Man fighting to wear pasta strainer in driver's license photo claims religious discrimination

submitted by [deleted] from wcvb.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

"However, in a letter dated Oct. 11, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles contends the pasta strainer could only be considered proper religious headwear for license photo purposes as "a head covering used in conjunction with a recognized religious purpose but only if usually and customarily worn whenever the person appears in public."

A very reasonable position to take. I have no issue if this man believes god requires him to wear a pasta strainer, as I strongly believe in people's right to visually out themselves as retarded. However he should embrace his religion full time rather than only follow it when it's convenient for him. He has angered the spaghetti god and will be cast out of the celestial Olive Garden into the Sizzler of Perdition.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Lol. From what I understand they are a satirical religion, I think they are just making mischief rather an a good faith religious discrimination accusation, but I do think their antics are rather amusing and pretty harmless

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Satirical religion is fine, but there's no such thing as a satirical lawsuit is there?

Guy is wasting the courts time and wasting taxpayer money on frivolous bullshit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Guy is wasting the courts time and wasting taxpayer money on frivolous bullshit.

Yeah I can't argue with that.

Satirical religion is fine, but there's no such thing as a satirical lawsuit is there?

Not in the way you are saying, but stay with me

I do think there is something of a fair point to made here. Effective they have created a two-tiered system where those who are religious in good faith are granted extra rights in the form of exceptions to the rules governing government photo ID's. I imagine they feel like their atheist beliefs entitle them just as much to wear silly hats for photos, whether the reasons be a philosophy or religious philosophy or otherwise

So in that way, I think this is a political statement involving satire and a lawsuit, and I agree with the idea behind it, although I am also inclined to agree with you that people are just going to think this is ridiculous and not care, making it an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Don't get me wrong, the statement he is making is well understood by me, and I kind of agree with his position. But it's a bit more complicated than that. We give religious people some leeway with these rules not because there is a desire to give them extra rights, but because it's a way to keep society from falling apart due to petty bullshit. You're going from make the Sikhs a permanent underclass that can't drive because they won't remove their turban during a driver's license photo? Or you just allow it in the reasoning that it's harmless and doesn't hurt their ability to be identified since they are wearing it all the time anyway.

I personally don't care much if this guy wants to out himself as a silly goose on his driving photo, but if he's going to claim the religious argument he's gonna have to wear that all the time no?

I think these sorts of points are funny to make in a hypothetical situation but once you're going to make real lawsuits it's gonna open up a whole can of worms. Either the court agrees and sets a president that gives more ridiculous religious carve outs for irrelevant nonsense as it abstracts from the original purpose why they were allowed to bend the rules, or it results in anyone with "legitamate" reasons to bend the rules to have to jump through more hoops just to live a normal life.

For that reason his actions aren't helping anyone. He's simply wasting resources on an idiotic attempt at activism that can only end by making society worse.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think these sorts of points are funny to make in a hypothetical situation but once you're going to make real lawsuits it's gonna open up a whole can of worms.

Fair point

For that reason his actions aren't helping anyone. He's simply wasting resources on an idiotic attempt at activism that can only end by making society worse.

You've made a good case that the way he is going about this is idiotic and not as harmless as I made it out to be, I can't really disagree with anything you said, although I still can't help but chuckle about it

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's funny for sure and worth a chuckle. But there's s fine line between political statements and good faith trolling vs bad faith trolling and socially detrimental behavior. Which abuse of the legal system is.

You could for instance go out and start a cult called the "Church of Alienhunterism" where I teach the path to salvation and eternal Bliss is to buy get out of hell free cards from yours truly. And if you buy me a sports car or a mansion you'll get a super awesome Afterlife sports car forever after you die. I can set this up as a joke, and it's funny, but if the government is like "no you can't claim tax exemptions on your obvious pyramid or money laundering scheme and try to pass it off as a legitimate religion" and I try to fight them on that point, I'm really no better than the actual megachurch tycoons that pull this shit am I? It's actually very important that we make the distinction between good faith claims and bad faith claims. Because if we don't the whole system is blown wide open for corruption should we be too lenient, or it becomes a cruel authoritarian machine that seeks to crush anyone that deviates from the rules regardless of reason.

In this case the lawsuit is over religious headgear in DMV posters. It's the most petty complaint you can have on allowing religious liberties and double standards. Who has religious headgear in DMV photos? Jews? Sikhs? Some Muslims? Does anyone care legitimately that we allow them to do so and actively seek to give them the Hobson's choice of either being outcast from their families or society? It's not a hill worth dying on. It's not even a hill worth pissing on.

It just further obfuscates and makes it easier for the religious manipulators to deceive people and distract from their corruption. We shouldn't care about people who want to go to religious organizations and events who believe sincerely in the message they are trying to spread. It's why it's important you shouldn't heap abuse on the poor Moron Missionaries or Jehovah's Witlessness who come by. They are just low level indoctrinates in a large money making machine. Our attentions should be focused solely on the corruption that takes place and not an abject hatred to the rediculous ceremonies and the like which are, all things considered, harmless fun.