• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pastafarian’ fights to wear pasta strainer in license photo

jmotivator said:
Well, I'm not making a political statement. I was just thinking of the demand by devout Muslims that Muslim women take their ID photo in a burka.
Click to expand...

Which is something I know I personally don't agree with. I can't think of any other reason to put a picture on a person's license except for making identification of that person easier. You can't seriously identify someone with a covering over their face in the very thing being used to identify them with. I'm of average height, average build, average weight for a woman, with brown hair and brown eyes, which is most common. Being white puts me in the majority of the country (at least right now). So that means that if I wore something over my face during my driver's license photo, it would be pretty hard to determine if I was really the person described on my ID/license if needed. I know several people personally who could easily fit my same description.

At least when it comes to just wearing things on your head, your face is still visible.
 
Renae said:
It's a fake religion meant to mock the religious, such should be treated accordingly and denied.
Click to expand...

Party of small government, everybody. Government agents should be allowed to decide your religion isn't real and therefore doesn't warrant constitutional protection.
 
countryboy said:
Why "rightfully so"?
Click to expand...

Religion of any sort cannot be proven, yet it somehow enjoys perks like freedom from taxation and some state support.
 
countryboy said:
Nobody is a "pastafarian", this is just a tool idiotic atheists use to mock religion.
Click to expand...

I think more fairly Church of the FSM is a tool to mock people who do stupid/cruel/evil/hateful things in the name of established religion. The 'founder' makes it very clear he has no problem with religion, and recognizes that religions obviously have real value.

About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
 
countryboy said:
Give me a break. Stop wasting the time of civil servants and just get on with your life (not you personally, but the "pastafarians" et al. :roll:
Click to expand...

Civil servants enforcing silly rules and forcing her to retake her DL photo are wasting their own time and that of this citizen and taxpayer.

I do agree with the last - these bureaucrats need to relax and get on with their life. The picture is fine - take a deep breath and let it go. :peace
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Except for two things, one CPLs do not have photos on them, and two part of the reason religious headgear is allowed on DMV photos is the idea that a dedicated believer will always be wearing it and hence the photo on the license will accurately depict the individual pictured.

It wouldn't have mattered in WA, they would've argued with this loser for about thirty seconds then issued him a DL stamped "not valid for ID" and then he'd need a separate ID to use for stuff like cashing checks or buying booze
Click to expand...

If there are no exemptions for any other religion, I guess that's fine. Otherwise, what's the point of not allowing a perfectly good photo for ID?

And frankly the whole "dedicated believer will always be wearing the headgear" stuff is pretty silly. Around here, a bunch of good old boys, including me most weekends and after work, will nearly always be wearing some kind of ballcap. So why shouldn't I be allowed to wear my UT ballcap in my DL photo if that's how I generally appear in public?
 
Deuce said:
Freedom of religion applying to every person does not remotely suggest freedom of religion applies to every action.

If a Sikh can wear a turban in the photo in accordance with their religion, I can do so with mine. Even if that means a pasta strainer.
Click to expand...

Courts may not evaluate the moral truth on which a religious claim is based. A person making a free exercise claim does not need to show that his belief is true, but that he holds it in good faith. He must establish that he sincerely holds the belief, and in determining sincerity the court looks into whether his actions are consistent with the belief. He must also establish that the conduct allegedly being burdened by the government's action relates to a belief that is central to his religion. If it isn't, the government restriction will not impose the substantial burden on religious exercise needed to make it unconstitutional.

What about objecting to having any photo at all on your driver's license, on the ground it constitutes making a graven image in violation of the Second Commandment? In a 4-4 decision in a 1985 case, Jensen v. Quaring, the Supreme Court upheld a federal appeals court's holding that a state had to issue a woman a driver's license without any photo, after she objected to including one for that reason.
 
I think she should demand that she be provided with a stuffed flying spaghetti monster to pose with her. She could put the strainer on the model.
 
blarg said:
you make the kids spaghetti cry
Click to expand...

I don't care. They make a mockery of Religion, and try to use the protections for faith to **** with the system. On those grounds alone, denial is the only proper answer.
 
Renae said:
I don't care. They make a mockery of Religion, and try to use the protections for faith to **** with the system. On those grounds alone, denial is the only proper answer.
Click to expand...

religion is not always opposed to bad mouthing others so i dont care about mocking religion sometimes its well deserved

this seems to be working under the systems rules

so denial would seem to be religious discrimination

and hsould only happen if it poses an unacceptable burden or danger to the public
 
TurtleDude said:
I think that is a case of straining the rules
Click to expand...

The whole point is to show the utter stupidity of the religious exemptions in license photos. Why anyone thinks this is serious, I have no idea.
 
blarg said:
religion is not always opposed to bad mouthing others so i dont care about mocking religion sometimes its well deserved

this seems to be working under the systems rules

so denial would seem to be religious discrimination

and hsould only happen if it poses an unacceptable burden or danger to the public
Click to expand...
And people wonder why everything is falling to ****, we let abuse of the system go because "Well, III don't see a problem with it".

Yeah, you're all cool till it's your ox getting gored, then you're gonna be crying in the wind.
 
Renae said:
And people wonder why everything is falling to ****, we let abuse of the system go because "Well, III don't see a problem with it".

Yeah, you're all cool till it's your ox getting gored, then you're gonna be crying in the wind.
Click to expand...

you have not shown this to be an abuse

the flying spaghetti monster is not why anything is falling to ****
 
Renae said:
It's a fake religion meant to mock the religious, such should be treated accordingly and denied.
Click to expand...
I'd wager that the same thing was said about Christianity when it started up.
 
Renae said:
And people wonder why everything is falling to ****, we let abuse of the system go because "Well, III don't see a problem with it".

Yeah, you're all cool till it's your ox getting gored, then you're gonna be crying in the wind.
Click to expand...

Please explain to us how it harms anyone, or even inconveniences anyone to allow someone to wear a strainer on their head for an ID picture. It doesn't cover up any real identifying features, far less than most better known religious articles do. I can even tell the hair color and general length despite the strainer on her head, at least as much as someone not wearing one.
 
roguenuke said:
Please explain to us how it harms anyone, or even inconveniences anyone to allow someone to wear a strainer on their head for an ID picture. It doesn't cover up any real identifying features, far less than most better known religious articles do. I can even tell the hair color and general length despite the strainer on her head, at least as much as someone not wearing one.
Click to expand...

Why do you care?
 
Renae said:
Why do you care?
Click to expand...

Why do you? Is there really a problem with someone wearing something that others don't normally wear, but which doesn't take away from the point of the picture being taken in the first place? I believe that we should have maximum amounts of freedom, including freedom of expression. If someone wants to walk around all day, every day, with a strainer on their head, then that should be their business. So what if no one else does? I don't care why they are. It's going to take more than them walking around with a kitchen device(?) on their head for me to think they are going to harm me or someone else.
 
Renae said:
It's a fake religion meant to mock the religious, such should be treated accordingly and denied.
Click to expand...

All religious are fake and ridiculous and ALL religions should be denied. If you allow any, you must allow all, whether you like it or not.
 
Cephus said:
All religious are fake and ridiculous and ALL religions should be denied. If you allow any, you must allow all, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

That is a false narrative, and all religions are not fake. but thank you for playing. Have a nice, logic free rest of your day, to go along with your logic free earlier part of the day.
 
roguenuke said:
Why do you? Is there really a problem with someone wearing something that others don't normally wear, but which doesn't take away from the point of the picture being taken in the first place? I believe that we should have maximum amounts of freedom, including freedom of expression. If someone wants to walk around all day, every day, with a strainer on their head, then that should be their business. So what if no one else does? I don't care why they are. It's going to take more than them walking around with a kitchen device(?) on their head for me to think they are going to harm me or someone else.
Click to expand...

It's what they are doing and why that I have issue. I could care less what they believe and more care about WHY. The Pastafarian thing is a **** you to society, society should **** you right back.
 
Renae said:
That is a false narrative, and all religions are not fake. but thank you for playing. Have a nice, logic free rest of your day, to go along with your logic free earlier part of the day.
Click to expand...

Yes, every single religion everywhere is fake. It's all nonsense. There's no evidence whatsoever that any of it is actually true. Just because you wish it was doesn't make it so.
 
Cephus said:
Yes, every single religion everywhere is fake. It's all nonsense. There's no evidence whatsoever that any of it is actually true. Just because you wish it was doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

I lack the faith to believe the Universe and all in it was born of chaos, settled into order and created sentient life. That's illogical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom