) and based their beliefs on the "Loose Canon" that had been developed by the members there, long before Bobby Henderson published the Gospel of the FSM.

I'd love to hear more about these beliefs. Please elaborate.

 

[Sir Doom]

That depends greatly on where you are.

Here in Canada, where "blasphemous libel" is still a crime and where inciting violence against an identifiable group is legal as long as it's done in the course of expressing a religious opinion, religious individuals most definitely have a greater right to free speech than non-religious people.

Again, that's politics. Would it be safe to say that changing that policy is a goal of the Pastafarian movement? As opposed to simply being granted the same rights as a religion to do the same nefarious things legally? Think about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only in politics. Out in here in reality its pretty clear. I don't have to believe what's shoveled my way out of courtesy.

If it's clear, then you should have no trouble answering my question.

I'd love to hear more about these beliefs. Please elaborate.

I'm not sure what to tell you. It was almost like scriptures by Wiki. Most people involved saw it as in fun; a few people took it seriously... though recognizing that since it WAS scripture by Wiki, a literalist approach wouldn't make much sense.

Unfortunately, I can't point you to the Loose Canon, since it got deleted when Bobby Henderson decided to remove the message board from his FSM web site.

I do remember that there were a few people who would dress up as pirates on Friday and eat spaghetti, and would follow their take on the "Pirate Code" (sort of like the Bushido Code but with more toleration of drunkenness ). Their takes on the FSM itself varied, but I'd say they were roughly similar to the range of takes on God you'd find in a typical liberal Christian congregation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, that's politics.

That's law, which is what we're talking about when we talk about freedom of speech.

Would it be safe to say that changing that policy is a goal of the Pastafarian movement? As opposed to simply being granted the same rights as a religion to do the same nefarious things legally? Think about it.

The Pastafarian movement is diverse. Its members have a spectrum of goals, some competing.