Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

what is it with the annoying COLOR tags in your posts??

God knows. I don’t put them in, and FWIW they don’t show up on my screen so I have no idea they are there unless someone mentions them, like just now.

Most of my posts I cut and paste from Word; probably Microsoft is to blame.

[/QUOTE]IYHO, of course. I think the point it's trying to make is entirely valid, however silly the method may appear to some. [/QUOTE]
What do you think is the point it’s trying to make?

ninja900 wrote: »

It is on the basis of religion - certain religions get a free pass on the headgear rule.

You seem to think that some religious reasons for headgear are acceptable to the state, while others are not.

I see no evidence that this is so. Nothing on the form suggests it, and I have heard no reports of anyone asking to wear headgear for religious reasons and being refused. So what makes you think that this rule is applied to some and not to others?

ninja900 wrote: »

It is entirely arbitrary - there are no criteria to determine which religions are 'genuine' enough to qualify.

Where are you getting this “genuine enough” notion from? There’s nothing in the policy as announced which suggests that a religion has to be “genuine enough” before the rule can apply.

To come within this rule, the reasons for wearing headgear don’t have to be “genuinely enough religious”, or “genuinely religious”; they just have to be “religious”. That’s what the stated rule says, and if you have reason to think that the rule is not applied that way in practice, now would be a good time to tell us those reasons.

If an applicant wants to wear headgear in his photograph and says that the reason is adherence to pastafarianism and that pastafarianism requires the wearing of headgear at all times, the licensing authority (and, on appeal, the court) has to ascertain three things:

1. Is the applicant an adherent of pastafarianism? His assertion that he is is prima facie evidence, but it’s not irrefutable evidence; it could be countered by evidence showing that the applicant doesn’t generally observe pastafarian precepts, or indeed that he doesn’t do so at all, except when applying for a driving licence.

2. Does pastafarianism require the wearing of colanders at all times? That can be established by evidence about the teachings of pastafarianism and the practices of pastafarians generally.

3. Is pastafarianism a religion? Clearly, this question doesn’t arise just in driving licence cases; it arises in every case involving establishment of religion, the freedom of religious practice and the freedom of religious belief. If you think the question is impossible to answer, or that it is improper for a stage agency to attempt to answer it, the logic of your position has implications for more than just driving licence photographs. You must believe that we can have no legal guarantee of freedom of religious belief, and no legal guarantee of freedom of religious practice, since a court could never find that a particular belief or practice was, or was not, religious. For the same reason we could have no meaningful prohibition on the establishment of religion.

But this is nonsense. Constitutional provisions dealing with the establishment of religion or the freedom of religion are commonplace, and there is a slew of cases from numerous liberal democracies in which the courts tackle questions about whether a particular act is a protected exercise of religion, or a prohibited establishment of religion. Every single one of those cases involves categorising the act concerned as religious or not. That’s a question of fact; courts decide questions of fact all the time.

I think you have to make a choice here. Either you think it is impossible or improper for courts to identify a religion, in which case you must think that constitutional guarantees about freedom of religion and constitutional prohibitions on the establishment of religion are unworkable and possibly objectionable, or you think that these things are possible and desirable, in which case you have to explain why the impossibility of knowing what a religion is only arises in driving licence photograph cases.

Peregrinus

Dave! wrote: »

Who is to determine what is or isn't a religion deserving of the special privileges they receive in this situation? Who distinguishes between a legit religion and a commonly acknowledged 'made up' religion (FSM? Scientology?) ? Who decides that a small cult or some personal belief system commands less privileges than an established one?

These are all arbitrary distinctions, and it looks like the power to make them is devolved to some clerk, or possibly manager, in the RSA. I think we should at least know on what basis these decisions are made, and whether there is any discrimination occuring.

See my reply to ninja above. If you think that, e.g., a constitutional prohibition on the establisment of religion is desirable and meaningful, or a guarantee of free exercise, then you must think that the courts can recognize a religion when they see one. And if you think that's possible in some cases, you need to explain why it mysteriously becomes impossible in a driving licence photograph case.

MadYaker

gizmo555

Yesterday's Guardian (11/12/13) reports on a case in which the UK supreme court wrestled with the issue of what is and is not a religion.

In a judgment published on Wednesday, the court ruled that a Scientology chapel in central London was a "place of meeting for religious worship" and that it would be "discriminatory and unjust" if followers were unable to marry using their own religious service.

If Scientology can be recognised as a religion, it's very hard to see how FSM cannot! :P

robinph

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yesterday's Guardian (11/12/13) reports on a case in which the UK supreme court wrestled with the issue of what is and is not a religion.

In a judgment published on Wednesday, the court ruled that a Scientology chapel in central London was a "place of meeting for religious worship" and that it would be "discriminatory and unjust" if followers were unable to marry using their own religious service.

If Scientology can be recognised as a religion, it's very hard to see how FSM cannot! :P

It doesn't meet the UK Charity Commission requirements of being a religious charity though.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/charitable-purposes-and-public-benefit/guidance-on-charitable-purposes/the-advancement-of-religion/

MrPudding

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yesterday's Guardian (11/12/13) reports on a case in which the UK supreme court wrestled with the issue of what is and is not a religion.

In a judgment published on Wednesday, the court ruled that a Scientology chapel in central London was a "place of meeting for religious worship" and that it would be "discriminatory and unjust" if followers were unable to marry using their own religious service.

If Scientology can be recognised as a religion, it's very hard to see how FSM cannot! :P

The bit in bold makes a point, though not necessarily the one you want to. It shows that the courts do, contrary to what some posters seem to think, make judgements on what is and is not a valid religion.

MrP

gizmo555

MrPudding wrote: »

The bit in bold makes a point, though not necessarily the one you want to. It shows that the courts do, contrary to what some posters seem to think, make judgements on what is and is not a valid religion.

I'm not sure what point you think I want to make, but to be clear I have no strong views on whether FSM should be recognised by the state as a religion and don't much care either way. I'm following this thread mainly for the entertainment value! :pac:

That said, since as you correctly say the UK supreme court has adjudged as a valid religion one which includes in its core tenets a belief in a galactic dictator named Xenu 'who 75 million years ago brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as "Teegeeack") in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs', it shouldn't have much problem with flying spaghetti monsters and beer volcanoes.

robinph wrote: »

It doesn't meet the UK Charity Commission requirements of being a religious charity though.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/charitable-purposes-and-public-benefit/guidance-on-charitable-purposes/the-advancement-of-religion/

A similar issue was raised in the article I linked to:

The local government minister, Brandon Lewis, said his department would be taking legal advice. Lewis said: "I am very concerned about this ruling, and its implication for business rates. In the face of concerns raised by Conservatives in opposition, Labour ministers told parliament during the passage of the equalities bill that Scientology would continue to fall outside the religious exemption for business rates.

"Now we discover Scientology may be eligible for rate relief and that the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill, all thanks to Harriet Harman and Labour's flawed laws. Hard-pressed taxpayers will wonder why Scientology premises should now be given tax cuts when local firms have to pay their fair share."

Dave!

Peregrinus wrote: »

See my reply to ninja above. If you think that, e.g., a constitutional prohibition on the establisment of religion is desirable and meaningful, or a guarantee of free exercise, then you must think that the courts can recognize a religion when they see one. And if you think that's possible in some cases, you need to explain why it mysteriously becomes impossible in a driving licence photograph case.

1. The courts aren't involved at this stage — it's just some person in the RSA making decisions on the legitimacy of one belief system vs. another. What empowers them to make such distinctions?

2. I suspect that such a prohibition would be broad enough in its scope that it would prohibit the establishment of Pastafarianism (a "fake religion") or Scientology or any cult as much as it would Christianity. If it doesn't — and in fact permits the establishment of some new religion that I start tomorrow — then it's certainly discriminatory.

But another analogy would be with the Blasphemy law — the courts may be forced to make a distinction between what is protected and what isn't, but it'll surely be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Beruthiel

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, of course, we must not forget the downside of being stuck, for the next ten years, with a driver’s licence that has you wearing a colander.

This can be easily remedied by wearing a stylish colander.









Get yourself a proper one for the pic UDP!

robindch

Just googled for some pastafarian head-serving suggestions. Gosh, there's a lot out there!

https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=1111&q=pastafarian+in+russia&oq=pastafarian+in+russia&gs_l=img.3...246.5911.0.6055.29.16.0.13.3.0.123.1088.15j1.16.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..11.18.975.S1qJbEUGYQU

Here's a sample, most of them I think, from Russia.

Beruthiel

Oh that one's to die for!

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here is not whether you believe in fairies; it's whether you feel bound by a religious obligation to wear a colander at all times.

I disagree; you just have to be wearing the headgear "for religious reasons". Its formal attire for believers. If you were at home on your own, you wouldn't necessarily wear it around the house. A bit like the hijab then.

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. Is the applicant an adherent of pastafarianism? His assertion that he is is prima facie evidence, but it’s not irrefutable evidence; it could be countered by evidence showing that the applicant doesn’t generally observe pastafarian precepts, or indeed that he doesn’t do so at all, except when applying for a driving licence.

So you think they could send an undercover photographer to spy on you?
If you wore a turban, would they put you through this? If not, why not?
Again we are getting back to your assumption that some religions have greater value than others, and that a clerk has the authority to decide which ones are important enough to allow their special headgear to be worn.

stimpson

recedite wrote: »

I disagree; you just have to be wearing the headgear "for religious reasons". Its formal attire for believers. If you were at home on your own, you wouldn't necessarily wear it around the house. A bit like the hijab then.

So you think they could send an undercover photographer to spy on you?
If you wore a turban, would they put you through this? If not, why not?
Again we are getting back to your assumption that some religions have greater value than others, and that a clerk has the authority to decide which ones are important enough to allow their special headgear to be worn.

Personally, the only reason I feel compelled to wear my holy headgear is when I'm getting my driving licence photo taken. The church is so lacking in dogma that they allow each believer to interpret it's sacred texts and rituals as they see fit.

Days 298

I couldn't really reply properly earlier so I think Ill try again. A post was made that the state gets to decide what is a religion and what wasnt.

So new religions, such as Pastafarian are not allowed in Ireland as sure they are parodies, factless beliefs with no credible evidence?That would mean that the current religions are in an oligopoly?

Days 298 wrote: »

A bunch of people who believe in something illogical without any concrete evidence other than a magic book? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're wrong, but let that pass. If you think you can recognise religion so easily, why do you seem to assume that it would be a problem for atheist Taoiseach to do so?

Where am I wrong?Where do I seem to assume based on one post. Quote it. I cant see it.... I said one sentence yet you have jumped to so many conclusions..

Peregrinus wrote: »

He thinks atheist politicians are characteristically dishonest and oppressive, and will lie if doing so helps them to ignore the principle of freedom of religion?

It's not likely to be a view that finds much support in this forum![what?]

Where the hell did I say that, think that or even imply that. Do tell I am curious as to how you know what I think when you are not me and are basing your belief of what I think and assume on one line.

Its quite annoying to be frank.

Days 298 wrote: »

So the state decides what is a religion. Well I can't wait until an atheist becomes Taoiseach.

All the above accusations based on this one line...:rolleyes:

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I disagree; you just have to be wearing the headgear "for religious reasons". Its formal attire for believers. If you were at home on your own, you wouldn't necessarily wear it around the house. A bit like the hijab then.

That’s true. But you’re still going to have to offer a religious account of your reasons for wearing the colander - an account which an impartial observer is likely to find credible. And this in a context in which pastafarianism is widely recognised to be, and presented as, a parody of religion employed mostly by people who have a very negative view of religion - see for example Days 298’s comments in post #266 in this very thread. Consequently your claim that your reasons are religious is going to have to be extremely persuasive if it’s going to win acceptance.

You seem to think that a court is bound to accept at face value any old sh*te that a witness trots out, regardless of its plausiblity, credibility or even coherence. This is simply not the case.

recedite wrote: »

So you think they could send an undercover photographer to spy on you?

No, I doubt they would do that.

But they could simply ask you in cross-examination, which brings me back to the question I have raised a couple of times but never got an answer to. If you were the applicant in this case, would you be prepared to perjure yourself, to say things that you knew were untrue, with the intention of deceiving, in order to win the case?

And, if the answer is “yes”, what point exactly would your victory be making?

recedite wrote: »

If you wore a turban, would they put you through this? If not, why not?

Probably not. By wearing a turban, you wouldn’t be associating yourself with a trope which is generally critical of, and disrespectful of, religion. Whereas, by wearing a colander, you are doing that. You can see, can’t you, that that casts a certain light on your claim to be wearing a colander for religious reasons? If you offer an account of your reasons for wearing the colander which fails to address this rather obvious problem, people are very unlikely to find it plausible and, if only to offer you an opportunity to remedy the weaknesses in the presentation of your case, they will ask you to address the problem.

recedite wrote: »

Again we are getting back to your assumption that some religions have greater value than others, and that a clerk has the authority to decide which ones are important enough to allow their special headgear to be worn.

This is not my assumption; I wish you’d stop attributing it to me.

It’s not saying that pastafarianism is an unimportant religion. I’m suggesting that it’s not a religion at all; it’s a parody of religion.

Peregrinus

Days 298 wrote: »

I couldn't really reply properly earlier so I think Ill try again. A post was made that the state gets to decide what is a religion and what wasnt.

The point was made that the state has to take a position on that, if there is to be any meaning to constitutional prohibitions on the establishment of religion, or the freedom of religious belief and practice.

Days 298 wrote: »

So new religions, such as Pastafarian are not allowed in Ireland as sure they are parodies, factless beliefs with no credible evidence?That would mean that the current religions are in an oligopoly?

Nobody has said that, or anything like that.

Days 298 wrote: »

Where am I wrong?Where do I seem to assume based on one post. Quote it. I cant see it.... I said one sentence yet you have jumped to so many conclusions..
Where the hell did I say that, think that or even imply that. Do tell I am curious as to how you know what I think when you are not me and are basing your belief of what I think and assume on one line.

Its quite annoying to be frank.

All the above accusations based on this one line...

Well, you clearly think that there’s some problem or issue about the state recognising what religion is at a time when the Taoiseach of the day happens to be an atheist. Since you haven’t bothered to say what you think the problem or issue is, Mr P and I are speculating as to what you think it might be. If you find our speculations annoying, the solution lies in your own hands . . .

Jesus Wept

The original scripture back in the day noted that Pirate uniforms were the worshipping clothing of the dedicated.

So what gives with the strainers? Are you mocking us?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

which brings me back to the question I have raised a couple of times but never got an answer to. If you were the applicant in this case, would you be prepared to perjure yourself, to say things that you knew were untrue, with the intention of deceiving, in order to win the case?
And, if the answer is “yes”, what point exactly would your victory be making?

There are times in a person's life when their faith is tested, and at those times they must be prepared to stand up for what they believe in, no matter what the cost to their personal integrity. When the Lord tested Abraham by commanding him to kill his own son, did Abraham shirk from his duty? Did he say "I can't do that lord, that would be uncool"? No, he rolled up his sleeves and sharpened his knife.
The great Mr. Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and so it is that the true believer must be prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold his faith, even to be a martyr to the sauce.
rrAmen.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not saying that pastafarianism is an unimportant religion. I’m suggesting that it’s not a religion at all; it’s a parody of religion.

That is an offensive remark. I am offended. Deeply offended.

Gordon

Our Year wrote: »

The original scripture back in the day noted that Pirate uniforms were the worshipping clothing of the dedicated.

So what gives with the strainers? Are you mocking us?

This is the helmet of the ground troops, those shining glinting knights on the crusade to marinade The Noodle into all that need Him. They are the Boiled Fussillirs.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

That is an offensive remark. I am offended. Deeply offended.

Blasphemy test case, perchance?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

There are times in a person's life when their faith is tested, and at those times they must be prepared to stand up for what they believe in, no matter what the cost to their personal integrity. When the Lord tested Abraham by commanding him to kill his own son, did Abraham shirk from his duty? Did he say "I can't do that lord, that would be uncool"? No, he rolled up his sleeves and sharpened his knife.
The great Mr. Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and so it is that the true believer must be prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold his faith, even to be a martyr to the sauce.
rrAmen.

That is an offensive remark. I am offended. Deeply offended.

You reinforce my point, recedite. If you took that line in court, the impression created would be that you are ridiculing the accommodations made by the state for the religious sensibilities of citizens.

Or, in other words, that you are ridiculing legal accommodations for the freedom of religious practice.

Which is pretty much the opposite of the point you say you are trying to make.

Which is the point I'm trying to make. People who take the pastafarian argument into this context are not just poking fun at religion; they're poking fun at the idea that the state should accommodate religion. In the US context, they're poking fund at the second amendment; in other countries, at analogous constitutional provisions.

So it's unsurprising that we find them making arguments which tend to undermine legal protections of freedom of religion, and legal prohibitions on the establishment of religion. They're quite happy to attack both of these things, if in doing so they can attack religious belief. But it's disingenuous of them to pretend that they support freedom of religion. Actions speak louder than words.

Markcheese

Getting kind pf scary... And now we can see how religion (not deity worship) and religous tension really started , this thread should be studied as social experiment ....
But to be fair is pastafarianisim any different to the mormon faith or more recently again Scientology (only picked those 2 because they're more recent and we have more history/less myth of their origins and founders)

Peregrinus

Markcheese wrote: »

Getting kind pf scary... And now we can see how religion (not deity worship) and religous tension really started , this thread should be studied as social experiment ....
But to be fair is pastafarianisim any different to the mormon faith or more recently again Scientology (only picked those 2 because they're more recent and we have more history/less myth of their origins and founders)

Of course it is. Neither of the latter two are parodies.

But that does raise a relevant point. Although you can't argue that scientology is a parody, you can argue on other grounds that it's not a religion. And there have been a number of court cases in a variety of countries where this has been thrashed out. It's a pretty borderline case, evidently, since scientology sometimes wins these cases, and sometimes loses.

But the fact that the cases are heard at all, and that judgments are given, puts the kibosh on any argument that courts can't hear and decide such matters. They can, and they do.

Sarky

Pastafarianism's mistake was not nailing its digs at organised religion to a cathedral door and getting its founder excommunicated. That and a few vicious bloody wars. Would have made it a 'real' religion on the spot.

stimpson

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course it is. Neither of the latter two are parodies.

Why do you feel that parody is not something you can base a religion on, whole Science Fiction is perfectly acceptable?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

You reinforce my point, recedite. If you took that line in court, the impression created would be that you are ridiculing the accommodations made by the state for the religious sensibilities of citizens.

If by accommodation, you mean the state treating people differently on the basis of their religion, this is in my view an entirely wrong thing for a supposedly secular state to do.

It's not the same thing as freedom of religion. People are free to worship whatever they like. What they have no right to expect is preferable treatment from the state on the basis of their religion. e.g. Sikhs in the UK are exempt from having to wear motorcyle helmets. You'll find their heads are the same as everyone else's, so what is the rational basis for exempting them from a law which is supposedly essential for public safety?

The reason the exemption was introduced was political - they kicked up a big stink, it risked making the whole law, recently introduced, more unpopular, so the easy way out was to introduce religious discrimination into the law.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course it is. Neither of the latter two are parodies.

But that does raise a relevant point. Although you can't argue that scientology is a parody

Only L.Ron knew for sure. Their professed beliefs are utterly ridiculous even as religions go.

you can argue on other grounds that it's not a religion. And there have been a number of court cases in a variety of countries where this has been thrashed out. It's a pretty borderline case, evidently, since scientology sometimes wins these cases, and sometimes loses.

But the fact that the cases are heard at all, and that judgments are given, puts the kibosh on any argument that courts can't hear and decide such matters. They can, and they do.

The only reason these cases are heard at all is because of the special privileges that states (wrongly, imho) give to religions.

E.g. tax breaks, or the ability to carry out a legally valid marriage without a separate civil ceremony.

J C

This 'Pastafarian' seems to believe that the Monster is made from tinsel ... and not pasta ... so what kind of head-dress does he normally wear, I wonder??

ninja900 wrote: »

He's got four balls :cool: and they're 25mm diameter. I took the first picture on the kitchen floor because I got crap lighting and nasty shadows trying to photograph it next to a wall. The kitchen tiles are 30cm square. I should've included a ruler in the photo

He was really easy to make. I painted the polystyrene balls brown with acrylic paint (ordinary watercolour would do) then put a hole through each one with a skewer and threaded the four of them onto two red tinselly wirey thing (any pasta dish needs sauce) and then it was very easy to construct the rest just twisting the wires together.

The tinselly wires with the eyes on - I bent the ends into a circle around a marker, which was the same size as the googly eyes, then glued them on with contact adhesive.

Hotblack Desiato

Well what do you expect J C - the baby in a crib isn't made out of real baby, it's a representation of the baby Jesus.

Days 298

ninja900 wrote: »

Well what do you expect J C - the baby in a crib isn't made out of real baby, it's a representation of the baby Jesus.

Or was the baby Jesus really made of clay...

Peregrinus

stimpson wrote: »

Why do you feel that parody is not something you can base a religion on, whole Science Fiction is perfectly acceptable?

I didn;t say that science fiction isn't an acceptable basis from a religion; I just pointed out that you can make the argument, and people do make it, and sometimes they succeed.

I agree, it may sometimes be difficult to tell whether something is a relgion or not - there are borderline cases - but that doesn;t mean that the question is incapable of being asked and answered. It's asked and answered all the time.

(As it happens, I don;t think the question of whether pastafarianism is a religion or not is not a particularly difficult one to answer.)