The old ‘other people agree with my views, they just don’t say so’ line.
No, I’m afraid that isn’t what I think when I see a kippah-wearing Jew or a turban-wearing Sikh. That’s just you.
The difference is that the Jew, the Sikh, etc. earnestly believe in their faith. We all know the Pastafarian really has no faith. Now if you told me that you believe that Jews were really disingenuous in their faith, then the comparison might be valid.
What I think Malthus is saying is that he is respecting other’s genuine sincere faith. He may not share it, agree with it, and even think it’s a bunch of hooey, but he respects their right to genuinely believe it.
Spider-Man is not a “mythical being”. Spider-Man is, documented and provably, a known fictional character made up on or about a certain verifiable date for the purpose of entertainment, and you have to be mentally ill to seriously believe otherwise. The same is not true of Jesus, for instance - you may not believe that he is the son of God but you are unable to demonstrate that he is made-up for entertainment only the same way that Spider-Man is, much as you might like to. Once you make the assertion that he is, then it’s you who have assumed the burden of proof.
And besides how can you take the guy from BC serious…he’s an ordained minister and he’s rocking a plastic colander? Every true Pastafarian knows that all metal is the way to go.
You know, in a way that’s true. People wearing religious headgear are making a statement to the rest of the world. That statement might be “I’m Jewish,” “I’m Muslim,” “I’m a Sikh,” or even “I’m a proper Mennonite woman in the kitchen but I’m a filthy Jezebel in the bedroom” while a dude with a colander on his head is making the statement “I am an asshole who believes myself to be far more clever than I actually am.”
It’s not about that, either. It’s about their right to wear funny hats in the particular circumstance of a photograph used for identification.
The license photo has particular rules that support its utility in identification. You have to be facing forward; you can’t be wearing sunglasses; etc. One of these rules is that you can’t wear a hat.
Except, I guess, if you belong to some particular religions. Not all religions, mind you–Muslim veils are not allowed, at least in Florida. Apparently that one crossed a line.
So someone has to decide what’s ok and what’s not. Regardless of religious use, headgear that seriously impairs identification use is not allowed (I suppose we don’t know this for sure since the issue has never gone to court in Canada). Smaller headgear that doesn’t significantly cover the face is ok.
But if that’s the case, then why have special rules at all? If the no-hats rule never had any effect on identification, then we should just allow everyone to wear hats. On the other hand, if there is an effect, then there should be no exception for religious folk (just as with Muslim veils). There’s no reason to believe that they have less need for accurate identification.
The people who wear headgear for religious purposes tend to have them on at all times. That Mennonite woman with the bonnet, that Sikh with the turban, and the Muslim woman with the headscarf will be wearing them every time they leave the house. This certainly isn’t the case with the Pastafarian.
I still see no reason to give them special privileges because they tend to behave that way. Effectively you’re saying that religious folk are inherently more trustworthy with their special hat privileges than other people.
It’s all a bunch of nonsense anyway. There are no rules about hairstyles, and those can have a more significant effect on facial recognition than a silly hat. Let people wear what they like as long as it doesn’t go below the forehead. Any dress that does extend to the face is banned, regardless of religious affiliation.
I expect a bit more out of people on the Straight Dope than reductio ad absurdum. I made no argument that religious people were more trustworthy than the rest of us but you already know that. As for giving them “special” privileges; are you serious? What are you arguing for?
I’ve already agreed that asshat should be allowed to wear his colander for the photo. That doesn’t make him any less of an asshat though.
A better example would be Hercules or any of the Roman/Greek/Norse whatever mythical people. One can’t prove they didn’t exist either. Or if you want to get away from gods and the god-like, Romulus or Odysseus can’t be proved not to have existed.
It’s a really fucking stupid precedent for a lot of reasons. The guy is a disrespecting jerk for trying to force this issue. Next thing you know people will want to wear cooking pots on their head, and then BBQ lids, and wheel barrows, and before you know it canoes.
I’m arguing that there should be no religious exemption. Either hats are no big deal–in which case everybody should be allowed to wear one if they want–or it actually is a significant factor in the utility of an identification photo, and so no one should be allowed.
I think the hair thing basically shows that the former statement is likely to be closer to the truth, and so they should just let everyone wear a hat. But they don’t seem to be willing to do that, and in the meantime extending the exemption to fake religions is amusing to me, so that’s almost as good.
And I don’t think the protest only works as preaching to the choir (so to speak). There are always going to be people that are right on the edge of believing that religion is somehow respectable or not deserving of mockery and contempt. Drawing visual analogies between a colander and normal religious headgear might tip the balance for these people.
In a hundred years Pastafarianism will go from ironic hipsterdom to a legit religion, like Scientology or Star Trek. This guy will be one of its founding heroes who fought against anti-gluten oppression. Some will point out he didn’t really believe but they will be shunned as heretics.
May His noodly will be done, ramen.
I’m stealing a page Jehovah Witness’ bible, and shunning you for all eternity.
I agree with it partially.
I also think people do it because they are told they should, or that they must by self-appointed experts, or they want to show tribal affiliation, or they like the style or utility of it, or they feel a cultural affiliation to it, or that they do want to feel “different to you” or “special”.
It can any of the above or a mixture of many but I hear no good argument why those little round jewish hats or turbans are materially any different from wanting to wear a Manchester United bobble hat or a knotted hanky.
We always end up back at the special pleading that Douglas Adams so succinctly stated. Either a head covering within certain parameters is OK, or it isn’t. The fact that it is a religious head covering should be irrelevant.
The pastafarian colander appeal is welcomed by me because I think it creates discussion about the privileged position of religions and raises questions about what it means to be a secular nation.
Also, it is harmless. “it neither breaks my bones nor picks my pocket” which is a good test in itself. You or I may think he looks a dick but no more so than a woman in a face veil or a Jew in those wide brim hats and silly ringlets or Archbishop of Canterbury in his dress. We can and should tolerate them all and should be able to express an aesthetic opinion and leave it at that.
If a guy wears a turban literally all the time, then it just plain damn well makes sense to have him wearing his turban in his driver’s licence photo - right? How on earth does that “impede identification”?
I agree that headgear that actually impedes ID should not be worn.
Now, I have nothing against some doofus wearing his coleander in his driver’s licence ID - but if he’s going to do that, I do rather think he should wear it all the time, thus making it a truly similar class to a Sikh’s turban. If he looks like a doofus in his ID he ought to look like one in ordinary life, so he can be properly identified.
See, where you and I differ is that you see someone looking dfifferent than the majority and it pisses you off.
Me, I could not care less. I think society is more interesting with people looking somewhat different. A world filled with products of modern suburbia, world without end, amen, is boring.
Where did I say that?
I neither said it nor think it.
I agree, whilst still thinking that some people look utterly ridiculous.
Seemed a reasonable explaination for the scorn expressed here.
I have no problem with people wanting to feel “different to you” or “special”. If you don’t either, why mention it (in “scare quotes” no less)?
To my mind, the difference between (say) a Sikh turban on the one hand, and stuff like baseball caps (or coleanders) on the other, is pretty obvious: the people wearing turbans and the like wear them all the time in public. It really doesn’t matter why.
Now, if you guy makes a case that he (for whatever reason) always wears his baseball hat, or his coleander, he’s in the same boat as your Sikh. As it is, he isn’t, and really all he wants to do is mock. Which he’s perfectly allowed to do, and we are perfectly allowed to find him a jerk for doing it.
That’s not fair, he’s trying to make a point.