Pastafarian can wear a colander hat in his driver's license photo

An Austrian atheist will be allowed to wear a colander on his head in his driver's license photo after successfully arguing that it counts as "religious headgear" for Pastafarians. I'm torn. On the one hand, there's a lot of religious people I respect and mocking the stuff about religion that doesn't matter (the outfits other people choose to wear do not affect me) is not something I'd prefer atheism be known for—especially since this particular incident has some cultural/racial overtones as well, given the issues Europe has had with respecting Muslim women's right to wear a head scarf. On the other hand, I kind of love the Flying Spaghetti Monster and enjoy the idea of a colander hat. (Via Simon Singh)

Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine and is the author of Before the Lights Go Out, a book about electricity, infrastructure, and the future of energy. You can find Maggie on Twitter and Facebook.

Maggie goes places and talks to people. Find out where she'll be speaking next.

MORE: Culture • Science

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Jake0748

Wait…what? How can he be an atheist and ask to be allowed to wear “religious headgear” at the same time.

The linked article was pretty good. One of the sub-heads was “Straining Credulity”.
satn

How many of the religious people you respect, respect atheism themselves?

Probably very few of them.

And hey, if believing in some type of invisible sky wizard gives people the right to wear whatever random ancient costume for government ID photos, I should be able to dress up as a roman centurion.
maryofkentucky

Iâ€™m agreeing with Maggie. I can understand pointing out special treatment, but I am against mocking. I think it alienates people who are faithful (not that you would convince them anyways, but at least we could attempt to shorten the divide), and not everyone who is religious is an asshole trying to win an election seat. There are people who depend on their religion. They’re most likely never going to be capable of not believing in their faith. It’s difficult for some atheist to understand, but it’s the truth, itâ€™s some combination of not so outstanding education (not a academic, exam pro type of education, but logical/pro-science type).
If you want to go say in the face of a 60 year old, low income woman with no family that she’s stupid for her faith, than fine, enjoy your egotism, though youâ€™re reserve this probably for online only. But, I personally try to be understanding of religious peoplesâ€™ personal choices when it does NOT involve impairing the rights of others. Which is the real problem with religion, not letting them wear something in a stupid photo ID, excluding covering the face.
I’m an atheist, but I grew up with my hippie Christian mother. She is as left wing, socialist as they come, but there is no way in hell I could ever convince her of my perspective. The same for a lot of people I know in KY. Also, what sort of logical are some of the commenters following: â€œtheyâ€™re insulting us, so letâ€™s insult them back!â€? Just because religious people say terrible things doesnâ€™t mean we need to stoop to their level. Obviouslyâ€¦
- Tzctboin
  
  “But, I personally try to be understanding of religious peoplesâ€™ personal choices when it does NOT involve impairing the rights of others.”
  
  When is that exactly?
  
  Which religions are not homophobic, chauvinistic or xenophobic?
  
  I would say I am kosher with religious people that keep to themselves, like the religious belief system of the San people of Namibia.
  
  Any others that try to influence the way others live will have to live with my permanent mockery, which is non violent and rightfully contemptuous.
- Don
  
  There are times when it’s important to persuade someone to change their mind, without alienating them. And there are times when the best way to debunk a bad idea is with humor, and yes, mocking.
  
  There is no religious exemption for bad ideas. If Sarah Palin wants to say something wacky about how she has foreign policy experience just from being a resident of Alaska, we all laugh and mock, and we should, it’s a stupid idea that should be discredited. If the same Sarah Palin expresses a belief in witchcraft, does it suddenly become rude to laugh and mock and discredit her belief, just because it’s based on her religion? I say no. I say her belief in witchcraft is outright dangerous, and that decent people should be embarrassed to express such an idea.
  
  Mocking a bad idea isn’t always a good idea. But the choice of whether to laugh at a bad idea should not be influenced by whether it’s a religious idea.
- Anonymous
  
  I used to be against mocking until some jackass theist broke off part of the plastic Flying Spaghetti Monster on my car. So, mock away, my friends.
  
  What’s the difference between a religion and a cult?
  - humanresource
    
    “What’s the difference between a religion and a cult?”
    
    A cult is small enough to be harassed by the authorities. A religion is big enough to harass the authorities.
phead

“given the issues Europe has” That’s a rather broad brush
mkultra

Well, I share your ambivalence Maggie. However, one thing that your discomfort shows is an acceptance of the idea that atheism is another group… it isn’t. There’s no “us” or “we”. We’re just the people who aren’t in all the other groups. We don’t have any responsibility towards each other and shouldn’t share in the blame or praise of other non-theists.

Ignoring that and buying into the idea of shared purpose and shared ideology just reinforces the typical refrain that atheism is just another religion, which it most certainly is not. It isn’t even a philosophy: it’s all the philosophies that don’t fit in any of the neatly defined boxes set up by the theists.

Anyway, just my opinion of course, and–I hope–a tiny bit of food for thought.
- Don
  
  At least a large fraction of atheists do have something in common, a shared idea that knowledge ought to come from empirical evidence rather than from religious authority or superstition (to be redundant). If I were simply not-Catholic AND not-Muslim AND not-Jewish, etc., I might consider joining a newfangled religion that just came along. But I’m more than not-this-religion AND not-that-religion, I’m rational and empirical, and so I’ll reject next week’s new religion on the grounds that it’s not rational and empirical.
  
  This is not a hairsplitting difference. It goes a long way toward predicting atheist opinion on a lot of issues.
- Anonymous
  
  >There’s no “us” or “we”.
  
  >We’re just the people who aren’t in all the other groups.
  
  Loving it. Self-demolition in two sentences :-)
Shay Guy

some type of invisible sky wizard

a man in the clouds

I regard such terms as the theological equivalent of Godwin’s law.
- Shay Guy
  
  Gah. Missed “the imaginary dude in the sky.” Wish I could edit it.
- semiotix
  
  Ha ha, scooped! And yours was much more to the point. That’ll teach me to use the preview button nine times.
- Tzctboin
  
  Oh please, then describe god in any particular enlightened way if you possibly can.
  
  After you are done all can be condensed to one of those sentences you Godwinfy because at the end religious belief is nothing but imagination.
- remmelt
  
  “It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread.”
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
- richarddevries
  
  Godwin’s Law:
  As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
  
  Shay Guy’s Law:
  As an online discussion about theology grows longer, the probability of coming to the conclusion that “God” is some invisible sky wizard approaches 1.
  
  Sounds about right to me.
  - Antinous / Moderator
    
    Shay Guy’s Law rarely takes more than a couple of comments.
    - richarddevries
      
      The mentioning of a not-so-respectful name for a deity is done easily. The point of Shay Guy’s law is that is predicts coming to the inevitable conclusion.
Don

Nobody ever, ever asks me if their religious observance would offend me as an atheist. They only ask me to STFU when I complain that they are involving me in (for example) a religious invocation to open a secular activity.
- Ari B.
  
  IYDMMA*, what would your reaction be if somebody *did* ask you to participate?
  
  (For example, a witness at somebody’s wedding, a pallbearer at a religious funeral, or some other role along those lines.)
  
  I have a few friends who are atheists, and they’ve had very different answers, so I’d be curious as to what yours would be.
  
  *If you don’t mind my asking
  - Don
    
    If I were asked to participate, it would be an entirely different interaction. I wouldn’t be pulled into someone else’s religious observance against my will, so it wouldn’t be such a pain in the ass.
Mister44

The purpose of an ID is to be be able to ID a person. If a hat or a scarf allows one to still be IDed, why not? A burka obviously wouldn’t work – but I doubt those where burkas are allowed to drive anyway.

You could go in there with a full beard and funky hair, get your ID, and then shave and get a hair cut and look nothing like your ID.
richarddevries

To me, Pastafarianism is not about mocking religious people. It’s about criticizing the special status religions enjoy. Driver’s licenses are a good example. It’s a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with culture, philosophy or religion, yet exceptions to the rules are made solely because of people’s religions.
This sentence: “especially since this particular incident has some cultural/racial overtones as well, given the issues Europe has had with respecting Muslim women’s right to wear a head scarf” is nonsense. Reasoning like this, you could read anything into anything. In fact, it could be argued that you need to have a cultural/racist mindset a priori to connect a colander on a photo with racism.
Georg

Speaking as someone who’s been living in Europe for over thirty years: “the issues Europe has had with respecting Muslim women’s right to wear a head scarf” is a fairly crass oversimplification of this discussion. I know Americans love to see things in black and white and are very quick to form strong opinions about countries they wouldn’t find on a map, but this is inept even by your standards.

For the record, the headscarf issue is complicated. For some Muslim women, it’s about their right to dress as they will, yes. For some Muslim women, however, it’s about their right not to be bullied into conforming to medieval standards of modest dress under threat of being shot in the face.

I can’t speak for either side, or for any other of the myriad sides in this controversy, but I know for a fact that neither party to the dispute is happy with this kind of aggressively simplistic framing.
- Anonymous
  
  “is a fairly crass oversimplification of this discussion. I know Americans love to see things in black and white and are very quick to form strong opinions about countries they wouldn’t find on a map, but this is inept even by your standards.”
  
  Agreed – lets not oversimplify
- Ambiguity
  
  I know Americans love to see things in black and white…
  
  Just curious: how long did it take you to cram so much irony into a sentence?
  - Georg
    
    Just curious: how long did it take you to cram so much irony into a sentence?
    
    Category error, mate. There is no irony in this sentence.
    
    US political culture is hugely Manichaean compared to that of practically every other developed country; everybody knows this. Complex social problem with dozens of complicated reasons? Let’s single out one class of persons who is not us and pretend the problem is simply that they’re Evil ™. Violent fundamentalist Islam? They must hate us for our freedom! Bomb the crap out of everyone! Large-scale drug abuse among the economically disadvantaged? They’re all just conscienceless greedy criminals! Lock everyone up!
    - Ambiguity
      
      Really, it seemed like a rather black and white statement to me. But being an American, I guess it was inevitable that I’d see it that way, no?
    - Ambiguity
      
      Let’s single out one class of persons who is not us and pretend the problem is simply that they’re Evil ™.
      
      You know, I’m trying, I really am. But I just can’t read a sentence like that made about one big class of people (“Americans”) and see anything other than irony.
      
      Sorry, mate.
semiotix

On the one hand, there’s a lot of religious people I respect and mocking the stuff about religion that doesn’t matter (the outfits other people choose to wear do not affect me) is not something I’d prefer atheism be known for

Thanks for saying that. Clarification: thank you for making it easier and more pleasant for me to be an atheist by saying that. I have to disagree with mkultra: there is an “us,” whether or not we choose to interact with one another as atheists, just as there is a “them” that includes both someone’s sweet, adorable Presbyterian grandma and Oral Roberts; nice people who go to synagogue and the ones who undertake “crusades or genocides” (to quote a different commenter). In a perfect world, we’d judge everyone as an individual 100% of the time. In the world we actually live in, we get Lumped In all the time.

As a white man, I don’t use the n-word, even when I could “get away with it,” or for that matter the c-word. Not because I’m polite. Not because I’m purer than Caesar’s wife on the subjects of race and sex down to the core of my non-existent soul. But because those words represent about ten tons’ worth of “fuck you for not being me” boiled down into a few letters. The white guys who use them have the racism or sexism equivalents of terminal cancer: you pretty much don’t get better from it. Sure, we’ve all been at the party where that one guy starts testing the waters with casual racial slurs, and we’ve all had the delightful experience of trying to argue him out of it. Sometimes that guy will go along with it too, for the sake of politeness, but you don’t walk away from it thinking, “Wow, I really gave that guy something to think about. He won’t be racist anymore now that we’ve had that chat.”

Let me just throw out there that “Invisible Sky Daddy (Wizard, Fairy, etc.)” or the like has become exactly the same sort of marker. It’s not the thing you say to shorthand your rejection of certain theistic premises; it’s tribalism, of the same sort that Fred Phelps will shout at your funeral. (And yes, if anyone would like me to say it explicitly, all this goes equally “infidel,” or whatever term means “I’m kind of getting off on how you’re going to roast in the Hell I believe in.” It’s not even a question of equivalency so much as tautalogy.)

I know that about 100% of the people who’d use such a term will disagree, but this brings me back to the first point, which is that there is an “us.” If I don’t say anything when I see that kind of thing happening, I probably deserve to be Lumped In with the god-baiters rather than with the Koerth-Bakers, which is where I’d rather be.
OrcOnTheEndOfMyFork

I think it alienates people who are faithful (not that you would convince them anyways, but at least we could attempt to shorten the divide), and not everyone who is religious is an asshole trying to win an election seat.

I think in a free society, you’re welcome to mock away as long as it doesn’t impede the freedom of religion. The colander hat has the virtue of doing both.

Why should religious people get special privileges? If they get to wear fancy headgear, why shouldn’t non-religious people?

Not being forced into a religious practice you want nothing to do with is the truly precious gift you’ve completely overlooked. You may know it by a different name: freedom.
- pbrpunx14
  
  “Not being forced into a religious practice you want nothing to do with is the truly precious gift you’ve completely overlooked.”
  
  absolutely false. that’s not a gift, it’s a basic human right.
  
  arguably rights *are* gifts, which are only good so long as everyone honors the rules of the system… but at no point should we consider rights at the same priority level as gifts.
  
  i agree with those who say all people should be treated equally/fairly. if someone else gets to wear what i consider to be a silly cap for a silly reason… why shouldn’t i be allowed the same courtesy without having to invent a mythological backstory.
Zadaz

I don’t believe in god, gods or any spiritual power, but I don’t identify as an Atheist. Because Atheist’s are douches like this. People with grudges, people who want to force their beliefs on others, the same way they vilify others for doing. They mock those who are different and demand respect while giving none.

That’s the last thing I want to be associated with. So, no I’m not an Atheist.

(Well, that and identifying yourself as someone who doesn’t believe in something always struck me as sad.)
- delt664
  
  Hey Judgey McJudgerson, as long as we are generalizing and painting a non-group with broad strokes, lets realign your brush a bit.
  
  As far as I can tell, the closest belief that atheists share is that belief should be supported by evidence. Why shouldn’t this belief be pushed on others, as we push other socially valuable beliefs such as “don’t steal” or “help people in need” on others?
  
  That being said, I have decided to adopt your argument : Because there are some humans who are douchebags, I will no longer identify as a human, even though I clearly am.
- Tzctboin
  
  Atheist is simply somebody that denies all existence of any gods (normally by simple reasoning, although some may just believe on it).
  
  So it is not a matter about how you want to identify yourself or not, but about what you believe to be the truth in regards to deities of all shapes and colours.
  
  Your attitude is akin to a Catholic person deciding he is not a Catholic because on his opinion all other Catholics are douches, in spite of him following and believing all Catholic teachings in a conscious and devout manner.
- cellocgw
  
  Maybe you need to look up the definition of “atheist,” which BTW is not to be capitalized.
  While I’m at it, @Georg needs to look up the definition of “irony.”
  
  I can’t speak for all “douches,” which for the purposes of this discussion appears to mean “atheists who aren’t afraid to say religion is wrong,” but I will say that phrases like “invisible man-wizard in the sky” are to atheists what underground humor was to Soviet civilians under Stalin.
RuthlessRuben

“Given the issues that Europe has it’s pretty good to see that some people haven’t yet locked their sense of humor in the basement and have to go wringing their hands and lamenting about the supposed offensiveness of it all when somebody shows us through clever and very persistent satire that a lot of the religious discussion of the past years is mired in ludicriousness by now.” These are my two cents, you may take them or leave them.

Also: Sticking it to the overly complicated and anachronistic bureaucracy at least once in your life is something of a rite of passage for Austrians. I for one salute this man.
Daemon

Atheism Fundamentalism

All religious people are the same!

All religions are the same!

Some of you did something, so you’re all guilty!

Your ancestors did something, so you’re all guilty!

I’m right, and you’re wrong on this one issue, so you must be an idiot!

You’re all irrational, so I don’t need to listen to anything any of you ever say!

Anything bad that religious people do must be because of their religion!

It’s bad for you to pass laws that limit my choices of clothing/food/etc, but it’s just fine for us to pass ones that limit yours!

——

For a bunch of guys purportedly devoted to rationality, there sure are a lot of you who aren’t.

(I’m a non-believer myself, and quite willing to confront religious people on issues as the situation demands.)
- Kimmo
  
  How about a well-needed dose of agnostic fundamentalism?
  
  1. When you break it down, it’s impossible to actually *know* anything. You could be living in a simulation, and there’d never be any way to know. Maybe tomorrow reality will be re-cast and we’ll all assume new identities as if we always had them, without a blip. Maybe that happens all the time. All we have is maya.
  
  2. Despite point 1, the need exists to actually navigate this reality, hence the development of an empirically-based ontology. Such an edifice is of singular importance in exercising any control over reality. Anything else is mere guesswork and demonstrably deserves withering scorn when proposed as an alternative.
  
  3. Given points 1 and 2, it stands to reason that any obtainable Higher Truth is only to be found via the empirical study of natural phenomena, and is likely to be severely limited if at all possible. The Universe is constantly demonstrating that it really is quite remarkably miraculous, but the Mandelbrot set is about as clear as the clues (if any) get.
  
  As an agnostic fundamentalist, I know I don’t know. I know (as much as such a thing is possible) you don’t know. I’m damn sure any random guess at the nature of God (if that’s even a valid concept) is bound to be wrong. Therefore all religions except Zen Buddhism (which is really more a proper philosophy) are enshrined, codified and protected systems of idiocy which are an affront to the human condition.
  
  It’s childish make-believe. A close friend recently died, so I understand why people want to make up stories to comfort themselves and explain the unknown, but to give any such considerations supremacy over rationality is infantile indulgence at our collective peril. Consider this question for example – if you believe in an afterlife, does that somehow not detract from the incentive to ensure you live your actual life to the full? Or, if you believe some all-too-human-seeming ‘God’ in Heaven (AKA the sky) is pulling strings to answer people’s prayers, isn’t the effort you put into praying to improve reality at the expense of effort put into actually improving it? And if you imagine you have some special knowledge that somehow renders empiricism invalid, how do you ever improve your understanding of reality rather than self-indulgently, poisonously, reinforcing your own prejudices and propagating them at the expense of genuine understanding?
  
  Religion is malware, dammit.
dr_awkward

When I worked at a bank, we had several customers come in who were wearing full-on burkhas. Additioanlly, their photo in their driver’s license was taken while wearing a burkha. (Naturally, I referred them to the manager for assistance.)

However, as a driver’s license is often accepted as a credential identifying an individual, I think that such dress should absolutely not be allowed when being photographed for an ID, as there is no way to validate the identity of the person in the photo.
PMcGorrill

It’s only mockery if you think that this type-of-thing is ridiculous. If Pastafarianism were the dominant belief system then people would be appalled by atheists pretending a man in the clouds wants them to wear scarves on their head. It doesn’t matter whether people wear scarves or colanders, the problem is people opposing any beliefs in an omnipotent being dictating headwear. The respectful reaction is to treat Pastafarians the same as any other faith, anything less is a tacit insult to all faiths.
sigismund

I do agree with Georg : for example in France democracy has been built AGAINST religion, a radically opposite perspective to the american view of it ( and that’s normal, those two countries have such a different history ). We rather see behind the so-called right to wear any garment a fundamentalist husband in need of control.
Skep

Why should religious people get special privileges? If they get to wear fancy headgear, why shouldn’t non-religious people?

The question is not whether it was right for an atheist to claim a religious exemption but why he, as an atheist, didn’t have a right to wear the headgear of his choice if religious people can do the same.

**All** the rights that religious people get should also be allowed to non-religious people.
- Anonymous
  
  This.
  This is exactly what I thought the protest was about, and exactly my position. I don’t want to mock anyone’s religion, I just don’t think it’s _fair_.
figment88

Pastafarianism is not anti-religion it is anti-proselytizing.

Not all Pastafarians are atheists.
cory

Lacks ideological purity. Pastafarians are supposed to dress in full pirate regalia.
vendorx

Zadaz (and everyone else expressing similar sentiment,) what you actually have here is a personal and light hearted joke engaged in simple, harmless satire. A person is wearing a kitchen tool on his head in part to have fun and in part to illustrate absurdities not religion but social and political reaction to religion. If someone having this kind of harmless and enjoyable fun causes you to get all upset and call them names like “douche” then the problem is quite definitely with you.

There are some things in the world that are absurd. Political reactions to religious beliefs are an excellent example. The flying spaghetti monster, as an example was born out of an attempt to demonstrate why claiming that teaching creationism was a vaible alternative to evolution was absurd. Pointing this out isn’t mockery, it’s accurate, and one thing that’s excellent about the flying spaghetti monster is that it makes this point in a friendly, fun manner. Dismissing this as “mockery” ignores, even misrepresents, both the intent and the message. The problem’s not with atheism at all, but with people who think that any time an atheist speaks at all, or states a belief, or does anything in public, it’s aggressive and arrogant and rude, etc. It’s a double standard that means that the one thing atheists can’t do is express their ideas publicly (kind of like the claim that one has nothing against homosexuals, they just shouldn’t be allowed to show affection in public.)

In summary, the guy’s not a douche, atheists aren’t douches, the problem is with people who get upset any time an atheist does anything.
gber

“given the issues Europe has had with respecting Muslim women’s right to wear a head scarf.”

Simon, I think you should examine your problems respecting the concerns of European women.
Anonymous

If you are not identifiable on your license Then it does not fit the definitions of Identification and should be deemed invalid.
Anonymous

“A medical interview established the self-styled ‘pastafarian’ was mentally fit to drive” was a caption for one of the pictures in the article.

Seems funny that the people who “believe in a big invisible wizard living in the sky” have no such medical interview!
Anonymous

“I know Americans love to see things in black and white…”

And as Austin Powers’ dad said … there are two types of people I can’t stand. People who make judgements about other people based soley on where they come from, and Dutch people.
Anonymous

In Reply to Mitch_M Reply #46

Here is an example for you

George W Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God
Remez

semiotex, Shay Guy, thanks so much for what you wrote. I’m one of those nice people who goes to synagogue, who has no interest in converting anyone, and who had an excellent science education. I hesitated to post on the thread, because I figured as soon as I said I was religious that anything I said wouldn’t be taken seriously.

The Austrian approach (headgear is OK as long as face is recognizable) seems utterly reasonable.
pfooti

I actually read this as not a religious thing at all, but a consistency one. Look at it from a headgear perspective.

Why can’t I wear a hat in my driver license photo? If there are actually good reasons for that, why can religious people wear religious hats? What about cultural, nonreligious headgear? There’s an inherent contradiction there. Either hats are bad in government photos or they aren’t. If they’re not bad, why say I cannot wear one?

If there’s a demonstrable negative to wearing hats in these photos (while hat-wearing is not likely to cause cancer, it’s conceivable that hat-wearing in photos does have some real negative in the recognition by humans or computers of the person in the photo), then how can you balance the demonstrable negative of hat-wearing against the *completely impossible to prove* negative effect of angering the imaginary dude in the sky with your hatlessness?

The real story here (and in plenty of other places) ought to be a foil to irrational public policy decisions made by those in government. If I wear socks under my shoes, I can wear them through a security checkpoint at the airport. If I wear sock-like shoes (say, socks with a thin leather bottom), I have to take them off. If I wear a hat in a photo, I’m breaking the rules, unless God told me to wear that hat. In that case, it’s fine, we don’t care too much about hats in photos in general, we just don’t want people wearing stupid hats in their photos because we’re a repressive society.
Anonymous

This is sure sign of the omnipotence of our noodly Lord and Master!
TooGoodToCheck

So. . . based on the followup (where he could actually have worn a colander without claiming religious exemption) my comment now seems less relevant, but. . .

There’s a pile of stuff that you can get away with if you claim it’s religious. If you don’t want to vaccinate your kids because you think the mercury is a government mind control plot, or because it will cause cancer or whatever, that’s won’t cut it. But if you want to send your kids to public school in america without being vaccinated because vaccines are against your religion, you can actually do that.

The school we send our kids to is technically a “church” because you can’t run a sudbury model school in compliance with local laws, but you can get a religious exemption.

Anyway, I like that we’re able to exploit the religious exemptions, but I do kind of think it’s bullshit that certain freedoms only available if you are making a religious claim.
Mitch_M

If the guy is just doing something silly that isn’t hurting anyone wearing the colander in the photo isn’t too objectionable, but if a higher court rules against his wearing the colander that could end up threatening someone else’s right to wear a hijab, pagg, or yarmulke in their photo.

I’m not a religious person but none of the fundamentalists Christians I’ve known have been as smug, self-righteous, and convinced of the superiority of their own way of thinking as the plurality of atheists who feel a need to mock religion. I haven’t ever seen Christians or any other religious people mocking atheists.
- vendorx
  
  It would take a remarkable level of intentional isolation to have never seen religious groups mocking atheism. Of course, more typically they mock directly, insulting and misrepresenting instead of using satire.
  
  http://www.jefferywestover.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/atheism1.jpg
  
  Or you could, you know, just do a google search to see countless examples of atheism being mocked or even attacked any time it appears in public.
  
  Looking over your post, however, I notice that most of it is the same cheap recycled rhetoric of people who would prefer to insult and slander atheists in broad generalizations. Yup, there it is. Atheists are “smug, self righteous,” blah blah blah. So I doubt your claims about the one-sidedness of mockery are actually that genuine.
Anonymous

Actually, the driving licence administration claim, they permitted the photo, because the colander doesn’t cover his face, so he can be identified without any problems, and not because it is a religious headgear.
DoctressJulia

AWESOME! XD
Tristan Eldtritch

The “man wizard in the sky” stuff is a pain in the ass. Anyone can play at that game. What do you believe? That magic beans fell from the sky and started making copies of themselves, and then, because these wizard beans wanted to live forever and forever, they created magic robot suits to protect them, and the magic robot suits got really smart from dodging rockfalls and catching fish, and now they understand everything.

And if you’re so concerned about people believing stuff without any evidence, why is it that you never get your knickers in such a twist about people who believe in matter having eleven hidden dimensions, or a potentially infinite series of other universes adjacent to our own?
- Blaine
  
  “And if you’re so concerned about people believing stuff without any evidence, why is it that you never get your knickers in such a twist about people who believe in matter having eleven hidden dimensions, or a potentially infinite series of other universes adjacent to our own?”
  
  I can speak for myself. Because people who believe that tend to not kill other people who don’t believe what they believe. They also don’t tend to lobby the government to legislate laws for no reason other then it correlates with a bronze age book written by random people that describes what the eleven hidden dimensions and potentially infinite series of other universes adjacent to our own consider ‘bad’.
  
  They also don’t tend to inhibit the progress of science and education by trying to ‘teach the controversy’ by, again, making educational material correlate with a bronze age book written by random people that describes how the eleven hidden dimensions and potentially infinite series of other universes adjacent to our own created the world in seven days.
  
  It’s not the concept of belief that many atheist object to. It’s the blind faith, and expectance that others should have to be obedient despite them not believing, to these beliefs often with reason or rational.
  
  Ultimately, the theory of eleven hidden dimensions is falsifiable and should that happen, science will quickly abandon it to never return. Much like the cosmological constant or ether.
- Tzctboin
  
  That is utter nonsense.
  
  The difference in what reasonable people believe is that they can refer to logical reasoning to validate their belief system, even if they can’t probe every bit of it, and most importantly, they can and will change their minds if logically deduced evidence about how the universe really works comes to light.
  
  A religious person can’t do that, otherwise his belief system would collapse like a house of cards weighed down by all the contradictions.
Mujokan

It is the best policy not to have any headgear in the photos. It is potentially a little bit distracting for the checker, and it would get confusing as to what was permitted. You could have say baseball hats shading faces.

However it’s not the end of the world if some religious person really really wants to wear some headgear that doesn’t cover their face. I am an atheist but when something really means a lot to someone, I have to respect that since I’m also a utilitarian. Just so long as it doesn’t do too much harm; and I think this would fall into that category.

You could say “Well what if someone really really wants to wear a baseball cap to cover their bald patch?” I think this is not likely to happen so much that you could make a clear rule to cover it.
Teller

Tzctboin: Agree. The leap of faith.
Blaine: Especially agree with “…able to segregate how evidence influences one facet of their life but not the other.”
The commenter whose quote I copied was early in the thread.
Sycophant

I hope that this guy wears his colander in public as often as the women he’s lampooning wear their headscarves.
- emmdeeaych
  
  he’s not lampooning women in headscarves. He’s lampooning anyone who tries to use a man in a collander as a statement about something it isn;t. Like you did there. Thanks for that!!!
  - Sycophant
    
    The way this story was presented, he’s substituting Pastafarianism for Islam and colanders for headscarves, to make the sort of fuck-you-religion statement that has grown really tiresome.
Kimmo

Nice. I’m totally gonna employ that clause one day
Ambiguity

Well, I can’t speak for Austria, but I can explain the situation in the US a bit.

The US, in its constitution, established a baseline of religious freedom. Specifically, the Bill of Rights has been interpreted as having two prongs in this regard: the so-called establishment clause (which prevents the government from preventing the establishment of religion, and — more germane to the discussion at hand — the exercise clause, which prevents the government from keeping people from exercising their religion.

(Those are kind of the ground rules. One could campaign to have the Bill of rights amended to remove religious freedom, but it’s what we have today.)

Of course, no freedom is absolute, so you can’t just do whatever you want and claim that it’s “your religion.” For example, if you wanted to practice child sacrifice, that would be right out. That is not considered a protected exercise of religion, because the government has a Compelling State Interest (CSI) to protect. When the courts agree that there is a compelling interest to prevent the exercise of religion, then the government can do it.

And that’s the way it was for a lot of years — from about the founding of the country to about 1990. In that year, in Employment Division vs. Smith, SOCTUS did an about face and said that the government no longer had to prove that it had a good reason to prevent the exercise of religion. As long as the prevention was through a law of “general applicability” — similar to your arguments about consistency, above — that was enough. The government could do whatever it wanted to do, so long as it pissed on everyone equally.

(The case the caused this to come to be was actually quite a racist one. In Employment Division vs. Smith the Employment Division said “can’t let those Injuns be eating their peyote!” and SCOTUS agreed.)

In 1993 Congress, in an extremely rare case of sanity (although I imagine we may disagree on that one), passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reestablished the requirement for the government to prove it had a good reason (compelling interest) to prevent the exercise of religion.

So in the US, a government agency can prevent the wearing of religious headgear in an official photograph, but it has to show it has a valid reason to do so.

Personally, I think this is about the most sane piece of legislation to have come out of congress since the Clinton years. However, I understand that some folks value consistency above validity, so I imagine not everyone agrees with this.
Ingmar

News update: This is NOT about religious freedom after all, authorities say. As far as photos for Austrian driver licences are concerned, the only rule is that the face needs to be fully visible. This requirement was met, colander or no, so his application, unusually as it may have been, was granted.

It’s only with passports where no head garments are allowed except for religious reasons.

There also was a bit of a snafu there: his licence had been ready and waiting to be picked up since 2009. He just never bothered to check back, so the issuing office finally notified him (without any obligation to do so.)
kjulig

Austrian police now deny that there are any religious reasons for it and say that any kind of hat is fine (for driver’s licenses) as long as it doesn’t obscure the face. Additionally, Mr. Alm says he never asked police to confirm that his colander is acceptable religious headgear.
x4e71

I’m sorry to rain on that parade, but the press officer of the Austrian federal police has meanwhile explained the situation: This was not an exception for religious reasons. In fact, no religious exceptions are granted when it comes to photos for drivers licenses. The rule only says that the photo must be in a defined size (36–45 mm high x 28–35 mm wide), and the head must be recognizable and fully depicted. And this was the case even with the colander, so there was no reason to reject the photo. And the guy didn’t actually have to wait for years. He was just expected to come and get his license, which he didn’t. For years. Just a little urban legend created by the Knight of the Colander. (http://religion.orf.at/projekt03/news/1107/ne110714_nudelsieb_fr.htm)

PS: I don’t believe in the existence of supernatural beings. If you are totally focused on gods, then you might want to call me atheist. But that’s just a tiny and unimportant aspect. :-)
daemonsquire

Only barely germane:
Way back in college days, we used to play a drinking game, “colander head”, that entailed something along the lines of adding words to a continuing sentence. I don’t remember the rules, but whoever lost each round would don a colander, and everyone else would shout, “Colander head, colander head, you’re a fucking colander head!” Then, one Halloween, I unearthed a felt and cardboard mitre I’d crafted as a child, to masquerade as some pope or other, and thereafter the game became, “Pope head, pope head, you’re a fucking pope head!”
Teller

“At least a large fraction of atheists do have something in common, a shared idea that knowledge ought to come from empirical evidence rather than from religious authority or superstition.”

This idea that people who engage in religion are incapable of gathering knowledge from empirical evidence is laughably dense. I think I know from where THAT knowledge was pulled. But I do like the notion of a “large fraction.” Like jumbo shrimp. But I guess 11/12ths qualifies.
- Tzctboin
  
  Religious people are incapable of gathering evidence when it comes to their religious beliefs.
  
  They draw a line in the sand which their reasoning abilities can’t cross.
- Blaine
  
  “This idea that people who engage in religion are incapable of gathering knowledge from empirical evidence is laughably dense.”
  
  Well… There are plenty of scientists who are believers. That’s a field that is almost exclusively driven by empirical evidence. However, there is also the concept of compartmentalization. That they are actively able to segregate how evidence influences one facet of their life but not the other. You also have cognitive dissonance. It is possible for a person to hold two contradictory beliefs as fact.
g0d5m15t4k3

Sounds appropriate to me!
emmdeeaych

Pastafarianism is not a mockery of traditional religion. That some Pastafarians mock other religions is just as true as it is for other more organized faiths, and is a much better outlet for frustration than crusades or genocides as employed by the more traditional religions.
Anonymous

I bet no pastafarian has punched guilt trip tickets to get cash for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I bet no pastafarian has bombed an abortion clinic. I bet no Pastafarian has called gays “barbarians”. I bet they’ve never bombed a building. I have seen so much hatred in the names of other Gods, including Jeeeeeezus that I find them refreshing.
Ellybean