If the guy gets a pot of pasta at Outback Steakhouse, he is going to be all set.
“Lord, I know I shouldn’t eat thee, but… Mmmm, sacrelicious…”
Actually, serious question: as far as the religious headgear requirement goes, isn’t it supposed to apply to headgear that is worn all the time, or at least always when out in public? Does that mean that this guy wears a colander all the time? I mean, for my money he’s welcome to–but is that the deal?
Only if you get it taken on September 19th.
Even Ratzinger doesn’t wear a mitre on his driver’s license photo.
Well, that would just be silly. It wouldn’t fit in the frame, after all.
Still waiting…What price, Sal Ammoniac? Is the price that people will call it “pretty stupid” baselessly and then not justify or defend the charge?
HA! I only now got this!
All right, already! Think of it this way – every time you have to produce your driver’s license (which, in the States, is kind of a lot), the person to whom you show it will say, not unnaturally, “So why are you wearing that colander on your head?” And every time you’ll then have to launch into your explanation, which will sound feebler and more childish with every repetition – while advancing the cause of atheism, if cause it is, not one whit.
Satisfied?
Thank you for your answer. I AM satisfied that you answered me, so yes- but your answer isn’t terribly satisfying, so not really.
So the price then, is one that is paid only by the colander wearing guy, right? I was leaning toward your idea of price as being a societal price, which is potentially worthy of serious criticism. However, if it’s just the individual’s price, then we can criticize it, but it’s kind of like nagging at someone for spending more than you would on a car or using vast amounts of time building model planes or something. It seems petty.
I don’t see why the story of why-the-colander-in-the-ID would sound feeble and more childish every time. Maybe tiresome to the colander wearing guy, which MIGHT make it sound more feeble and childish in his delivery. If this is what you meant, I think it far-fetched. And not a huge deal or “price”.
I’m not sure that the point is to “advance the cause of atheism” as much as it is to underscore the weirdness and challenge the rationality of allowing this exception for religious people, and to promote discussion on that topic. This may advance atheism obliquely by challenging religious exception, of course, but if advancing atheism is the agenda, there are much more direct and effective routes to take. I DO think the point was to promote discussion on this double-standard as in the case of this exception in law and in other sectors of society, which it is clearly achieving- witness this discussion.
I also don’t believe for a moment that you expected readers to divine the line of reasoning you laid out from your pithy two-sentence post. Your reply here seems like an intellectually dishonest post-rationalization to be honest, and not a particularly weighty one at that.
In any case, this cost you mention is well worth the result IMHO, and the light heartedness of the approach to opening the discussion on such an issue I find really quite graceful.
No. If nothing else, he could claim to have left Pastafarianism and thus no longer be subject to its religious doctrine. Or he could invent a doctrine that only requires him to wear the strainer when he’s supposed to be showing his “true self”.
Even if he didn’t bother with such hand-waving, what makes you think the government would take action due to his non-compliance? It would be like going around arresting Jews for not wearing a yarmulke.
A societal price for a single guy wearing a colander on his head? Believe me, if I had meant that, I’d have expounded on it.
You’re making far too much of this. It is MPSIMS, after all. After my meaning was neatly divined (see Appolyon, post 12), I hardly thought it worth explaining.
And ff you don’t mind my saying so, I think you should set the bar for calling people “intellectually dishonest” a notch or two higher.
I was just thinking of it from the court case POV. He spent a long time arguing this, right? It seemed like if the court was going to allow the exemption, he had to be able to argue that he wears a colander all the time in public and can’t take it off to be photographed. I think that’s the usual argument for the religious exemption. I mean, if I was a grumpy Austrian judge, I’d want to be shown that he really wears it all the time. (If I was the DL photo person, I would have shrugged and taken the picture in the first place.)
No, I don’t think the government would do anything afterwards; it was the before I was mostly thinking about, while the case was being argued.
I was thinking cost in terms of processing such a seemingly frivolous claim. Bureaucratic costs. That sort of societal cost, not the direct societal cost of a guy with a colander on his head…
Was I meant to assume this other person represented your opinion? I don’t think that’s how this works. Besides- Appolyon says not a word about repetition and loss of effect, so it would hardly seem to “neatly divine” your interpretation which you brought forth.
Fair enough. I just want to say I would never think that “that price” would have referred to the degradation of the effect (or something similar) through necessary repetition of the story. If you earnestly believe that that concept was conveyed, and insist that that was what you meant at the outset and not just in hindsight, and expected people to interpret that from those two sentences, I won’t challenge you. I would hardly know how. Future posts will need to be taken with a grain of salt the size of Miami, though. MPSIMS or not, such a judgmentally blunt statement without any explanation is just cryptic and any inquiry shouldn’t come as a surprise, I don’t think.
How is this not considered perjury or a fraud upon the court or whatnot? This guy does not have a religious belief that requires him to wear a colander on his head. He told the court that he did.
And I don’t get his larger message anyways? That atheists can’t wear hats in DL photos? I’m a Christian, but I can’t wear a Pittsburgh Pirates hat in my photo. Why does that matter? If you don’t have a religious or other reason for wearing a hat, why the need for a lawsuit? What right was he denied as an atheist?
What if someone decides you’re not really a Christian? Should that be sufficient grounds to find you guilty of thoughtcrime- sorry, perjury?
He was pointing out that the practice of giving greater weight to a whim if you claim a fictional character told you to is bullshit. It’s not just about the hat. Morons opting out of vaccinations are responsible for some measles outbreaks. Letting the religious opt out of Obamacare but not atheists is blatantly discriminatory. And so on.
This reminds me of the story of the university student (Dublin, the way I heard the story) who wanted to be excused attendance at Sunday church service so on arrival he filled in his religion as “Sun Worshipper”. Saturday night, he partied hard and went to bed really late in anticipation of a long lie-in next day. He was awakened after about three hours’ sleep by a firm knock on the door, and blearily opened up to be greeted cheerily by a college porter. “Good morning, sir!” said that worthy. “The Dean’s compliments - he says that the Sun will be up in fifteen minutes and he expects to see you in the East Quad to watch it rising.”
If that’s REALLY what he objects to, he should have said THAT. He might even have had a point. He might actually have accomplished something (if it makes you feel any better, I’d happily let ANYBODY exempt himself from the absurdity that it Obamacare).
As it is, what has he accomplished?
He’s made HIMSELF look like a dick, all the while proudly telling himself “I guessed I’ve showed THEM!”
It’s only slightly dumber than wearing a crucifix around your neck 24/7.
It may be a reaction to muslim women wearing burkhas in license and ID photos because of religious beliefs. If they can destroy the whole concept of an ID photo, why can’t he show his love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I don’t think he looks like a dick. I think he’s cute. And I wonder why there are so many people here claiming not to get the point and accusing him of being stupid. I thought folks here had a sense of humor occasionally. Not if religion is involved I guess.