SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The next story comes from Australia, where a self-described pastafarian went about mocking the rules set up for firearm ID pictures by wearing a colander on his head. Guy Albon convinced the photographer that he was a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster so that he could wear the colander - a symbol of the satirical religious movement whose members refer to themselves as Pastafarians. The 30-year-old said he exploited a law that allows headgear to be worn in photos.
'The law stipulates you can have something on your head,' he said. 'You have to have your entire face uncovered and if the headgear is being worn it has to have some religious significance. I thought 'I've got this one in the bag - it was an absolute scream.'
Officers came to his home, where they seized two handguns and two rifles and ordered him to see a psychiatrist. According to Mr Albon, the psychiatrist immediately declared him as sane and 'laughed it off'.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 26 2014, @10:35PM
I only skimmed TFA, but it seemed like this was a license to HAVE GUNS, not a concealed carry. Remember, this is Australia, not the USA. Hence the fact that they took away the man's guns.
Also, I don't think ignorance of a religious belief should make it okay to discriminate. The government could have called the Guy up and asked him why he was wearing a colander, and I'm sure he would have told them the good word about the stripper factory and the beer volcano. Instead, they confiscated his guns and mandated that he go to a psychiatrist. Yes, in this case it was a mock religion, but there are plenty of little-known religions and I don't think they should be afforded less rights than the big ones. Especially when it comes to self defense.
Tying the right to have arms - which in the modern world is the right to defend yourself from well armed adversaries - to particular religious views is really troublesome to me. Mandating that people of certain faiths seek psychiatric treatment is also pretty scary. Not really the kind of news story I'd shrug off and laugh at. Gotta watch out for them fascist G-men...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @01:11AM
It should be people of all faiths, then hopefully we can cure some and lessen the burden on the next generation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday June 27 2014, @03:46PM
Great. Which bureaucrat gets to define what counts as a "faith," and thus which section of society to send to the psychiatrists en masse? Or should we vote on it? If we vote on it, you and me are both getting sent away (assuming you're also in the US of A). I guarantee you this isn't a road you want to march down.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm [about.com]
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday June 27 2014, @02:35PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 1) by JNCF on Friday June 27 2014, @03:38PM
Let me repeat part of the comment you're replying to, this time in bold.
Yes, in this case it was a mock religion, but there are plenty of little-known religions and I don't think they should be afforded less rights than the big ones. Especially when it comes to self defense.
This isn't about colanders, really. It about an over-reaction by a government that involved seizing a man's means to defend himself and forcing him to seek psychiatric care, over a piece of religious garb that they were either ignorant of or malicious towards. It doesn't matter if the religion was made up, all religions are made up and they should all be treated equally by the state.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday June 27 2014, @06:55PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2014, @07:47PM
While I kind of see where you are going with your posts, that actually believing in something and making a mockery out of believing in something, I think you are kind of missing the point of being a pastafarian, which i believe to be to highlight the problem of taking a persons irrational beliefs seriously. If you look at it rationally a religious belief backed up by pretty much nothing else than heresay it's kind of hard to distinguish from the ramblings of a lunatic. Have you ever read the book of revelations? I have and I think that it's extremely troubling that the madness of a probably schizophrenic man are taken seriously to this day, back in the day a lot of people were easily swayed due to limited exposure to ideas, but in this day and age there is almost no excuse.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday June 30 2014, @01:36PM
So where's the line between reasonable and discriminatory for you? If it's a religion only adhered to by, say, 1% of the population, is that not "reasonably well known" enough that you can deprive all the believers of their rights? That's still tens of thousands of people you're saying the government can deprive of their rights and ship to psychiatrists. Maybe .1% -- a few thousand? How small must the minority be in your mind before they lose all rights?
As for the claims that it's a "mock religion" -- well, that's kind of the point, and the point is that *it doesn't matter*. How exactly do you plan to determine the difference? What's your objective way to measure someone's faith? What test do you propose to determine if a god is "real" or not? You can't. It's all made up. If you're going to have legal exemptions for religions, you've just gotta take their word for it regardless. What makes a 2000 year old religion more valid than a 2 year old one?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday June 28 2014, @02:44AM
What makes these differences relevant? As I see it, the two are being worn for similar religious reasons.