Stern's Hero of the Day: Atheist wins right to wear Pasta Strainer as religious symbo

[Sulkdodds]

IBBC is paid for by the British Public (me) and reporting on this kinda nonsense is pointless to me. To me, some dude putting a pasta strainer on his head and getting his license approved his hardly news. Hey, here's a thing that happened that doesn't really affect anybody! Cool, but that should probably be on Break.com not BBC News. Plus, I like how it's being heralded as some sort of breakthrough for Atheism or something. Yeah, fight that religion by making yourself look like a dick on your driving license, that'll show those God-Believers what for!! I doubt anybody's gonna care.

Really though? This has been a big issue for a while. There have been loads of news controversies about people being able to wear this or that in their line of work, and it's heavily linked to the whole debate about the extent to which the veil should be allowed in our society and under what conditions. You may think it's silly, but it is part of a wider story that is perfectly serious.

 

[Stylo]

You're only allowed to say this stuff until after a raging debate has gone on about it, with people slinging insults and shit.

Right now you're just going to get people saying "Then why discuss anything? It's a forum, that's what you do"

It's less that it's on the forum and more that it's on the news. My point about it not being newsworthy isn't that people shouldn't discuss it on a forum, I'm discussing now and how pointless I think it is.

If you get where I'm coming from, it's not that there's a thread about it that's the annoying thing for me. It's that it actually a published news article.

so you have no problem with someone wearing a veil in their drivers license? it could be anyone. why should we/they give extra consideration to the religious? the person in question made his point without being a whining dick. he could have started a petition, or held a rally or complained to his member of parliament. instead he chose to do something that would instantly get his point across

Right so, he's fought against people being allowed to wear veils by adding yet more things that people could now be allowed to wear in driver's licenses to the list? How exactly has this helped? All he's done is made it so that a bunch of people will now probably start copying him and wearing equally ridiculous things in their licenses. If anything, he'd be giving more people, more power to obscure their features.

You think that because he's done this that Governments all around the world are now going to reflect thoughtfully on the rights of religious people and say "You know what, yeah, this is silly, let's take that right away from people of faith This guy has made us see the light and obviously because it was so hilarious, nobody will be against this decision and we will have no problems changing this law." ?

Like Veggie says, he made the news but what exactly has he done here? Nothing has changed to stop people wearing religious clothing in Driver's Licenses.

 

[ríomhaire]

So what if certain religious people are allowed to wear religious clothing in their driving licenses? People should just not care about this kind of thing and not try and prove points about it. It's pretty meaningless at the end of the day.

My point is that there is no reason for there to be any law regarding driving licences to have anything to do with religions. Should a Manchester United supporter also get to wear a hat showing his affiliation with the team in his licence? Should a builder get to wear his hardhat? Should French people be allowed to wear replica Eiffel Towers on their heads for theirs?

Religion has nothing to do with drivers licences.

 

[CptStern]

Right so, he's fought against people being allowed to wear veils by adding yet more things that people could now be allowed to wear in driver's licenses to the list? How exactly has this helped? All he's done is made it so that a bunch of people will now probably start copying him and wearing equally ridiculous things in their licenses. If anything, he'd be giving more people, more power to obscure their features.

which will probably mean government will rethink their position. would you rather he had started a petition? I hear those are effective

You think that because he's done this that Governments all around the world are now going to reflect thoughtfully on the rights of religious people and say "You know what, yeah, this is silly, let's take that right away from people faith. This guy has made us see the light and obviously because it was so hilarious, nobody will be against this decision and we will have no problems changing this law."

yes that's exactly what I and everyone is saying to a T. this one guy with a pasta strainer on his head is going to change the world's attitude towards religion. get a grip dude

Like Veggie says, he made the news but what exactly has he done here? Nothing has changed to stop people wearing religious clothing in Driver's Licenses.

so everyone before rosa parks was just wasting everybody's time? I mean success is only measured by the changing of attitudes and laws. it's never a gradual thing. He showed exactly how ridiculous religious exception to that rule is. why must the result be earth shattering for you to see it as worthwhile?

 

[Wanted Bob]

As funny as it is, Vegeta is right that the gesture is meaningless unless someone makes a big stink about it. I could certainly see some people being annoyed with this, but I doubt anything will come of it.

 

[Stylo]

So you posted this:

which will probably mean government will rethink their positions.

But then this sarcasm response:

You think that because he's done this that Governments all around the world are now going to reflect thoughtfully on the rights of religious people and say "You know what, yeah, this is silly, let's take that right away from people faith. This guy has made us see the light and obviously because it was so hilarious, nobody will be against this decision and we will have no problems changing this law."

yes that's exactly what I and everyone is saying to a T. this one guy with a pasta strainer is going to change the world's attitude towards religion. get a grip dude

Isn't that a massive contradiction? You said you think it will make Governments rethink their positions then scoffed at when I said it wouldn't with an "Of course it wouldn't" response.

I don't think I understand what you're even trying to say here.

 

[Vegeta897]

Well, Stern is right in saying that it's not totally useless, but he specifically said that this is a 'more powerful weapon than protests', and I can't see any reason for that conclusion to be drawn.

 

[Wanted Bob]

He is saying if MANY more people started doing this, then it would get the attention of the government. Right now its one guy, which isnt going to have any sway.

 

[Vegeta897]

The same could be said about protesting too. If MANY (comparatively to the current number) people started protesting about this, it would get attention.

 

[Wanted Bob]

Didnt see your post until mine went through, was more a reply to Stylo. I agree though, I wouldnt call it more powerful than protests.

 

[CptStern]

He is saying if MANY more people started doing this, then it would get the attention of the government. Right now its one guy, which isnt going to have any sway.

by allowing him to wear it they're pretty much admitting the rule is stupid. read between the lines and they're saying "your made up religion is just as valid as any other made up religion"

his battle was won before it even made it to the media

 

[CptStern]

http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=crickets

hey where'd everybody go?

 

[Tyguy]

This reminds me of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church and their attempt to remain lawfully justified in consuming hilarious amounts of marijuana right under the noses of the US government under the guise of religious freedom.

The group was accused, tried and convicted of smuggling massive amounts of potent cannabis from Jamaica and Miami in actions that kept the Jamaican economy afloat that decade.

Little off topic but just shows what you can get away with (almost) if you add religion into the mix.

There's a documentary on Netflix called Square Groupers if anyone is interested.

 

[CptStern]

like not paying taxes or getting your way in things like same sex marriage or abortion

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think the buddhist version of the swastika is banned in Austria.

 

[The Monkey]

like not paying taxes or getting your way in things like same sex marriage or abortion

Religious organizations don't pay taxes in Canada? I thought that was only in the US.

 

[Raziaar]

This ****ing place, Jesus Christ.

Even more predictable than Stern's feeble attempts at humour in otherwise interesting threads, are Veg's and Raz's unfaltering attacks upon everything he writes. I knew before I opened this thread that Veg would have started the shit-flinging with his usual smug, confrontational attitude. Veg, you know I love you and would make passionate love to you if I could, but for ****'s sake, you need to chill.

I didn't even post in this thread until my name was mentioned.

Honestly though, If you looked back through my interactions with Stern, 99% of them are jesting with him, teasing him about the old man memory/old news stuff that everybody else does. The times that they are different is when Stern overreacts to my jokes(my jokes personally... he doesn't get bent out of shape with the rest of you).

The only... ONLY beef I have with CptStern(well other than that he can never lose a debate and is never wrong on anything), is that he seems to show a disrespect to community members other than myself. I don't care what he thinks of me, I've just seen countless post ridiculing and mocking other members, often in blanket statements.

Attacks though? Bullshit. Show me any post where I am just outright attacking Stern. It always starts with a playful jest and it ends in Stern blowing up on me and being insulted which ultimately resulted in him blocking me, and that is somehow a troll against me?

I don't know what kind of delusions you people are under.

 

[Schall]

Was trying to leave the thread, but you guys just love to keep starting shit back up.

Was trying to leave the thread,

What, you couldn't find your way out?

 

[Vegeta897]

What, you couldn't find your way out?

We had come to a conclusion and I tried to gracefully drop the argument like everyone else with a little humor, but then Monkey decides to tell me to calm down, and open another can of worms. If someone says something to me, surely they want me to reply. Especially when they say something totally false.

 

[JUL3]

I really hope HL2.net does go camping in Nigeria someday.

Props to the guy for making his point, but will it change anything? Of course not. Religion will always be ritualistic, and Atheism will never understand why.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Ok, you and vegeta seem to have the misconception that I'm saying he's a puppet master, when all I am saying is that he knows that what he posts annoys people on this site, and he does it intentionally because he gets a rise out of people, and he finds that funny.

Oh, okay. No shit.

Anyway, not gonna dredge up this topic again (too much), but as regards the rest of your post - yeah, I'm aware Stern is a crucial member of the community, he's practically part of the fabric of the forums now and I'd never suggest he leave or radically alter his personality to accomodate the rest of us shmoes. But think about what you're proposing. You're saying he contributes a lot, and cite the discussion he generates as a big part of that. How much of that discussion do you think is people responding to his bullshit "trolling?"

Yep. Just doing my civic duty, ma'am. :v

Anyway, thanks for posting those stats. Might have to pull finger and start contributing some more myself.

Onto the topic at hand:

Right so, he's fought against people being allowed to wear veils by adding yet more things that people could now be allowed to wear in driver's licenses to the list? How exactly has this helped? All he's done is made it so that a bunch of people will now probably start copying him and wearing equally ridiculous things in their licenses. If anything, he'd be giving more people, more power to obscure their features.

Right, but it's getting coverage. Coverage that could make people think about why these laws are in place and how they could be exploited. Coverage you don't think the story should have.

So really what you're saying is "I don't think this will change anything, therefore it should have even less chance of changing anything because ~there's more to life~ and also MY TAX DOLLARS."

You think that because he's done this that Governments all around the world are now going to reflect thoughtfully on the rights of religious people and say "You know what, yeah, this is silly, let's take that right away from people of faith This guy has made us see the light and obviously because it was so hilarious, nobody will be against this decision and we will have no problems changing this law." ?

Gosh I accused you earlier of employing hyperbole, but you know that wasn't a license to just go ahead and use it 24/7 right?

Like Veggie says, he made the news but what exactly has he done here? Nothing has changed to stop people wearing religious clothing in Driver's Licenses.

Could you give a second?

 

[Stylo]

So really what you're saying is "I don't think this will change anything *SNIP*

This bit, yes.

Gosh I accused you earlier of employing hyperbole, but you know that wasn't a license to just go ahead and use it 24/7 right?

That was the whole point. That the idea itself is hyperbolic and therefore likely not going to happen.

Could you give a sec*SNIP*

No.


2 MAJOR things drive my point here. They are thus:

1. Governments get elected by pandering to people and getting votes. That includes religious people. I don't think they'd dare make recalls on laws that give religious people the freedom to express their faith at the cost of backlash and accusations of oppressing people's beliefs.

2. Half the political leaders out there identify themselves as people of faith. Barack Obama identifies himself as a Christian for f*cks sake.

I find it pretty far-fetched to think they'd even consider retracting laws that affect not just their own beliefs but the beliefs of many of the people they represent because of some daft movement that spends all of it's time being a member of the peanut gallery.

It's cute that people think that I'm being Pro-Religion just because I don't agree with their hardcore Atheist views on things but I'm merely pointing out that I don't think anything is going to change in the way that people's driving licenses are taken because some Austrian guy made himself look like a douche for attention and to "prove a point."

 

[Bad^Hat]

I agree with most of what you just said, but I'm not the one saying this shouldn't be given any attention in the news. Your original arguments were, almost verbatim, "they're getting my tax dollars and I don't approve of this," and, "there's more to life than this." You know, I'll agree that this is pretty frivolous. I don't think it's a major victory in that it just shows how willing government authorities are to pander to religion, even one as obviously facetious as this. That much was already pretty apparent, I think. Will it make any major difference? Probably not. But the entire point of this exercise, surely, was to be vocal about an issue that concerns some people by using humour as a way to shine a spotlight on it. People have argued that we can't prove this was more effective than something like a protest, but they're ignoring the fact that this was done by a single person. How likely would a one man protest be to gain this sort of attention?

Why's it news? Because it's not every day someone has their driver's license photo taken with a colander on their head to prove a point. Whether or not you agree with his message or find the whole thing silly, I think it's pretty plain to see why they're covering it.

 

[Eejit]

BBC is paid for by the British Public (me) and reporting on this kinda nonsense is pointless to me. To me, some dude putting a pasta strainer on his head and getting his license approved his hardly news.

Happily you are not sole arbiter of what is or is not news. Your TV license may give some money to the BBC but that doesn't mean that you personally must be catered to, rather it means we collectively must be satisfied. Go whine like an egomanic elsewhere about how the world isn't designed around your preferences.

 

[Stylo]

Damn it they're my POUNDS and they're LICENSE POUNDS!

But no, seriously. Perhaps I am a little quicker to be on the BBC's ass about what kind of thing they spend their time reporting on than most because of the fact that I was harrassed by the TV Licensing company for a whole year, even though I'd paid my license of £145 for the year to watch television legally, they kept telling me I hadn't and threatened to "send round inspectors" to my "place of residence" ¬_¬ ...

But still, I don't think it's COMPLETELY bad of me to have an opinion on the kind of things they shine a spotlight on being as I still do have to pay mandatory money toward a broadcasting company that quite frankly is pretty crap anyway. I'm not the only Brit that thinks this either. Half the time it has things on it that are of no interest, relevance or appeal to me even though it's supposed to diversify and have something for everybody [<---EEJIT THAT MEANS CATER FOR EVERYONE NYEEERR XD] - something that's been questioned a lot of late in the media, especially the BBC Radio stations.

But that's not even the worst part anyhow. I think the thing for me is that reporting on this kind of thing is giving credibility to the guy's actions which I just see as... daft. That is simply my opinion and I realise others will inevitably not see it that way. But hey, I thought I'd chime in to be a part of the discussion. I just don't think the guy should be heralded as some sort of hero of Atheism like the thread title and some others have implied. If he'd provided conclusive proof that there was no God(s) or something then, yeah, he would be the shining light of the non-believers and pretty much one of the most important people in history but like I say, I find what he did a bit douchey and the fact he spent so much time and effort getting it approved just to prove a minor point that probably won't get much further than the "Forum lol story of the week"... well... I think that's kinda sad, really!

I feel he's just joined a long line of people that would rather just attempt to make a blind mockery of things. Haha, look at me doing silly things to highlight laws which I think are silly!

I gotta say, however, even though I would have hoped it was evident, I'm not claiming to be right. I'm just trying to back up my view and prove that it's not completely retarded or anything. I mean some people think he's awesome. All I'm saying is, I don't and I've said why. 2 pence worth, done!

 

[ríomhaire]

Hero of Atheism? This is not about Atheism. It's about laws which have no reason to exist.

 

[Stylo]

Well, not everybody has that view. Obviously not yourself.

 

[Bad^Hat]

To be fair the whole Spaghetti Monster thing puts it pretty squarely in atheism's court, but I feel like atheism as a "movement" has become a bit broader than their namesake implies. Mostly it's just convenient as a name since it's a view that most of its proponents adhere to.

Damn it they're my POUNDS and they're LICENSE POUNDS!

But no, seriously. Perhaps I am a little quicker to be on the BBC's ass about what kind of thing they spend their time reporting on than most because of the fact that I was harrassed by the TV Licensing company for a whole year, even though I'd paid my license of £145 for the year to watch television legally, they kept telling me I hadn't and threatened to "send round inspectors" to my "place of residence" ¬_¬ ...

But still, I don't think it's COMPLETELY bad of me to have an opinion on the kind of things they shine a spotlight on being as I still do have to pay mandatory money toward a broadcasting company that quite frankly is pretty crap anyway. I'm not the only Brit that thinks this either. Half the time it has things on it that are of no interest, relevance or appeal to me even though it's supposed to diversify and have something for everybody [<---EEJIT THAT MEANS CATER FOR EVERYONE NYEEERR XD] - something that's been questioned a lot of late in the media, especially the BBC Radio stations.

Wasn't aware of any of this. Fair enough then, I concede you have a right to complain if you don't feel satisfied with their programming as a whole.

But that's not even the worst part anyhow. I think the thing for me is that reporting on this kind of thing is giving credibility to the guy's actions which I just see as... daft. That is simply my opinion and I realise others will inevitably not see it that way. But hey, I thought I'd chime in to be a part of the discussion. I just don't think the guy should be heralded as some sort of hero of Atheism like the thread title and some others have implied.

That much I'll agree with. I don't think anyone was saying you're not entitled to your opinion, though. :v

... but like I say, I find what he did a bit douchey and the fact he spent so much time and effort getting it approved just to prove a minor point that probably won't get much further than the "Forum lol story of the week"... well... I think that's kinda sad, really!

Maybe not, but... douchey? In what way?

I feel he's just joined a long line of people that would rather just attempt to make a blind mockery of things. Haha, look at me doing silly things to highlight laws which I think are silly!

The fact that you only see it as "blind mockery" and "silly" suggests to me that you're probably not in a position to appreciate why some people have a problem with this sort of thing.

I gotta say, however, even though I would have hoped it was evident, I'm not claiming to be right. I'm just trying to back up my view and prove that it's not completely retarded or anything. I mean some people think he's awesome. All I'm saying is, I don't and I've said why. 2 pence worth, done!

Sorry you are empirically wrong here is a mathematical formula which disproves your opinion:

 

[Stylo]

Douchey in the "Okay so you look like a total dick on your driver's license, was it really worth that and the time you spent getting it approved?" sense.

Bahh, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread now, anyway. I seem to be at risk of topic looping.

 

[Naph]

Has Stylo been acquainted with Stern yet?

 

[Bad^Hat]

Douchey in the "Okay so you look like a total dick on your driver's license, was it really worth that and the time you spent getting it approved?" sense.

Righto. I assumed you meant he was being a douche to someone, rather than just in general.

 

[flamingdts]

I ****ing love this site.

If Ep3 doesn't come out anytime soon Trolllife2.net becomes inevitable, at least in the lounge sector. Still even after HL2: Ep3 comes out the wait for the next half life installment would... wait I should stop thinking about that. I might never see it in my life time.

 

[dfc05]

Hero of Atheism? This is not about Atheism. It's about laws which have no reason to exist.

My guess is that the rule's in place to improve ability to identify you with the ID picture. e.g., you wouldn't want someone wearing sunglasses in an ID pic. The no-hats law is probably to prevent the wearing of excessive headgear that could obscure the face. Since that gets subjective to determine, they just ban all headgear entirely -- except they throw in the caveat for religious garb, otherwise they get crap for being culturally insensitive. Not an entirely simple issue.

[edit] To clarify -- I'm sure the government would love to be able to ban all hats entirely, with no regard to religion. That exception is probably there solely to make them seem non-discriminatory, not because the government is actively trying to give special privileges based on religion.
In that case, the guy doing this to make some kind of point (what is his point, really?) would be a jerk for wasting everyone's time. The law is legit. The exception is maybe not-so-legit, but saves everyone a whole lot of trouble. Instead of repealing the law, maybe they should repeal the exception -- if that was his point, fine. But then he should have gone with a spaghetti face-mask instead in order to prove that "religious" headgear can be a security concern and nobody should get to wear hats. Not a strainer which seems to say "everyone should be able to wear whatever hat they want" which just shows poor conception.

 

[morgs]

This thread has gone pasta point of reason.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Instead of repealing the law, maybe they should repeal the exception -- if that was his point, fine.

The exception is part of the law. To change the law would be to change the exception. I don't see how these could be taken as two separate things.

Whether poorly made or not, it's pretty obviously the point he was trying to make.

 

[Escaep]

All of this bickering is really straining forum relations.

 

[Bad^Hat]

If we didn't bicker, how else would we filter out the bad stuff?

 

[Escaep]

If we didn't bicker, how else would we filter out the bad stuff?

Don't know, temperatures just seem to be boiling.

 

[Eejit]

I like it when discussions are somewhat al dente.

 

[Krynn72]

This thread had so many people arguing in it that there was hardly any elbow room in here.

Spoiler

elbow macaroni