Pastafarians Unite! (Pastafarian allows to wear pasta strainer in License Phtoto)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

And now for a little humor.

The Herald of the Great Wienie salutes our Pastafarian brothers!

(cite has actual pic. Its hilarious)
http://www.chron.com/entertainment/usweekly/article/Pastafarian-Woman-Allowed-to-Wear-Pasta-Strainer-6632234.php

A woman in Massachusetts is causing a stir on the Internet after a photograph of her wearing a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo have been circulating the web — all in the name of freedom of religion.

On Friday, Nov. 13, Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Mass., told the Associated Press that she “absolutely loves the history and the story” of Pastafarians, a religious group that is otherwise known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

PHOTOS: 2015's biggest viral Internet celebrities

She opted to wear a strainer on her head as part of her religious observance, she added, much the same way that other religions have their own headwear of choice.

According to the Pastafarian website, the the religion has existed “in secrecy for hundreds of years,” but “came into the mainstream just a few years ago.”

PHOTOS: Internet sensations of 2014

“Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment or satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, just a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools,” an explainer on the site reads. “These people are mistaken — The Church of FSM is legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.”

PHOTOS: Funniest celeb memes

A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles told the AP that though head coverings and hats are not allowed in license photos, exceptions are made for religious reasons.

**LethalShade**

May you be touched by its noodly appendage.

R'amen!

**Tactical_Spam**

Why? Just... why?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Why not?

In all seriousness, I think it utterly ridiculous that some religions are allowed to violate head gear rules for government ID cards, but others aren't. She just proved the idiocy of all of it.

**timetowaste85**

Welp, good job, humanity. It was a nice run. I think we're done here.

**Chongara**

If somebody really wants to telegraph that they're probably an insufferable neckbeard on their driver's license, more power to them I guess.

**Sinful Hero**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

**LethalShade**

Chongara wrote:
If somebody really wants to telegraph that they're probably an insufferable neckbeard on their driver's license, more power to them I guess.

What's the issue with Pastafarianism ? It's fun.

**Chongara**

Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

**Tactical_Spam**

Chongara wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Thank you...

**Silent Puffin?**

Chongara wrote:
but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

**DarkTraveler777**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Chongara wrote:
but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

Exactly. Thank you.

**Sinful Hero**

Chongara wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

As far as the Massachusetts DMV is concerned, it's a real religion.

It's just a way for atheists/pastafarians to bring attention to what they may believe are absurd privileges to religious communities- such as wearing hats during driver's license photos.

**SilverMK2**

Chongara wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!

If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?

**sirlynchmob**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!

If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?

They did find the FSM's children recently
http://www.iflscience.com/flying-spaghetti-monster-real

Point to FSM

**Frazzled**

I find myself in the strange position of supporting SilverMK2 AND Chongara....

I want to wear a rubber chicken.

**Tactical_Spam**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

And I object to religion being forced into public consideratio everywhere. Yay! We all agree that there should be no religion anywhere!

If your made up fairy stories get special treatment, so should everyone elses. Or do you have any proof that yours are totes legit and no one elses are?

Well if that isn't intolerance, I don't know what is.

**Chongara**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Chongara wrote:
but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.

EDIT:

Just to be clear. I think it's good they let her in with her idiot strainer. The government shouldn't be in the business of judging what is or isn't a legitimate matter of faith and how sincere they are. However as private citizen whose opinions holds no government power I certainly feel free to come down publicly as saying her "beliefs" are definitely an obvious farce.

**agnosto**

Chongara wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Why? Just... why?

Other religions are allowed to wear symbols of their faith on their ID's, why not pastafarians?

Except we all know that it isn't a real religion. It's a joke created specifically to object to creationism being taught in schools, and has since been used as means mean to mock religion generally and frame the religious as foolish. Which is fine for a few yuks among the like minded, but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

We live in a nation where this is a real thing:

Yet somehow wearing a colander on your head is a mockery of religion. Yeah.

**SilverMK2**

Chongara wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
Chongara wrote:
but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.

And yet when someone exercises their right to wear something in an official picture based on their religious beliefs you say it is in poor taste?

Why is your religion more valid than theirs?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Well if that isn't intolerance, I don't know what is.

You don't know what intollerance is. In fact I specifically state that everyone should be treated the same regardless of their beliefs. Never mind how silly or valid they may be to others.

**Chongara**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
Chongara wrote:
but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.

And yet when someone exercises their right to wear something in an official picture based on their religious beliefs you say it is in poor taste?

Why is your religion more valid than theirs?

She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.

**Sigvatr**

I like the fact that people claim it should be allowed because of religious freedom, but at the same time, the entire spaghetti thing was invented to mock / ridicule people protected by religious freedom.

Guess saying "You're an idiot!" in a nice way is somehow more acceptable.

The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

**sirlynchmob**

Chongara wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Silent Puffin? wrote:
Chongara wrote:
but it's at minimum in poor taste when you force it into public consideration like this.

Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

Except in a country where religious freedom is held up as one of most important rights, special consideration is warranted where it doing so doesn't create an unnecessary burden on the rest of us. Allowing exceptions to ID laws in the limited cases where doing so is required by one's religion is a reasonable accommodation. Letting people be photographed in the garb their religion demands is a far cry from mandating in-all-but-name bible lessons in public science classrooms.

And yet when someone exercises their right to wear something in an official picture based on their religious beliefs you say it is in poor taste?

Why is your religion more valid than theirs?

She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.

You don't get to dictate what her beliefs are. Also let's not forget:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastafarian-becomes-elected-official-in-new-york-town-wears-strainer-for-swearing-in-112261/
"A Pastafarian elected to a New York town board, who may be the first of his sect to become a public official, wore a strainer while being sworn in last Thursday."

**SilverMK2**

Chongara wrote:
She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.

Wow, you are able to judge a person's depth of belief? :O

Have you tried lottery numbers?

Again, what makes her faith any less valid than yours? Or that of anyone else?

**d-usa**

Do I like that Pastafarianism mocks aspects of my religion? Nope, but it's legal and I can take the criticism.

Do I agree that Pastafarianism points out areas where members of my religion have gone off the deep end (like young earth creationism)? Yup.

Do I agree with Pastafarians who use Pastafarianism to push back against laws that give religions, including mine, special rights and privileges? Damn straight.

**Tactical_Spam**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.

Wow, you are able to judge a person's depth of belief? :O

Have you tried lottery numbers?

Again, what makes her faith any less valid than yours? Or that of anyone else?

Repeating the same 3 sentences over and over again doesn't help your argument.

**SilverMK2**

Sigvatr wrote:
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Repeating the same 3 sentences over and over again doesn't help your argument.

Perhaps a counter argument from yourself would help move things along?

**Tactical_Spam**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?

Exploit religious status = Wearing a sacred "hat"

This is your best argument. Very sad.

**SilverMK2**

Tactical_Spam 670541 8261746 wrote:Exploit religious status = Wearing a sacred "hat"

This is your best argument. Very sad.

No, but it is the one being discussed specifically ITT.

Though I am still waiting for your brilliant counter-arguments and the bitter yet thrilling debate that is sure to follow.

**Chongara**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Chongara wrote:
She doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster any more than I do. That's not a judgement I want my government officials making in an official capacity but I'm sure as hell gonna make it as a just a dude on the internet. Her belief is not sincere. She just wants to be able to have giggle with her friends over how she totally showed it to those jesus-heads.

Wow, you are able to judge a person's depth of belief? :O

Have you tried lottery numbers?

Again, what makes her faith any less valid than yours? Or that of anyone else?

I can judge anything I want and I might be right or I might be wrong. For example I can tell you that I'm picturing a tasty chicken sandwich in my head right now and that would be a lie, because I am in fact picturing a pair of big ol' boobies. You have no way for certain of knowing if I'm telling the truth about the chicken sandwich thing short of being a mind reader, but you'll use experience and context to make some reasonable assumptions about it. Similarly she can tell me she has a heartfelt belief in the FSM and I'll concede it's possible that statement is being made in good faith. However experience and context tell me that's a lie and a lie told with the specific intent of satisfying the need to feel like she's got one over on people who actually do have heartfelt religious beliefs. Certainly the possibility exists that I'm wrong and there isn't any way to know without psychic powers.

However anyone who takes everything that every person says at face value no matter what is a fool. If I have no reason to assume someone is doing something in bad faith I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. However everything about the history of the FSM and all associated guff has given plenty of reason to suspect bad faith with a level of certainty that makes her being genuine a small enough possibility in my mind as to be discounted entirely.

Keep in mind the personal judgements I make are different than the powers I want the government wielding.