by Madeleine Kando
In Austria a man by the name of Nico Alm was granted a driver's license with a pasta strainer on his head in his license photo. He was protesting a rule for the new EU driver's licenses that only allows head coverings on religious grounds.
Nico Alm argued that he belonged to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster**, and that his religion commanded him to wear a pasta strainer on his head.
Obviously this was to make a statement. Alm is a political activist who believes in the strict separation of church and state and he opposes the ‘special privileges’ that religious people get and that atheists don’t. This was a victory in the fight for freedom FROM religion.
Alm did receive his license with the condition that he submit to a psychological test to make sure he was not mentally ill.
It made me wonder if Nico Alm would have gotten away with such a brilliant piece of ridicule had he lived in America?
Most states do not allow headgear or face covering on their driver's license photo, unless, of course, it is for religious purposes. Which immediately prompted several lawsuits to be filed by Muslim women who wanted to pose in their burkas. (What is the point of an ID when the person in the photo can not be identified, pray tell?)
So, is wearing a burka on a photo acceptable because your religion demands it, or is it discrimination against non-religious people? Why are non-believers forced to bear their noodle? Why cannot they wear a baseball cap or a Ku Klux Klan coned-hat?
It's all the First Amendment's fault. The Free Exercise Clause says that everyone can practice their religious rights without restriction from the Government, 'unless these rights conflict with the interest of the state'. Is hiding one's face on an ID a security threat, and does that qualify as conflicting with the state's interest?
Maybe the department of Motor Vehicles should make a new rule that requires everyone to wear a pasta strainer for their photo ID. That way, all religious and non-religious people will be covered and no one will be straining the system. I am sure there will be some 'antipasti' demonstrations against this ruling, but you cannot make pasta without breaking some spaghetti.
** The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was established in 2005 by Bobby Henderson in protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to teach Intelligent Design in the Public Schools. He demanded that equal time be spent on teaching Pastafarianism in science classrooms. leave comment here
In Austria a man by the name of Nico Alm was granted a driver's license with a pasta strainer on his head in his license photo. He was protesting a rule for the new EU driver's licenses that only allows head coverings on religious grounds.
Nico Alm argued that he belonged to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster**, and that his religion commanded him to wear a pasta strainer on his head.
Obviously this was to make a statement. Alm is a political activist who believes in the strict separation of church and state and he opposes the ‘special privileges’ that religious people get and that atheists don’t. This was a victory in the fight for freedom FROM religion.
Alm did receive his license with the condition that he submit to a psychological test to make sure he was not mentally ill.
It made me wonder if Nico Alm would have gotten away with such a brilliant piece of ridicule had he lived in America?
Most states do not allow headgear or face covering on their driver's license photo, unless, of course, it is for religious purposes. Which immediately prompted several lawsuits to be filed by Muslim women who wanted to pose in their burkas. (What is the point of an ID when the person in the photo can not be identified, pray tell?)
So, is wearing a burka on a photo acceptable because your religion demands it, or is it discrimination against non-religious people? Why are non-believers forced to bear their noodle? Why cannot they wear a baseball cap or a Ku Klux Klan coned-hat?
It's all the First Amendment's fault. The Free Exercise Clause says that everyone can practice their religious rights without restriction from the Government, 'unless these rights conflict with the interest of the state'. Is hiding one's face on an ID a security threat, and does that qualify as conflicting with the state's interest?
Maybe the department of Motor Vehicles should make a new rule that requires everyone to wear a pasta strainer for their photo ID. That way, all religious and non-religious people will be covered and no one will be straining the system. I am sure there will be some 'antipasti' demonstrations against this ruling, but you cannot make pasta without breaking some spaghetti.
** The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was established in 2005 by Bobby Henderson in protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to teach Intelligent Design in the Public Schools. He demanded that equal time be spent on teaching Pastafarianism in science classrooms. leave comment here