Advertisement

In Theory: Does the right to wear a colander strain credulity?

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Mass. won the right to wear a colander on her head for her driver's license photo. Miller is a practicing Pastafarian, largely viewed as a satirical religion that worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Mass. won the right to wear a colander on her head for her driver’s license photo. Miller is a practicing Pastafarian, largely viewed as a satirical religion that worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

(Darrick Fauvel / Associated Press)
Share

A woman from Lowell, Mass. has won the right to wear a colander on her head in her driver’s license photo, following an appeal citing her membership with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Last month, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles overturned its previous decision denying Lindsay Miller from wearing the colander. The agency does not allow head coverings or hats in license photos, except for religious reasons. Miller is a practicing Pastafarian, considered by many to be a satirical religion that praises a flying spaghetti-and-meatball deity.

“They were kind of laughing at me,” Miller told the Boston Globe. “I thought of other religions and women and thought that this was not fair. I thought, ‘Just because you haven’t heard of this belief system, [the RMV] should not be denying me a license.’ ”

The Secular Legal Society, the network of attorneys for the American Humanist Assn., filed an appeal on Miller’s behalf.

“The 1st Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” attorney Patty DeJuneas said in a statement.

Q. Although the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster maintains that it is a legitimate religion, it is widely considered a satirical or parody religion. What do you think of the RMV’s decision to overturn its previous ruling? Is it a harmless choice or should they have stood their ground?

--

The RMV probably should have stood its ground because when 1st Amendment issues come up — and I’m suggesting this is a 1st Amendment, freedom of religion issue — I believe that people wearing colanders on their heads was not what the authors of the Bill of Rights had in mind. True, an argument can be made — and WAS made — for such shenanigans.

But what I think the RMV should have done was stood its ground, gone to court, and then asked the judge to dismiss the suit on frivolous grounds. Come on, people. Aren’t there more serious issues to spend time on than the god of the spaghetti monster?

The Rev. Skip Lindeman (who believes in and loves spaghetti, but not its god!)
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

Well, I know what I’ll be wearing for my next driver’s license picture: I, and all newly apprised religious clergy, shall don elaborate miters, yarmulkes, turbans, and whatever else we can imaginatively connect to our sundry religions. As long as we don’t cover our faces, I suppose nobody should care what any has on our heads (even if it is kitschy and overboard).

Anyone could shave their head, grow a mop, grease it, blow it or dye it, and it can always look different. The only problem I see would mainly be with covering the face. If that were claimed to be religious thing, then I’d say a choice should be made by the adherent regarding the privilege of driving in America. If creative expression and simple religious preference are really the things that motivate this, then there is no “absolute” necessity, and I think government should probably say “enough.” I don’t “have to” wear a hat with my religious collar affixed, and most likely there are no religions where a head covering is absolutely necessary lest drivers be condemned to hellfire. So putting a pasta strainer on one’s head seems ridiculous, and I’d say that anyone who does such probably already overcooked their noodle. This, and the fact that they really just hate God is what really cooks mine.

“A spaghetti-monster created the universe,” the Pastafarians say. Why say this? They don’t mean to imply belief in an actual SpagMo any more than Satanists really believe in a red-drawered devil, but they both thoroughly deny the genuine creator of the universe: Jesus Christ. They hate God, and Pastafarianism is about not believing in him. Is that religion? I suppose in weird America it is, since our Buddhists believe their own minds are god, and our atheists only exist because of their disbelief in God. Since any theological philosophy seems to garner religious classification here, we’re stuck — stupid stuck, but assuredly stuck. My advice? Show up for your next DMV pic with an Oktoberfest hat. Say you belong to the “Chicken Dance” religion, and that beer is a sacrament. Maybe you could have some spaetzle and brewski with Ms. Miller afterward.

America, we are in serious deep linguine! The Bible says about our religious commitment, “They didn’t treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life” (Rom 1:22-23 MSG). You really want to worship macaroni?

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

--

I assume the RMV overturned their previous ruling about religious head coverings in driver’s license photos because lawyers for the state of Massachusetts advised them the ruling would not withstand a legal challenge. Make an exception to the bare-headed photo rule for head scarves or chadors or whatever and the door is open for colanders.

I am not ready to comment on the good people who seem to spend a fair amount of their time involved with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I certainly understand the importance of the principle behind their humor, namely fair treatment under the law for all religions.

Actually, if I had any spare time and didn’t so thoroughly dislike speaking in public, I would show up with a colander on my head and try to get on the list to offer a prayer (they can call it an invocation if they want, but I know praying when I hear it) at Glendale City Council some Tuesday evening.

Not because I have nothing better to do but because these municipally sanctioned wastes of time irritate me, and I am pretty sure they are unconstitutional. A rabbi shows up once in a blue moon, but by and large the prayers are Christian. It is practice ripe for scrutinizing, or at least satirizing.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

Advertisement