Pasta Strainer Recognized as "Religious Headgear" in Austria
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not as cool as Rastafarianism, the religion about the holy herb. Yes, seriously, the holy herb, guess what it is.ActionDan said:
It's funny how disrespect quickly follows a with all due respect disclaimer. You obviously are unfamiliar with the rites of Pastafarianism (For example, that it is a symbol of rational skepticism and not, itself the same thing). To paraphrase another great seeker of the divine, I point at the moon, and you mock my finger.Ghengis John said:
So, adjusting the argument to get our targets correct, you doubt (with sincerity) that my devotion to rationality, and skepticism of the supernatural is less than the devotion of a religious person to faith, and acceptance of the supernatural. And you base this on the faithful person's weekly faith-affirmation meetings, his (or her) adherence to religious dress codes, marital customs and child baptism customs. Do I have this correct?[footnote]Incidentally, if you genuinely believe that rationalists, even organized groups, preserve their rationalist identity through affirmation meetings, dress codes, marital rites and childhood milestones (I cannot tell, due to the parodizing tone of your post), you are remarkably unfamiliar with the nature of freethought culture, and seem to assume that it functions as would a religion. It doesn't. Though it is commonplace to assume atheism functions culturally like theism. In my case, atheism is a status, not even one in which I've invested my identity, but rather a natural effect of being a skeptic [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism].[/footnote][footnote]As I don't need to affirm my belief in assumptions of the unknown, I do not attend faith or affirmation groups. But I do research scientific developments, and study logical constructs that allow me to get from axioms and theorems to conclusions, thereby broadening the range of statements I know to be true. I wear what is comfortable and appropriate to circumstances in American culture, unaware if any of my garb has religious meaning to others (It does not to me.); I don't brandish symbols of identity, atheist or otherwise. As my daughter lives in a free society, I leave her to choose her own subcultures, mainstream or fringe, which may or may not include religious or secular study groups; also, as I don't believe she emerged from the womb in original sin, there was no need to baptize her (that is, wash her during a sectarian rite). Do you believe this makes my lifestyle a lesser thing somehow than that of a parishioner who attends church faithfully?[/footnote] If so, these are the problems I see in your assessment:
a) You don't know my mind, nor the mind of a typical or (even particularly devout) religious practitioner. Nor do you have a way to measure my sincerity in my devotion to my convictions in a way that it can be compared to another, such as someone of faith. It is, thus, inappropriate for you to assess that the degree of one is greater than the degree of the other. You have no genuine data.
Neither does the Austrian department of motor vehicles (whatever their equivalent, of which I'm feeling too lazy to research right now). All they have to go on is the same inaccurate hunch as you are using to assess me, and our Austrian Pastafarian friend.
b) I didn't mention this before, but its validity remains. Considering the license still shows the man's face, there's no reason to ban any adornment from a driver's license photo, whether there due to whimsy or an oath of death that he wears it. The point of a picture from the state's perspective is as a biometric device, and so long as it functions as such (he is recognizable as the person in the picture), it isn't necessarily appropriate for a free state to mandate any further requirements (e.g. that his appearance fall within a threshold of normality.) In this case, a strainer is no more peculiar than a top hat, a Viking helmet with outrageous horns, or a clown suit. [footnote]Actual KISS face paint may be a problem if he usually drives without it, just as an unmade photo would be a problem if he usually drives as a KISS rocker.[/footnote] The licensing department should not have cared why he was wearing a cooking implement, so long as he was choosing to do so while sober.
c) I could argue that my devotion is arguably greater than that of your typical Christian since most, even outspoken truly faithful [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scriptural_literalism] would stand by the later model of the universe even in the face of ridicule, the same way they eagerly stand by young-earth creationism despite overwhelming evidence towards evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology. Juxtapose that I continue to leave room for trace doubt of gravity, on the basis that it is only our best model yet (as any scientific model of the physical world could ever hope to be). Sure, I take gravity for granted. I'm assured that it's still working every second of every day, but I cannot be sure beyond doubt that gravity works the way we think it does. So it is regarding light, electromagnetism (and in turn the solidity of objects), thermodynamics, hydraulics and so on, on each of which I have to depend every day.
Incidentally, I wouldn't say I hold the FSM in the same esteem as one might God, but I do regard his noodly glory the way one would, say, a saint. But that should be, at this point, clearly moot.
Wow. I can't believe you actually pulled out the put your money where your mouth is card, especially in this era, in this economy. The Church[footnote]That is, when it was just The Church as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, because it had wiped out all the others. The RCC still holds much of the world in its tight-fisted control.[/footnote] took to this as a device to charge for absolution, often leaving the impoverished to starve for the salvation of their souls. Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens.
But I bet that with my meager income, my lifestyle is by far less luxurious than yours even after you pay your tithes. No, rather, what I tend to do is offer services, gratis, to those who couldn't afford to get them otherwise. I rub shoulders with a fair number of transients, impoverished and crazies, and I do it not for my own glory, or that of some centralized icon, but sheerly because it's the right thing to do, and the notion that our civilization is bettered for it.[footnote]It'll be interesting to see if you decide whether or not this compares, since no exchange of coin is generally involved, and goods in kind are usually not assessed for monetary value.[/footnote]
But this only shows that charity and good works are not particular to the devout. What do I do to forward the cause of reason? Mostly make snooty faces at my computer screen, by which I mean: I talk. I think. I read. I write. I work out solutions. I consider how others think, namely why they adhere to absurdities and commit atrocities in the name of their allegedly peaceful gods. I look to understand. I help others think in ways they've not considered before. I fight the social marginalization of atheists and fringe religions. And here on Escapist, I try to highlight points that are not expressed elsewhere, when they are due. But that's usually sans snooty faces; the folks here are mostly beginners and don't generally frustrate me.
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
And on that we agree:Uriel-238 said:
Ghengis John said:
To be perfectly fair, you're assuming you know which way to point. For a man who remains skeptical about gravity you are very certain in your faith in skepticism. I posit that I remain unconvinced of everything but your good intentions. I trust as a devout and practicing skeptic, you will find this agreeable.
What you consider moot I found whimsical enough that I no longer wish to draw snooty faces out of you. The more you talk the more traps you lay for yourself. And you have talked quite a bit. But you did so candidly and avoided antagonism and as a result I like you now, and your dedication to reason and skepticism is such that it has my respect. So, a tip of the hat to you sir.
From this I understand you do not have the desire to carry the conversation further. Fair enough, though once again you seem to treat as religious dogma those things that are not, which I will address here. Feel free not to read them, of course; your mind has been made, and I would not presume the possibility that it could be changed. I suspected this to be the case long before this conversation began. But for the sake of those who read this and remain undecided, I will leave it for them to consider.Ghengis John said:
Uriel-238 said:
This seems to me like you are questioning my knowledge of scientific skepticism, that or you were trying to turn my (borrowed) metaphor around on me somehow. But skepticism is not something in which one bestows belief. It is a how. A tool by which to separate truth from background noise, or how to combat Descartes' evil demon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon]. Putting faith in a skeptical approach is akin to putting faith into an axiom or the definition of a color. You don't have to have faith that blue is blue; it is by definition.[footnote]And yes, I know the possibility that the color I see as blue may not be the color another person sees, but when people are asked to point to the blue object, they generally point to the same one, because that's the color we define as blue, no matter how it is individually experienced. It is the color that spectrographs detect as the color blue, which is to say, the wavelength is consistent.[/footnote]Ghengis John said:
I would agree that naturalism requires a leap of trust[footnote]I hesitate to use the term faith, as I have no loyalty to naturalism the way I would, to a regent, a flag or a territory (or to a god). My trust in naturalism is on the basis that supernatural explanations tend to require more complex answers and feature more unknowns, hence they serve as weaker models of nature.[/footnote] much in the same way that operating in gravity does, since the naturalist assumption is that the universe operates according to consistent behaviors that require no supernatural (e.g. divine) influence. But this really is speculation that we live in the real world, hence (for example) if there was such a thing as the human soul, it would have detectable and measurable properties. And given that we've dissected things so far as to be on the verge of understanding what makes up mass, and still have yet to uncover even a hint of what might be a soul, human or otherwise, the possibility of its substance as something we've yet to detect has become terribly remote.
Now, it remains entirely possible that world of mere thought [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument] to be a deception, or somehow less valid than a material world. Of course, this is before we had much of the model we do today.
For us freethinkers, we cannot speculate of God's dreams, any more than I can speculate about the nature of time and space outside our own universe (in the bulk [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Brane_and_bulk]). It remains a much simpler model, thus, to assume that this world is real, and that things are exactly as they are observed (e.g. consistent even when not observed). The burden of holding this as true is, of course, to face the horror of mortality without the comforts, hopes and fantasies of existence beyond life. As a materialist, I have to accept that when my body perishes, so does everything that was me. But so, too, will the Sun die, and the universe fall to heat death long before the biblical promise of eternity comes. Reality allows for some amazingly vast numbers, but nothing is truly infinite, or infinitesimal. On the slim chance that God does exist in this real world, She too must be finite.
Perhaps I have decked my mind with such logical perils, but as a pedantic sort, my interest was not in winning a debate but in exchanging knowledge. If this was a contest of who could play the fewest cards, assuredly I have lost, not even knowing (or necessarily agreeing on) the rules of the game. I salute to your victory.Ghengis John said:
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
That still just furthers my point about intensity. This is something people really believe in, and I've already said, it's fair game making comments and remarks and points about things that affect you. The pastafarian design thing was brilliant satire.Uriel-238 said:
But letting people wear their religious hats doesn't harm anyone and it's ridiculing their core belief in a way that doesn't need to be ridiculed
Yeah...wearing a collander on your head used to be a British thing. When you were hiding from monsters, 3 million years in the future on a mining vessel out of Jupiter.thiosk said:
I salute that man. And anyone taking offense: why? We can make fun of everything else. Why should religion get an exemption?
Am I to understand that you think it is acceptable to wear a hat that indicates you believe women are chattel, or that you're God's chosen and are in the right to wipe out any other tribe, or that it is right to exact genocide on those who do not bow to your god, yet it is not acceptable to wear a hat that says those blokes over there who take such rubbish as sacred are ridiculous?BrotherRool said:
I don't care how devout one is to their beliefs, if those beliefs are contrary to social equality, to reciprocity and to prevention of harm / care for the weak and ill, in regards to anyone and everyone, I think those beliefs deserve ridicule at the very least.
But regarding what hats people wear on their driver's licenses, I think they should be able to wear what they want, so long as the face remains uncovered, whether it's a jester's cap or a gestapo hat[footnote]Which I expect is actually illegal in Austria. What with the continued national embarrassment over it. My point being, even poor taste should be at the discretion of the licensee.[/footnote]
238U.[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
Strawman! The situation we are talking about here involves the wearers choice of hat. If there was a hat which guys wore that treated woman like chattel, well it may be like this shirt, http://www.shop2wear.com/images/Biker-T-Shirts/Tell-Your-Boobs-To-Quit-Staring-At-My-Eyes-Shirt.jpgUriel-238 said:
(which I'm sure most religions would disapprove of) but it would be a very strange hat indeed. And if women want to wear a hat to indicate women are chattel, of their own choice, well we have to let them do that although offering a hand to support would be nice.
Wearing a hat that says you're God's chosen? Why not if that's what you believe? Wearing a hat that says you can genocide any tribe you feel like? Well that's not restrict this to religious people
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/09/article-0-0044BCBD00000258-697_306x423.jpg
his hat looks nice.
But in all serious, again that would be a strange hat and I'm not aware of a religion that wears a hat to convey that message.
And your devotion to fighting social inequality involves assuming superiority over a huge section of the populace and mocking their foundations and life course. That's not very fair.
The fact is if the law was, everyone can wear a hat on their drivers license. Fine. There isn't. Some people take hat wearing seriously enough that the government was willing to put aside that law. That;s great. In the end this guy, wasn't one of those people, and we all know that.
Where? Elucidate, please.BrotherRool said:
Ah, if you're saying a hat's just a hat (my own position, incidentally), then our Austrian Pastafarian friend should be able to wear what he wants. It is not the strainer he is wearing that ridicules religion; it's just a strainer on his head. You appear to be[footnote]Note: cautious language, indiciating that I am presuming based on appearance. Feel free to indicate appearances are incorrect. (Be specific and explain what is actually the case, please.)[/footnote] taking offense that his hat is representative of a parody of faith, yet are not allowing for offense to be taken at hats which represent those faiths, and the dubious values people of those faiths blindly hold.
You seem to be rather unaware of the texts considered sacred by Abrahamic faiths [http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm] and that are sometimes used to this day to justify elitism, preferential treatment, and sometimes outright attrocity. Read up. Get educated. Usually it's not the women calling themselves chattel, but the old testament certainly regards them as such, and hats that indicate adherence to traditional mosaic law do, until indicated otherwise.
If you read closely, you might have noticed, I didn't [http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bEBzZgZ5Tmc/SMdx4DG47rI/AAAAAAAAK68/lDZZReKAnzQ/s400/ss+hat.jpg].
Interesting. Imagine for a second, a Haredi man wearing his traditional Kippah, how much of the Torah to which he is devoted is represented by his headdress?[footnote]In the interest of full disclosure, most Haredim are peaceful, as it is with other religions, and despite the decrees from Yahweh to wipe them out, all of them many have oathed not to take up arms against the world's nations. Others on the other hand, give cause to their reputation as extremists.[/footnote] When a priest wears his collar, exactly how devoted to the decrees of the RCC is he representing himself to be?
Religious attire (or as you indicated, political attire) can say a whole lot, usually much more than the wearer wants to be said. In my own town, bears [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_(gay_culture)] on bikes sometimes wear vintage stahlhelms as a fashion statement, not because they believe in German national socialism.
tradition? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum].
Yes, it offends some that the highest standard of morality that humans have been able to codify is greater than that which was edifaced by the biblical almighty, but this isn't the first time. The new testament was a step up from the old, as was the Koran. Even Joseph Smith's controversial contribution was a movement towards equality. And all were offensive to those who didn't take to it. But while liberal denominations are more inclined to adapt to 20th- and 21st-century principles, plenty of conservatives continue to use scripture to justify the continuation of inequal treatment of those minorities of whom they disapprove.[footnote]It's notable that many contemporary political hot-points are not based on direct uncontradicted words of the bible, but loose interpretations of select passages that suit the personal positions of a small group. Some ministries will go to great lengths on television to explain how their particular grievance and call to action is encoded in a given scripture, all as a device to garner support from the faithful.[/footnote]
A call to demand scripture be subject to rational scrutiny was part of Dawkins' intention when he started the New Atheism movement. Before then, religious dogma got a free pass, much to the chagrin of many a free thinker. At the point that we encountered religiously fanatical agents convinced that it was righteous to pilot fueled passenger airliners into occupied skyscrapers, we had a clear example that blind adherence to scripture is dangerous., and that it is a duty to question religious truth before acting on it, exactly the way it is the duty of a soldier (albeit a dangerous one) to question the legality of the orders of his or her superior [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles#Principle_IV]. Ergo, even texts which some believe are the word of God (let alone interepretations thereof) should be subject to the same scrutiny that we would any other text. Words in the bible should be given no more credence than the words in The Enquirer.
So, to the contrary, it hasn't been very fair that the prejudices, the foundations and life courses of a section of the populace have so impeded the progress of social equality for so long (and continue to do so). Last I checked, social equality and reciprocity are the definition of fairness. No?
238U[footnote]In the event that Escapist requires me to view a commercial before getting a code, I will simply not post. Depending on the frequency, this may temper or cease my future participation in the Escapist community. Apologies in advance, if this policy prevents me from replying to you when it is proper to do so.[/footnote]
I;m aware this is getting a little silly and I'm probably annoying you, so I'll try to remove most of my excess, I'm really sorry, I'm not good at finding an non-aggressive stance in debates.Uriel-238 said:
Strawman was actually the wrong word, although I guess from a perspective almost all criticism of religion involves emphasasing the negative and ignoring the majority positive. But I guess that's bigger than me to discover. I just meant that we were talking about a situation involving free will and the points you were bringing up seemed to involve an oppressive head-covering thing instead.
I wasn't saying it was just a hat, just that I've never seen a religious hat which is meant to signify the things you've said. I'm not familiar with many but they all symbolise, devotion, self-control, willingness to put aside outward appearances. Even in extreme cases, for instance, the reason given to me for veils (and there are many many independent strong minded people who choose to wear them anyway) is that it prevents people from forming a relationship based on their looks and forces them to seek a deeper relationship based on respect and personality.
I've read the Old Testament, New Testament and Koran so I'm hope that I'm up to date on Abrahamic faiths (except Judaism, where obviously I'm out of date), although I'm aware that when reading the Koran, I came in with a negative bias and was deliberately interpreting things in as bad a light as possible.
The old testament doesn't mention veils or hats for women, has two books solely devoted to the power and achievements of women and points out the awesomeness of one of Israel's supreme leaders and religious representatives who was a women.
In fact in the old testament, the person recorded wearing a veil is Moses, and it is to his discredit.
I guess you could be referring to polygamy, (although it's not hat related, we sound a bit like Team Fortress 2 here
) and polygamy is one of the mysteries of the christian faith (not sure about Judaism) because in Genesis it's clearly disproved of and in the NT that is reaffirmed. One solution is, the Old Testament records things as they were, not as they should be and is famous for exposing the character flaws of it's heros. Polygamy is never represented positively and leads to a lot of the conflict and problems in peoples lives.The Koran example I've already mentioned. Personally, because it focuses on women (even though it;s focusing on women, on the basis that men are weak sinful creatures less able to control themselves) I feel it is sexist, but it's not actually a requirement and in this case, if the women chooses to voluntarily wear the hat, then that is up to here.
And I will mention my example again, that we are quick to judge but a vast amount of the porn, media and funny t-shirts objectifies women which probably looks the same, if not worse, to more respectful and strict Arabic countries. "Before you try to get the splinter out of your eye, remove the plank from your own". Although I suspect you are not one of these people so I guess it doesn't really apply to you.
A kippah is worn to 1. Represent the idea that God is always over you. 2. Honour him.
I just don't think that the people who wear them, wear them as symbols of genocide or associate with them those feelings.
And I mean maybe the priest wearing his collar feels it represents his devotion to being the largest donator towards AIDs relief in the world, or being the second largest social service provider in the US(to the government) spending 3.83 billion to reduce poverty in their home country (this is just one US based charity, it's hard to get figures for them all)or helping 130 million people in disasters (and incidentally donating 3x more every single year than so than the entire global sum of what every country in the world donated to help Haiti).
Those are all silly reverse-strawman style point I'm making. I'm just saying that the guy wearing a collar has things which he does far more often than genociding people.
I don't think there's anything I can say that will change your last point. You've obviously got very set views on the matter. I guess if you can point to one person whose "prayed for their enemies and done for their neighbour what they would like to be done to themeselves" (incidentally done is signifying positive action, so that's actively helping people as opposed to just not kicking them in the face) their whole lives then we can start talking about this wonderful higher standard of morality we've moved onto.
But in all honesty, i'm not even talking about religious dogma in the end. I'm just talking about basic humanity. It was clear that a law has been waived because they respect the beliefs of people, and don't try to force on them an enlightened way of thinking where it doesn't affect others. If the guy genuinely felt like he had to wear a hat on his head then it was right that they let him. If not he's making fun of people who feel they do. If you think such people are immoral and mentally deficient, then you are making fun of stupid people, which is as wrong as it was on the school yard.
And in the end, to welcome in a higher era of morality I would still be unwilling to step on people's hands and mock and look down on people to do so. That's the russian revolution version of change. Forgive me for being two millenia out of date but if you are doing wrong, however small, in the name of right, it's still wrong and no situation is going to change that.
Although on the "dogma" front, you might be relieved to know that you're on the side of Jesus still because a whole series of his parables and teachings were on ignoring the fripperies to do the right thing. Don't work on a Sunday? Well if someone is hurt you bloomin' well are going to work on a sunday and you're going to be happy about it afterwards.
For that matter the key message of Romans is that fixating and trying to obey the law will lead to a lack of trust in God and will lead you into wrong doing. The point is to trust in God and trust that we know the sort of things that are wrong and so it's as easy as stopping. (Although that's more controversial, it's on the crazy times in the bible where people give God a two option question and he answers both
)I think i've been hoisted by my own petard though, if hats mean this much to you, then you should be allowed to wear them in your driving photo. Well won good sir
Well, I consider my believes influenced by LaVey, but not in total line with his "church of Satan". It's really just a set of moral guidelines that do not overly conflict with religion per se. As long as you respect and accept peoples believes you should be allowed to demand respect for your own believes.TheScientificIssole said: