Russian Pastafarian wins right to bear colander A Russian follower of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has won the right to wear a colander on his head in his driving licence photo, although this great leap forward for Pastafarian rights comes at a price. Andrey Filin posted a triumphant tweet last Saturday, in which he declared: "The first licence with a colander …
I feel bad for the bureacrats
Why? I was very impressed by the authorities calling his bluff: "Ze next time he is stopped by ze traffic police, if he doesn't have a pasta strainer on his head, heez licence will be taken from his cold dead handz." Well, somm't like that.
There's lots of bad things about Russia, but let's celebrate the good things. Like the fact that a knob can get a driving licence with a colander on his noggin, and said twerp will lose his licence if he drives for a nanosecond without it.
Exactly. Change it to claim that about any other "mainstream" religion & you'll suddenly be up to your eyebrows in Civil Rights Lawyers baying to eviscerate your ass.
My own personal thoughts on their beliefs aside, I'm sure a Scientologist would just LOVE to challenge such a claim in court. "Put my hand on a bible? That's an icon of a cult not a religion. Try again."
Unless you have a tried & true, legally tested & repeatedly withstanding the rule of law, definition of what constitutes a Religion versus a mere Cult, you don't get to decide if someone's religious beliefs are "valid". They're just as valid as those beliefs of any other spiritual individual, be they Christian, devotees of Allah, practice Voodoo, or bend their knee to The Great Cthulhu. Go ahead, I dare you to tell Cthulhu that He doesn't exist to His face. He'll happily devour your eternal soul as a snack.
Unless you have a tried & true, legally tested & repeatedly withstanding the rule of law, definition of what constitutes a Religion versus a mere Cult, you don't get to decide if someone's religious beliefs are "valid".
I consider my former religion, or at least the sect of it I formerly belonged to, a cult. That's got to count for something.
" "Pastafarian is not actually a religion. Rather it is a philosophy that mocks religion.""
The difference being that even Pastafarians don't ACTUALLY believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With any other religion you can be pretty sure that the true believers really are true believers. Not so for the Pastafarians, who are mostly atheists in reality, with a dash of jesters from other religions scattered about.
"With any other religion you can be pretty sure that the true believers really are true believers"
How many are true believers?
My friend is a Catholic, goes to church on Sunday does all their churchy things. However he doesn't really beleive it, insubstantiation, creation, miracles, rise from dead etc etc. He sees it as a good a way as any to live with some of the morality seen in religions in as far as the be nice to people, think of others, don't be a "twat" etc. (This is my interpretation of what he tells me when we talk about over many pints or whiskies, ha) It also helped him get his kids in to a good local school.
I read a report of a church that had a policy of attendance for parents with kids at the school, I assume it was obvious that people were there because of this rule and not because they were devout, as the church droped the rule and attendance went down 70 or more percent.
"The difference being that even Pastafarians don't ACTUALLY believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With any other religion you can be pretty sure that the true believers really are true believers."
So those priests raping little boys really believed in the God of the bible? Those protestants lynching blacks and building walls against latinos take "do unto others" truly to heart?
Bullshit. Bull fucking shit.
My belief in Jibbers Crabst is more real and profound than the majority of mainstream religious believers' belief in their deity and I dare you to prove, using evidence otherwise.
Yours truly,
--A born again Crabstian.
@Trevor_Pott Your examples just demonstrate that there are some christians that do not actually uphold the teachings of Christ. But the point of Pastafarians not actually believing in Flying Spaghetti monster is still valid, as you could get a lot of examples of christians actually believing in christ, whether upholding his teachings or not...
"You are asking to prove a negative. It simply doesn't need to be done. FAIL"
Why would that not need to be done.
I can't just declare that I don't believe my tax bill, or overdraft statement.
If I really think they aren't valid then I need to demonstrate that.
Atheism is a faith position.
Apathy is not - although many people won't want to admit that they are apathetic rather than atheist...
"Unless you have a tried & true, legally tested & repeatedly withstanding the rule of law, definition of what constitutes a Religion versus a mere Cult"
It's the "Law" bit that is wrong here. Lawyers are not sociologists of religion, and it is the latter who get to decide what is a religion and what is a cult.
Many lawyers, especially in the US, belong to a "mainstream church" so they are automatically disqualified from having a valid opinion on the subject.
Fortunately neither religions nor cults are illegal.
Ummm ...no.
Or at least you won't get very far defending your tax position with the IRS with just a sociologist on your side. A court will rule based on arguments from lawyers who might cite the opinions of sociologists.
Legislatures and Courts decide what is a religion and what is a cult/tax evasion scam when interaction with Government structures is involved (like driving licenses).
Wearing a colander on your head isn't the same as claiming Pastafarianism as a religion for the purposes of taking tax deductions (on what, raw spaghetti and colanders?)
It is funny that what started as a lark at Christian conservatives now serves the goals of anti-Muslim Christian conservatives. They hope that if government officials reject the wearing of the colander in official photos, they will also reject the wearing of the burka or hijab.
"They hope that if government officials reject the wearing of the colander in official photos, they will also reject the wearing of the burka or hijab."
Sorry, but I can't understand why in any circumstance someone should be allowed to wear ANY headgear when being photographed for official documents/licenses with the the purpose of identification. Perhaps this is exactly the reason they -the pastafarians- are playing this game with the authorities.
Forcing a sentence forbidding these identificative-photos-with-strange-stuff-on-the-head-or-face at the highest court and setting a precedent would end with this tomfoolery for good!
You can't be photographed without your Batman mask? Then you can't drive, asshole!!!
"You can't be photographed without your Batman mask? Then you can't drive, asshole!!!"
You raise an interesting point. Maybe motorcyclists should be allowed to have their driving licence photo taken with their helmet on. And go into shops and banks with it on too.
"They hope that if government officials reject the wearing of the colander in official photos, they will also reject the wearing of the burka or hijab."
Wow! That's one hell of a leap! Have you considered trying out for your local Olympics long jump team?
@Lysenko,
I see you are arguing from different premises. You have made up your own definition of a cult. Unfortunately, it's only in your head.
You are writing about the US government distinguishing "religions" and "tax evasion", and using "cult" as synonymous with "scam". You would seem not to know what a cult is, or that the US government makes no distinction between religion and cults.
I would try to explain, but I've just found to my surprise that Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject of cults. I suggest you read it. You might learn something, like not to keep digging.
How's that Siberian wheat growing for you?
Churches are granted automatic tax exemption whereas all other 501(c)(3) charities have to actively apply for it via Form 990.
What qualifies as a "Church" (etc) is decided by IRS inspectors, based on the appended criteria lifted from the IRS web site. If they decide you don't qualify you end up arguing your case in court - lawyers - not sociologists.
These criteria are not unconstitutional until SCOTUS says they are - and they haven't - yet.
"Churches" Defined
-------------------
Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:
Distinct legal existence
Recognized creed and form of worship
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
Distinct religious history
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
Organization of ordained ministers
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
Literature of its own
Established places of worship
Regular congregations
Regular religious services
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
Schools for the preparation of its members
The Branch Davidians didn't get into trouble for being a cult, but for breaking other laws.
According to the Wiki-bloody-pedia:
On July 30, ATF agents David Aguilera and Skinner visited the Branch Davidians' gun dealer Henry McMahon, who tried to get them to talk with Koresh on the phone. Koresh offered to let ATF inspect the Branch Davidians' weapons and paperwork and asked to speak with Aguilera, but Aguilera declined. Sheriff Harwell told reporters regarding law enforcement talking with Koresh, "Just go out and talk to them, what's wrong with notifying them?"
Probably not the time or place to debate this, but there does seem reasonable grounds for suspicion that this was a case of the US government testing the limits of what they could get away with. In any event, I don't have a horse in this race being neither religious nor a Merkin.
The Branch Davidians were outright murdered by ATF and FBI for having the temerity to be prepared for the end of time and having beliefs that were outside the mainstream. There is no limitation on the number of guns or ammo that can be purchased, according to the Constitution. There is no limit on the type of religion that you believe in the Constitution.
No other laws were broken and you have no proof otherwise.
"No other laws were broken"
Yes there were
How about systematic rape of underage girls for starters?
Koresh was a paeodiphile rapist, and much of his "community" was complicit in allowing his systemic abuse of their daughters. There were at least fourteen of his children in that compound, most mothered by minors
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
