The cops, who issue driving licences in Austria, tried to argue that Alm was granted his on the grounds that his face was visible. ‘The photo was not approved on religious grounds. The only criterion for photos in driving applications is that the whole face must be visible,’ an Austrian police official said. But face saving rather than face visibility seems to be the motive here.
The authorities tried to dissuade Alm from proceeding with his application by having him obtain a doctor’s certificate pronouncing him "psychologically fit" to drive. Are people who believe in talking snakes or intelligent design or transubstantiation treated in such a manner?
But despite the police procrastination and their reluctance to accept Alm’s faith it proved worth it just to see the Pastafarian wearing the sieve in his licence photograph. It is probably too much to hope for but there is a small possibility that it might just prompt some honesty on the part of Irish priests, one of whom in strict accordance with his faith will demand that his licence photo show him with a pair of altar boy’s trunks on his head.
While we know Alm’s faith is all a spoof it is no more false than Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any of the other zany belief systems that people embrace. To their absolute credit the Pastafarians know they are taking the piss whereas the other lot could as easily be convinced that piss can be turned into holy water by the muttering of some clerical mumbo jumbo and a wave of the hands in the form of a cross.
A satisfied Niko Alm said on his blog:
Today I was able to get my new driving licence, and in it you can clearly see that I'm wearing a colander on my head to demonstrate my allegiance to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster … My headwear has now been recognised by the Republic of Austria.
His next move is to make an application to his country’s government to have Pastafarianism recognised as one of Austria’s religions. The argument could then be made for Pastafarian-managed schools. Here in Ireland where child rape is a clerical pastime, there is no bar on the Church running schools.
The Pastafarians at worst can only be accused of global rap, not rape.
Thats a cracker Anthony and as a follower of FSM this is news that at long last our march out of the wilderness is almost over,tonight we will slaughter the fat cow (next door) get hammered and piss in the well and in turn change the water into 85% proof,begat each other,now all we need is for Nelson Mc Causland to invent a strange dialect for us and we,ll be minted,
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeletegreat! I knew you would be in the minute you saw it. You and me are signed up members. You know, there are a few snobs will look down their noses at our religion and think we are just not hocus pocus enough to qualify.
Well then Anthony we shall begat them as well mo cara!
ReplyDeleteMarty,
ReplyDeleteif the vicars of Vaseline don't beget us first!!
AM-
ReplyDeleteMarty will need that Vaseline for his non church going sheep-
Don't know how he can get it up anyhow with him drinking 85% proof-
AM,
ReplyDeleteIt is significant that the Austrian authorities made Niko Alm obtain a doctor's certificate to show that he was psychologically in a state to be able to drive.
Now that you acknowledge that religious groups should receive privileged treatment, how does that fit with your position hitherto?
T'is bliss to have lived and saw this blessed day when the Great Pasta is at last recognised by th erace of humans. All you praised and humble followers are advised to polish up your strainers and, above all, have your towels ready for the day is at hand.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it is with heartfelt longing that I look forward to coming close to that amazing celestial teapot described by the dear Bertrand Russell as elliptical orbiting the sun and invisible to the human eye even with the aid of telescopes. The Teapot and the Pasta Strainer will never die.
ReplyDeleteJohn McGirr,
ReplyDeleteyou fail totally to comprehend the mysteries of the blessed Pasta
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI think where you and I differ is in the degree to which we think theism is unreasonable and, consequently, the degree to which we think it ought to be respected. I think the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, I do believe that the idea of some kind of a creator-god is plausible, though I happen to think that atheism is much more convincing. The question is, though, should we prevent people from wearing certain clothing on religious grounds if they join the civil service or are appearing in a passport photo. My current position is that, on the grounds of social inclusion, we should accomodate people as long as it does not reasonably interfere with their duties (if they are civil servants) or as long as they can be clearly identified (if they are appearing in an identity photo). I mean, I would not object to a male policeman from wearing the female uniform if he came out as transgender, even though he is not really a woman. He/She can be reasonably accomodated. But so can a Sikh policeman, so why should I object to him wearing a piece of towel on his head for equally genuine reasons? On a purely intellectual level, I would rather people practiced any religious beliefs they had in an unobtrusive manner; however, I think I am obliged as citizen of this country to respect within reason the religious beliefs of my fellow citizens.
AM, I'm afraid John is inherently anti pasta.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteWhy is a turban on the head any more or less indicative of a person's mental state than a pasta drainer?
Jim,
ReplyDeletehe will see the light eventually when the transubstantiation takes place; when pasta become bolognese. Then all will be revealed. Blessed Pasta.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI have been through this one before.
Your first type of god is rubbish. I agree with you there. Your second type is more plausible but what is the need for it? Einstein is great on this.
As you say 'atheism is much more convincing.'
Yet, as Carl Sagan argued, science is not about rigid certainty; that is for religion. Science is the best form of knowledge we have and it does not point to a creator. Einstein's cosmological religion which corresponds to your second god will always lead to that god having some attraction.
'The question is, though, should we prevent people from wearing certain clothing on religious grounds if they join the civil service or are appearing in a passport photo?'
Yes, unless we allow Liverpool scarves, pictures of their kids in the caps etc.
We accommodate all or none; no privilege whatsoever to golf clubs or religions.
'I would not object to a male policeman from wearing the female uniform if he came out as transgender, even though he is not really a woman.'
Laughed at the thought of it!
We need only respect the right to hold a belief religious or otherwise. There is no reason to respect the belief
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"We accommodate all or none; no privilege whatsoever to golf clubs or religions."
Perhaps we should accommodate all then, so long as accomodating them does not cause excessive interference. There might be problems with this approach though. However, for the sake of social inclusion, I am inclined to accommodate people within reason. The alternative is alienating vast swaths of society.
PS. I think the hijab is reasonable, but the burka clearly causes interference with both carrying out public service duties and producing ID cards.
Alfie if someone comes to my house wearing a burqa,I just look through the letterbox and shout now you know how I feel.!now you must excuse me I have to polish my colander.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDelete'Perhaps we should accommodate all then.'
Too many problems. And we are really only doing it to satisfy some religious crack who thinks his religious opinion matters to the extent other opinions do not. So the way to include him is to include everybody. I see no need for it
'for the sake of social inclusion, I am inclined to accommodate people within reason.'
Have them accommodate society instead. We all must give up something particular to participate i something that is universal. Society must have neutral spaces where all can participate and no one has the emblem of another displayed in their face.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteBut we do our best to accommodate people in wheelchairs within reason. The same now goes for gays and transgenders. I mean, would you object to a male-to-female transsexual police officer being allowed to wear a female uniform in the course of her duties? If not, then why not accommodate religious folk?
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"Society must have neutral spaces where all can participate and no one has the emblem of another displayed in their face."
Who decides what is neutral? Some might argue that we must all be naked in these neutral spaces, for nudists might see clothes as "the emblem of another"!
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteI think big Gerry has used all Vaseline up on the non-church going sheep!
Priest asks Cardinal Brady "when is it ok to have sex with young boys?" Brady says" its legal once they,ve left school" priest says "roll on 4 o clock"..
ReplyDeleteFair enough! I think Niko Alm has made a valid point
ReplyDeleteRE: 'The authorities tried to dissuade Alm from proceeding with his application by having him obtain a doctor’s certificate pronouncing him "psychologically fit" to drive.'
hahaha yes i bet they did Ironies of life. Think tinfoil hat suspect material. The more religious (non spoof items) a person professing a specific God belief adorns their self with ='s the more suspicious I become of them... It is like the bigger the flag the bigger the bullshit lurking... The more the guru is revered & draped in robes of saffron the more likely he is doing the do with numerous devotees whilst speaking of enlightenment & purity... and on it goes.
Why the need to advertise... Live it out - walk yer talk before launching a public display of your convictions.
I knew nought on FSM church. Looked it up... Each to their own... I struggle at times believing in God but conversely it is my cement believing too even in doubtriddled times.
Alfie my son asked me what a transexual was I said "ask your mum he,ll know"..
ReplyDeleteAlfie
ReplyDelete‘But we do our best to accommodate people in wheelchairs within reason.’
We do because disability is something that disadvantages people through neither fault nor choice of their own (in most cases). And we feel it is just to accommodate and unjust not to. Therefore we rearrange our access points to buildings because it is beyond the will of the disabled person to negotiate the opening any other way independently. We should not be foreclosing jobs for example off to people because of a condition about which they can do nothing. We can’t say to a guy in a wheelchair that he should just walk in as we are not prepared to widen the entrance. But we should never paint buildings red jut to accommodate Liverpool supporters. We can say to the Liverpool supporter, leave your flag at the door and you can get in.
‘would you object to a male-to-female transsexual police officer being allowed to wear a female uniform in the course of her duties.’
If it is a police uniform, then I can’t find any grounds for objecting. Although the thought of it might seem discomfiting. But they should not e allowed to wear a Liverpool scarf, a pink flower or ribbon or a pasta strainer.
‘then why not accommodate religious folk?’
Same reason as not accommodating the Liverpool supporter or the Pastafarian.
‘Who decides what is neutral?’
Same people that decide what is ‘within reason’ when the task of accommodating those in wheelchairs is at hand. It is always an issue. But societal laws evolve and we deal with them as best we can. And when we do somebody, maybe even ourselves, will cry foul and claim there is a lack of neutrality. In 100 years time maybe uniforms will be a thing of the past and people will be wearing what they want in all jobs. My position is not about banning religion or its symbolism but about not privileging it. I don’t think people should be allowed to come along and shout ‘my opinion deserves more respect and my behaviour more latitude because it is religious’ and expect society to acquiesce. We know only too well that there is absolutely no reason to think a religious person is morally any better than a non religious one. Cloyne has demonstrated that very clearly.
SMH,
ReplyDeleteMyself and Marty are the Quill’s resident devout Pastafarians! And the strainer is very important. The FSM teaches us that each aperture is a gateway to Spaghettianna where we shall live forever and ever amen. Our kids don't have to go to Limbo and we avoid Pervatory.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteAlfie:"Would you object to a male-to-female transsexual police officer being allowed to wear a female uniform in the course of her duties?"
AM:"If it is a police uniform, then I can’t find any grounds for objecting. Although the thought of it might seem discomfiting. But they should not be allowed to wear a Liverpool scarf, a pink flower or ribbon or a pasta strainer."
But you would be accomodating her on the basis of her belief that she ought to have been born a woman, not a man. In a way, this is like a religious belief, for there is no way of proving it one way or another. According to the rules, men wear one uniform and women wear another - why bend them for transsexuals on the basis of their beliefs? I mean, when it comes down to matters of physical and biological fact, a transsexual woman is no more a woman than I am, though I probably wouldn't look as good in high heels and a cocktail dress!
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI argued this position on the (obviously wrong) assumption that you were referring to someone who had undergone a sex change.
If it is a cross dresser you are talking about - no, not a chance of allowing it. As you say this is only a belief.
When referring to this is my earlier post I kept thinking back to an experience myself and Tommy McKearney had in Hamburg. At the bar we used to convene in with the autonomous Left of the city there was this person who had a seven day stubble, wore a dress, was in the middle of a sex change operation and who everybody else referred to as 'she'. I could not for the world of me get my head around it and always instinctively referred to the person as 'he.' I had him in mind when you raised your question.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteNo, you were right - I was referring to people who had undergone sex changes. And one could argue - and I imagine John McGirr would - that, biologically, transsexual women are no more female than you or I, though they may have gotten boob jobs and had their genitals mangled. This is true to a certain degree, but I believe that we must also consider the psychological evidence, ie., the long-standing, steadfast desire of these individuals to change sex. Nevertheless, the point still stands: we accomodate them on the basis of a belief - nothing more.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteif the civil law designates them as a woman or a man, then a uniform to match would follow. It is a gender category rather than a belief. If they were to believe they were Charlie Chaplain I would not be supportive of a Charlie outfit for them.
In these jobs there is no reason to facilitate the range of beliefs that exist.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteBut the authorities have only recently decided to respect the belief of certain individuals that they have a different gender to the one they were born with. The decision to assign them to a different gender category is based on this belief, not on actual biological fact. Indeed, the decision flies in the face of biological fact. Anyway, in Britain, civil law decrees that the turban may be incorporated into the police uniform, so if civil law is our guide, then religious symbols can be accommodated within reason.
"In these jobs there is no reason to facilitate the range of beliefs that exist."
So why facilitate the beliefs of certain groups of people (eg., transsexuals) but not those of others (eg., Sikhs)?
Afie,
ReplyDelete'But the authorities have only recently decided to respect the belief of certain individuals that they have a different gender to the one they were born with. The decision to assign them to a different gender category is based on this belief, not on actual biological fact. Indeed, the decision flies in the face of biological fact.'
If this refers to cross dressers it would challenge biological fact. If it refers to sex change people then it would seem a physiological fact (not sure how biological might apply).
In the case of cross dressers then there should be no concession to a belief that they should wear this or that item of clothing. If they are sex change people then they can wear the uniform of whatever sex they have changed to.
Gay people are recognised as a legitimate body even though there may be no biological evidence that could prove their gayness. They believe themselves to be.
I recall doing an O/U course once where there was a strong argument made against 'essentialism' in these matters. If I remember rightly they were feminist thinkers who didn't want people pinned down to categories. This probably gives more room to belief and self definition.
But even here if a person is essentially gay or gay through some other reason and we recognise their right to be, it does not extend as far as allowing them to stick a pink ribbon on their uniform.
I am aware that in Britain the turban can be worn s part of the police uniform. I don't agree with it and have been involved in a long discussion here a while back on this very thing. I prefer the system in place here.
'if civil law is our guide, then religious symbols can be accommodated within reason.'
Why religious symbols? Why not all symbols? Why this need to prioritise religious symbols?
'So why facilitate the beliefs of certain groups of people (eg., transsexuals) but not those of others (eg., Sikhs)?'
I thought my argument was clear that I don't want any opinion prioritised and made manifest through the inclusion of its symbols to the exclusion of others.
Alfie,
ReplyDeletemy wife says that these discussions should be sent to the pub as that is the only type of place such things get talked about!!
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"my wife says that these discussions should be sent to the pub as that is the only type of place such things get talked about!!"
Hmm. Transsexuals, turbans, police uniforms, Charlie Chaplin outfits... I think your wife has a point!
For what it's worth, I think you made the stronger argument, but your position is not without its problems.
Alfie
ReplyDeleteI don’t know about the strongest argument. There is a lot to think about and your points gave me food for thought. It is all we can do. We are not religious maniacs and therefore don’t deal in absolute certainty.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteMy favourite subject is Maths; it is what I study at university and it is the only place I have found certainty. Don't get me wrong, Maths is not always simple. It can be incredibly complex, incredibly subtle, but always, always unambiguous. I find ambiguity disconcerting, probably due to my OCD. So, in a way, I can understand the religious fanatics' need for certainty!!!
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI could never master maths despite longing to. I envy your ability. I never gave it the time or effort that I should have. I always found it frustrating. I would also have liked to have made a better effort of science given how crucial it is to knowledge.
‘So, in a way, I can understand the religious fanatics' need for certainty.’
I think we all want certainty. The difference between the real world person and the religious fanatic is that the real world person knows it is elusive.