Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Jacob]

And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?

Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.

If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. 

If they had big breasts Cal would be ok with it.

If they were oriental and tied up in a basement, CdM would be okay with it.

And if they posted about it on languish and were entertaining about it, the rest of us would be okay with it.

[Viking]

And yet we recognize beating yourself bloody or speaking in tongues as valid expressions of religious faith. Why is wearing a pasta strainer as a hat any more ridiculous?

Flagellation and speaking in tongues are generally some pretty oddball beliefs though.

If they were dressed in SS uniforms at the time, Slargy would be okay with it. 

If they had big breasts Cal would be ok with it.

If they were oriental and tied up in a basement, CdM would be okay with it.

And if they posted about it on languish and were entertaining about it, the rest of us would be okay with it.

What big breasted orient chicks in SS uniforms with collinders on their head locked up in seedy's basement whipping themselves and speaking in toungs?


I googled looking for a relevant picture, but, obviously I didn't find anything.

[Valmy]

What big breasted orient chicks in SS uniforms with collinders on their head locked up in seedy's basement whipping themselves and speaking in tongues?

I am ok with it.

[crazy canuck]

I googled looking for a relevant picture, but, obviously I didn't find anything.

An untapped market.

[The Minsky Moment]

What this guy did was demonstrate the absurdity of making special objective rules for purely subjective conditions.  That's the kind of obnoxious schmuck we need in society.  The kind of obnoxious schmuck who doesn't see the need for pointing out the absurdities in the law is not the kind of obnoxious schmuck we need in society.

That is a matter of opinion and my opinion is quite different.  Law as it applies to any human society by its nature involves applying objective rules to subjective conditions.  Thus, law is always vulnerable to attack that it is not being applied properly to a particular case (i.e. subjective condition).  Ideally, common sense provides the connection to bridge the gap between the inflexible command of formal legal rules and the infinite variety of experience.  But where common sense breaks down (or where the rare truly "hard case" arises), the courts or legislators or administrators must step in, and the result is yet more rules and more law.  And that unfortunately explains why the US now drowns in an ocean of law and rules.  Because even if 99.9% of people act with basic common sense, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of jackasses to screw things up.

This is a good example (Austrian geography aside).  In an ideal world, there would no need to have rules about driver's license pictures.  People would use their common sense about what to wear, and the DMV employees would use their common sense about what to permit.  But that breaks down because sooner or later some ass insists that they must take their license photo with a hockey mask on, or knight's helmet, or in full Klingon makeup.  So then the law steps in with an objective rule - no headgear.  But as is often the case with simple rule, the impact of the rule does not fit precisely with its purpose, and as applied to social reality, in some way exceeds it.  The purpose is to prevent having to squabble with people who want to do things that have the effect of concealing appearance.  But as written it also sweeps in conduct beyond that intention.  In particular, for those people with religious beliefs that require them to wear certain headgear, it forces those people to make a choice between violating a core belief that is fudamental to their identity (and harms no one) and getting access to a basic civic right like a license to drive a vehicle.  That involves forcing a very painful choice on thousands, perhaps millions of fellow citizens.  So in a society that places value and respect on human freedom and autonomy, it is not surprising the the next move would be to create a simple exemption to the basic rule, that exempts those who wear headgear for religious reasons (provided the headgear does not obscure the face, etc).

But now again the nature of legal rules presents a problem - how to define "religion".  If it is defined with respect to specific faiths, it is likely to unfairly exclude certain obscure faiths that fail to be enumerated or new ones that may arise later.  So again the matter is effectively left to common sense  - "we know it when we see it."  But as before, that reliance on common sense application is a potential weakness given the presence of the 0.1% jackass minority.  Exhibit A - pasta strainer head man.

So for my 2c, obnoxious schmuck does not perform any useful function at all.  He doesn't "point[] out absurdities in the law", both because the law at issue is not absurd and because the flaw that he exploits is one inherent in the very nature of law itself.  Rather, he is a prime example of the kind of obnoxious schmuck that forces society to expend resources or add more layers of regulation in response to his juvenile ploy for attention, a ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.

[Oexmelin]

a ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.

While one could easily agree to a large part of what you wrote previously (I'll disregard a what I disagree with for argument's sake), the political process is not simply about "reasoned argument of principle", because those have only limited forums, and limited reach. It is about tying together often simplistic issues, material goods, singular cases to larger ideals - however much you feel those are misguided - because, at heart, politics takes place outside of courts, or of polite salons circles, or even out of houses of representatives. Sometimes it works - and then an issue takes political momentum; sometimes it doesn't - and then one is branded an obnoxious schmuck. But I feel it is rather unfair to persistently lament the fact that politics - like law - doesn't involve nice people disagreeing politely about the finer points of principles while sipping tea.

[Viking]

Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.

[crazy canuck]

Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.

Imho he is worse than being a dick.  Human Rights issues were once considered important and valuable.  But they have been taken to an extreme by cases like this so now the importance of human rights cases are viewed as allowing some jackass to make up a religion and wear a pasta strainer on his head.  There is no contention that this is a real religious belief.  The whole point of the exercise is to mock religion and the manner in which genuine religious belief is accomodated under the law.

I see no value in this stunt but I do see harm.

[The Minsky Moment]

. But I feel it is rather unfair to persistently lament the fact that politics - like law - doesn't involve nice people disagreeing politely about the finer points of principles while sipping tea.

Protest and angry words have their place.   This is neither. 

[crazy canuck]

a ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.

While one could easily agree to a large part of what you wrote previously (I'll disregard a what I disagree with for argument's sake), the political process is not simply about "reasoned argument of principle", because those have only limited forums, and limited reach. It is about tying together often simplistic issues, material goods, singular cases to larger ideals - however much you feel those are misguided - because, at heart, politics takes place outside of courts, or of polite salons circles, or even out of houses of representatives. Sometimes it works - and then an issue takes political momentum; sometimes it doesn't - and then one is branded an obnoxious schmuck. But I feel it is rather unfair to persistently lament the fact that politics - like law - doesn't involve nice people disagreeing politely about the finer points of principles while sipping tea.

I agree.  And to the extent the point being made by this protestor is in any way coherent it ought to be rejected.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.

Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos?  The only case I am aware of in the States denied this.  Perhaps Austria differs.  But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.

[The Brain]

What this guy did was demonstrate the absurdity of making special objective rules for purely subjective conditions.  That's the kind of obnoxious schmuck we need in society.  The kind of obnoxious schmuck who doesn't see the need for pointing out the absurdities in the law is not the kind of obnoxious schmuck we need in society.

That is a matter of opinion and my opinion is quite different.  Law as it applies to any human society by its nature involves applying objective rules to subjective conditions.  Thus, law is always vulnerable to attack that it is not being applied properly to a particular case (i.e. subjective condition).  Ideally, common sense provides the connection to bridge the gap between the inflexible command of formal legal rules and the infinite variety of experience.  But where common sense breaks down (or where the rare truly "hard case" arises), the courts or legislators or administrators must step in, and the result is yet more rules and more law.  And that unfortunately explains why the US now drowns in an ocean of law and rules.  Because even if 99.9% of people act with basic common sense, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of jackasses to screw things up.

This is a good example (Austrian geography aside).  In an ideal world, there would no need to have rules about driver's license pictures.  People would use their common sense about what to wear, and the DMV employees would use their common sense about what to permit.  But that breaks down because sooner or later some ass insists that they must take their license photo with a hockey mask on, or knight's helmet, or in full Klingon makeup.  So then the law steps in with an objective rule - no headgear.  But as is often the case with simple rule, the impact of the rule does not fit precisely with its purpose, and as applied to social reality, in some way exceeds it.  The purpose is to prevent having to squabble with people who want to do things that have the effect of concealing appearance.  But as written it also sweeps in conduct beyond that intention.  In particular, for those people with religious beliefs that require them to wear certain headgear, it forces those people to make a choice between violating a core belief that is fudamental to their identity (and harms no one) and getting access to a basic civic right like a license to drive a vehicle.  That involves forcing a very painful choice on thousands, perhaps millions of fellow citizens.  So in a society that places value and respect on human freedom and autonomy, it is not surprising the the next move would be to create a simple exemption to the basic rule, that exempts those who wear headgear for religious reasons (provided the headgear does not obscure the face, etc).

But now again the nature of legal rules presents a problem - how to define "religion".  If it is defined with respect to specific faiths, it is likely to unfairly exclude certain obscure faiths that fail to be enumerated or new ones that may arise later.  So again the matter is effectively left to common sense  - "we know it when we see it."  But as before, that reliance on common sense application is a potential weakness given the presence of the 0.1% jackass minority.  Exhibit A - pasta strainer head man.

So for my 2c, obnoxious schmuck does not perform any useful function at all.  He doesn't "point[] out absurdities in the law", both because the law at issue is not absurd and because the flaw that he exploits is one inherent in the very nature of law itself.  Rather, he is a prime example of the kind of obnoxious schmuck that forces society to expend resources or add more layers of regulation in response to his juvenile ploy for attention, a ploy motivated at its core not by any reasoned argument of principle, but by disrespect and mockery of fellow citizens.

We need persons that extremely thin-skinned people will call jackasses to point out that the emperor has no clothes. The state made a law/rule that was unnecessary ("no headgear"). This in itself is pretty retarded. But not being content with this it also said that there will be special rules for people of certain religions.

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

[crazy canuck]

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law.  If so I find that very surprising.

[The Brain]

Having special laws for people based on their religions worked out great in Germany in the 30s, but of course YMMV.

Are you telling us that there is no notion of accomodation anywhere within Swedish law.  If so I find that very surprising.

I haven't mentioned Swedish law AFAIK.

[The Minsky Moment]

that extremely thin-skinned people will call jackasses to point out that the emperor has no clothes. The state made a law/rule that was unnecessary ("no headgear"). This in itself is pretty retarded. But not being content with this it also said that there will be special rules for people of certain religions.

If you had read my post, you would understand that very result you call "retarded" is the consequnces of what "extremely thin-skinned people will call jackasses"

Though as far as i can tell, the only people with extreme thin skins around here are the ones mortally offended by the notion that some other person they don't know has a "silly" belief system and that get driven to hysterics at the thought that one group of people get to where a hat in photo while they don't