Woman Wins Appeal to Wear Colander on Head in DMV Photo as Part of ‘Religion’ to ....

[Jose Fly]

It may even be against muslims at that point. Christians don't generally wear any special clothing, except Mormons, and those are under their other clothes.

It's against religion in general, and how we tend to give free pass to something as soon as it's labeled "religion", regardless of how illogical, silly, and/or unsubstantiated it is.

I'd love to be the prosecuting attorney: Do you, in fact, pray to the monster? Let me hear some. Do you wear your colander everywhere you go? What happens when your god gets moldy? Do you promise to wear your colander every time you drive for the next 4 years, even if you change religion? Okay, then you can wear it.

Or "What we have here, is a failure of the defendant to grasp the intelligible difference between freedom of speech as it pertains to what you can wear at your DMV photo, and what an actual religion would dictate."

And that's the legal question....do you really want the government to have the authority to determine the validity of religious belief? Some may think it's ok, until they're the ones on the stand having to justify what they believe.

 

[GuySmiley]

I find your assumption that it must be Christianity that she is mocking disturbing.

I also find your lack of sense of humor about this disturbing. Why can't you just smile and shrug it off?

From 1 to 10, how disturbed are you?

 

[Lon]

I find your assumption that it must be Christianity that she is mocking disturbing.

Well, so did our residential ag-theist:

Seven pages of posts indicate otherwise.

I also find your lack of sense of humor about this disturbing. Why can't you just smile and shrug it off?

Well, this kind of thing is out of hand in the U.S. with minorities and especially incredibly small minorities getting rights the rest of us don't have. In my state, no nothing on your head, not even your glasses. Its a pretty good rule.

 

[Angel4Truth]

From 1 to 10, how disturbed are you?

opcorn:

 

[Angel4Truth]

What makes you think she isn't laughing uproariously over this inane stupidity?

His fantasies.

 

[Lon]

It's against religion in general, and how we tend to give free pass to something as soon as it's labeled "religion", regardless of how illogical, silly, and/or unsubstantiated it is.

Not in my state. You can't even wear your glasses in this state for your photo ID.

And that's the legal question....do you really want the government to have the authority to determine the validity of religious belief? Some may think it's ok, until they're the ones on the stand having to justify what they believe.

If it is religious? No. If its not, and if the person is a liar? Probably still not but I don't get which state allows this kind of thing anyway. Perhaps that too is the point. I don't really envision anyone needing to wear something in their DMV photo. However, like colander-head, if they are adamant, and it doesn't hinder photo ID or police, accommodation is fine. What is weirder is that this made national news :noway: They could have spent more time on Paris than this

 

[Jose Fly]

Not in my state. You can't even wear your glasses in this state for your photo ID.

That's not the point. If Mormonism and its seeing stones, and Catholicism with its magic wafers are given legal protection, why not other beliefs, no matter how silly?

If it is religious? No.

Then that applies to all.

 

[Angel4Truth]

another nut who was sworn into office with a collander on his head:

Pastafarian politician takes oath of office wearing colander on his head

Christopher Schaeffer, a Pastafarian minister, took his oath of office to join the Pomfret Town Board in New York while sporting the kitchen utensil. 'This may be the first openly Pastafarian sworn into office. For sure, the first to be sworn in wearing a colander,' said faith follower Bobby Henderson.

 

[quip]

That, however, is not religious freedom, it is commentary on another's religion and thus merely free-speech and NOT exercise of a sincere religion.

Of course not....rather it's the exercise of sincere anti-religion.

Some atheists need to learn that mockery of religion, isn't 'freedom of religion.' It is rather an exercise of free-speech and has nothing to do with 'their' religion or lack-there-of. I realize 'why' they don't get that, and they certainly have a right to ignorance, but I don't think I have to listen to it. If she is merely doing mockery, no dice. If she is sincerely duped as she says she is, fine. One is freedom of speech, the other is freedom of religion, but cannot impede picture identity by police and other authorities. She may have to get a plastic one for airports.

Seems religious folks demand respect where its reciprocation - by design and praxis - is flatly refused. Take heed of your own " good book" and reap what you sow Lon. :idunno:

 

[quip]

:chuckle: Yeah, I got that answer once too. An atheist told me that my first premise was flawed . . . the premise that he needs to justify his own use of logic. If you asked a Christian to justify his belief in God and he told you that your premise that he needs to justify it is flawed, you wouldn't be very impressed.

You don't have to do anything, but you do if you want others to consider you rational.

Yes, listen to your atheist friend, your premise is indeed flawed. While chimeras of god stand in proxy of your ingnorance to a rational answer.

Pronouncments of "god" are really saying nothing at all.....save that emotional baggage you've been indoctrinated to cling to so desperately.

 

[Dialogos]

Seven pages of posts indicate otherwise.

So is the "Keep a word, change a word."

Don't confuse our expressions of amusement with concern.

 

[Bright Raven]

Hope she wears it every time she drives as to show positive identification.

 

[GuySmiley]

Yes, listen to your atheist friend, your premise is indeed flawed. While chimeras of god stand in proxy of your ingnorance to a rational answer.

How do you breathe with your head in that sand? Its more healthy to stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalalalala. The best you can do is to admit you are irrational but claim "but you are too!"

Pronouncments of "god" are really saying nothing at all.....save that emotional baggage you've been indoctrinated to cling to so desperately.

You can only hope this is true, literally.

 

[quip]

How do you breathe with your head in that sand? Its more healthy to stick your fingers in your ears and say lalalalalala. The best you can do is to admit you are irrational but claim "but you are too!"

With one exception: I fully embrace a lack of an answer. You seem too cowardly to admit such thus, you suffer an irrational attachment to fantasy.

You can only hope this is true, literally.

Perhaps, though you can only hope this is false.

 

[Lon]

Of course not....rather it's the exercise of sincere anti-religion.

Sure, you have the right to be a bigot, but again, free speech vs religion.

Seems religious folks demand respect where its reciprocation - by design and praxis - is flatly refused.

Ah :think: "Respect your blatant disrespect..." I see how that works.

Take heed of your own " good book" and reap what you sow Lon. :idunno:

Explain. There is a bit of two-face going on (not necessarily you, but you support her doing it). My book says to love my enemy, and so I have no problem with her being a bigot, and a liar. She said it really was her god. Do I care? No. I just see a clear distinction between freedom of speech and an actual religion. This ain't it.

 

[quip]

Sure, you have the right to be a bigot, but again, free speech vs religion.

And so do you. Now tell me, from a Christian perspective, is being a bigot only a negative for non-Christians. Or have you condemned both of us?

Ah :think: "Respect your blatant disrespect..." I see how that works.

Good, then you can clearly understand the non-believer's just irreverence.

Explain. There is a bit of two-face going on (not necessarily you, but you support her doing it). My book says to love my enemy, and so I have no problem with her being a bigot, and a liar. She said it really was her god. Do I care? No. I just see a clear distinction between freedom of speech and an actual religion. This ain't it.

What's the relevance of this "clear distinction"? You're simply free to speak of your religion...she's free to mock it. Case closed.

 

[intojoy]

It raises an interesting legal question....do we want the government in charge of evaluating religious beliefs, and determining which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't?

I wonder how Mormonism would fare? :think:

Don't worry about it

 

[bybee]

And so do you. Now tell me, from a Christian perspective, is being a bigot only a negative for non-Christians. Or have you condemned both of us?




Good, then you can clearly understand the non-believer's just irreverence.



What's the relevance of this "clear distinction"? You're simply free to speak of your religion...she's free to mock it. Case closed.

And so every asinine pratt gets to take up valuable court time with this kind of specious nattering?
Common sense is dismissed.
Good manners are dismissed.
Regard for one's neighbors is dismissed.

 

[ok doser]

There is a third option.

We don't care.

Seven pages of posts indicate otherwise.

So is the "Keep a word, change a word."

Don't confuse our expressions of amusement with concern.

:darwinsm:

 

[quip]

And so every asinine pratt gets to take up valuable court time with this kind of specious nattering?
Common sense is dismissed.
Good manners are dismissed.
Regard for one's neighbors is dismissed.

Do you see this as a very common event?