‘Pastafarian’ woman wins right to wear spaghetti strainer — religious head wear — in driver’s license

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

BOSTON, Mass. — A Massachusetts woman has won her fight to wear a spaghetti strainer on her head in her driver’s license photo.

Lindsay Miller describes herself as a Pastafarian and a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles had refused to let her wear the colander, but The American Humanist Association filed an appeal on her behalf.  The group cited the registry’s exception for religious headwear.

“I’m like, you’re discriminating against us just because you haven’t heard of us,” said Miller.  “You know, it’s like, there’s how many religions?  How are you going to know all of them?  So I hope this helps open the door so other people can go and don’t have that hassle.”

pasta drivers license

The registry reversed itself before the appeal was heard, and Miller got her photo with the colander included.

Some say the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is meant to be a satirical alternative to traditional religions, but the church denies that and says its beliefs are sincere and supported by hard science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

20 comments

  • Dean Carleton

    “you’re discriminating against us just because you haven’t heard of us”
    No, we are discriminating against you because you are deliberately making a mockery of our national social structure and wasting tax-payer dollars in the process. Satire and parody is fine, but not at the financial expense of the public and not if it is done in such a way as to undermine duly established social constructs.
    Now get that thing off your head and get a life.

    • Scott Grayson

      The fact that the court took this seriously and didn’t tell her exactly that is an indication of just how far along the path of collapse this country is. When the courts do not distinguish between legitimate grievance and an act of comedic social commentary, you no longer have a functional judicial branch. With the legislative branch (Congress) already non-functional, the only thing left is executive actions, which themselves are largely restricted by the Constitution. You can’t run a country this size by executive action. Besides, the executive branch is right behind the others in terms of collapsing into non-functionality. It is the duty of a leader to be honest with those he or she leads. When we can not count on our president to admit that two branches of our government are for all practical purposes not functional, the authority and leadership of that office (and by extension the branch) are undermined. The credibility of the individual, and that which that person represents (i.e. the government as a whole) is eliminated.

      This country’s government is irreversibly collapsing, and everyone is afraid to come right out and say it. It is going on right in front of our eyes, but NOBODY has the guts to admit that it is happening. Everyone is all worried about “too big to fail”, but they are ignoring “too big to function” as if there is no such thing. The Emporer has no clothes!

      Our United States must change with the changing times. It is time to de-unionize and become 50 separate and fully autonomous states. We can still have some very close and positive relationships with eachother, we can still work very closely with eachother on issues and difficulties, we could even still have a unified military establishment. But the way things are now, the USA is simply too big an entity to govern in terms of both legislation and finance. If we do not transition to something else early and in a planned and orderly manner, there is nothing that can be done to avert a civil war. This has been demonstrated amply throughout history. If we do nothing, and just allow the country to continue on its course of collapse, the global repercussions will be catastrophic. Yet none of the current presidential candidates, none of them, will even admit that the USA is in an active state of collapse. They all wave the great big red, white, and blue banner that says “Look at the Emporer’s New Clothes, aren’t they splendid!”

      • William Roberts

        You suggest a drastic restructuring of our 239 year-old system of federal governance solution based on a court upholding one person’s wholly non-threatening eccentric belief?

        Why are you so afraid? Does life become more confusing for you as you age?

    • DouglasSKingsley

      Read Now This…I g­­­e­­­­­­­t p­a­i­d­ ­o­v­e­r­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­8­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­7­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­/­­­­­­­­h w­­o­r­k­i­n­g­ ­f­r­o­m­ ­h­o­m­e­ ­w­ith 2 kids at home…I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,…..
      ➤➤➤➤➤➤.
      …………………. Click.Here.To.Read.Full.Detail

    • Anonymiss

      You forgot to mention one important point. She was not wearing the colander before . She put it on just for the photo. There is a big difference between this, and demanding that a Muslim woman not wear a headscarf in her photo. Chances are that the Muslim woman actually wears a headscarf normally throughout the day, she doesn’t just put it on for a photo. Thus, this is a completely different situation. If you dress a certain way normally, you should be able to have your photo resemble that, providing that her face is uncovered for the photo, if she normally coveres it.

  • PythonesqueSpam

    This is fantastic and the irony of how people doing the whining about how wrong this is are embarrassing themselves just makes me chuckle… their seriousness only ups the mirth factor and demonstrates their stupidity, arrogant disregard and intolerance towards religions that are other than their own.

  • thomas foster

    HOW HAVE NONE OF YOU FIGURED THIS OUT it is a fake religion that was made to make fun of religion. she is trolling the news. the flying spaghetti monster is used by atheists to show how stupid religions are. shes just taking it a step further. i myself have used the spaghetti monster

    • Dean Carleton

      Yes, we understand what it is. And if all she was doing is making fun of religion I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But this has gone beyond that. This is tying up the courts and costing taxpayers money. Yes, I understand that religious lawsuits do this as well, but two wrongs don’t make a right. This woman should be fined for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

  • Wesley Andrew Hightower

    Their point is that Religious Freedom belongs to everybody. Even the silly people. This is a parody religion adhered to by Atheists using it as a proof of concept. I see their point in some instances. Grow a sense of humor and see that they have just as much a right to be recognized as a “religion” as anybody else. The Church of Elvis is weirder than Pastafarians IMHO.

    • Dean Carleton

      The problem here is not that of religious freedom, it is a problem of a poorly worded piece of legislation which does not define what religion is. This effort, whether parody or serious, is not a constructive way to address fixing that problem. On the contrary, it is a destructive effort which has the potential to do more harm to society than the problematic legislation casues in the first place. When a mechanic makes a mistake fixing your car, you don’t address the problem by going through the garage and swapping out all the washer fluid containers with motor oil. Yes, you may end up making the point that the mechanics at that garage don’t know the difference and are therefore incompetent, but at the same time you are ruining the cars of many innocent people in the process. No, the way you address the problem is through appropriat channels set up to address those sorts of problems. You go to the mechanic’s boss and tell him what happened. Then you work with him on a solution. In the case of the legislation protecting religious freedoms, you work with your local legislators to come up with a viable legislative solution to present to the American people for a vote. THAT is how the system is designed in America. You don’t go tying up the court system with frivolous lawsuits like this, because all that gets accomplished is that you cost taxpayers money (they don’t tend to like that) and you lessen your chances at accomplishing meaningful change because you make yourselves look foolish and rude. Again…two wrongs don’t make a right here. Acting as if they do is destructive and will only serve to make things worse, not better.

      • PythonesqueSpam

        I think you’re missing the point. I don’t think they are being critical of lack of definition of what a religion is. I think they are being critical religion receiving any special treatment in law. Religion should be a personal and private thing and your rights as an individual to believe should be protected under the law. However, when you try to impinges on the rights of other people or on the machinations of the state based on religious belief, that is where the line must be drawn. Nobody should be able to force others to abide by their religious beliefs, whether that be through the wearing of headgear in government sanctioned identification or refusing to do your job because it involves dealing with someone that you dislike or find offensive for religious reasons.

    • PythonesqueSpam

      You’re correct in that this is a parody of religion but are wrong in labeling them as silly. I think their point is that all religion is silly and shouldn’t be given any credence and certainly no rights under the law outside of your personal right to believe what you want providing it doesn’t impinge on the rights of others.