Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.
Options
Comments
-
Jesus Christ was true God and true man ...
... and since you guys are making quite a fuss about religious headgear ...
... it's a fair question to ask whether a colander or a bag of tinsel is the headgear of choice for the fashion-conscious 'Pastafarian'.:D;)
... either way, your Driving Licence is guaranteed to not impress, when you are asked to produce it at that all important interview for that new sales marketing job!!!:eek:0 -
OK. So you don’t believe in freedom of religion.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.
Wait. Now I’m confused!It's not the same thing as freedom of religion. . .
Look, “freedom of religion” is the notion that the law should not force you behave in a way inconsistent with your religious convictions, nor prevent you from behaving in the way your religious convictions require. So, if you’re a Quaker, freedom of religion requires that you have an exemption from being drafted into the combat forces. If you’re a Jew, freedom of religion requires that you not be served prison meals containing pork. If you’re a Christian, freedom of religion requires that laws controlling the distribution and consumption of alcohol should not impede the sacramental use of wine. And so forth.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.
It’s not an absolute principle. Freedom of religion may conflict with other principles, and some compromise may have to be found. Your right to practice human sacrifice can’t prevail over my right to life. Other people’s rights, or other sufficiently strong public interests, can sometimes prevail over your freedom of religion. That doesn’t mean that you have no freedom of religion, or that freedom of religion isn’t important.
Of course it was political. Freedom of relgion is a political principle, remember; it’s about what the state may or may not do, should or should not do. This is an inherently political question. All decisions to accommodate religious convictions in state law are political decisions - as are all decisions not to.. . . 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 . . .
In the motorcycle case, there’s a balance to be struck between the Sikh’s right to wear a turban (which necessitates a corollary right not to wear a helmet) versus the public interest in reducing head injuries. It’s relevant, I think, that the negative costs of not wearing a helmet – viz., an increased rsik of head injury – would largely fall on the individual concerned, rather than on others. While the state does have an interest in you not injuring yourself, it has a much stronger interest in you not injuring other people. So this wasn’t a case of Sikh principles trespassing on the rights of others, and that undoubtedly affected the balance struck. It was also relevant that Sikhs had long served in the British armed forces without being required to wear the tin hat – they still do – and if the state had been happy to send entire regiments of Sikhs into battle wearing turbans, it was a bit rich to tell them that they couldn’t ride motorcycles wearing turbans.
As it happens, the motorcycle helmet issue might equally have been resolved the other way – different US states and different Canadian provinces go different ways on this, though they all have constitutional protections for the freedom of religion. The point is that in all these states and provinces there was an issue; it was recognised that people’s religious sensibilities mattered, that the state had to take account of them, that a balance had to be struck between accommodating their religious convictions and protecting the public interest, and that people who felt the wrong balance had been struck had recourse to the courts. In your framework, however, their religious convictions would simply be ignored. The state would take no account of them in framing its legislation, and they would have no basis for objecting to this. That’s not any kind of political freedom of religion that the western liberal tradition would recognise.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »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.)
But the question is why Pastafarisnism isn't a religion. You need to come up with a definition of religion that excludes Pastafarianism but includes all others.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »OK. So you don’t believe in freedom of religion.
Your definition of freedom of religion is bizarre, frankly.
Everyone has the right to worship how they wish in the private sphere; but everyone, religious or not, is constrained as to how they act in the public sphere by laws enacted for the common good.
You appear to think that the state should be willing to bend over backwards for any special treatment a religious group insists on; a 'proper' religious group of course not pastafarians...Look, “freedom of religion” is the notion that the law should not force you behave in a way inconsistent with your religious convictions, nor prevent you from behaving in the way your religious convictions require.
I couldn't get a free pass on sacrificing lambs on my front lawn just because of a religion; anti-social and/or behaviour which harms others should be illegal regardless of religion. Behaviour which does not harm other people should be legal regardless of religion.So, if you’re a Quaker, freedom of religion requires that you have an exemption from being drafted into the combat forces. If you’re a Jew, freedom of religion requires that you not be served prison meals containing pork. If you’re a Christian, freedom of religion requires that laws controlling the distribution and consumption of alcohol should not impede the sacramental use of wine. And so forth.
Banning individuals from consuming alcohol (religious ceremony or not) is not justifiable in a free society.
Quakers, ultra-orthodox Jews or any other group who object to conscription into armed forces should be allowed serve in some other way. These objections often have nothing to do with religion. And conscription is a large intrusion into the rights of the individual, so the state should have strong justification for enforcing it on anyone.
Everyone has the right to refuse certain foods, and this is often not on religious grounds either. Vegetarianism is not a religion.
You have not demonstrated in any of your examples that religions deserve special treatment over and above the rights (and duties) which apply to everyone.In the motorcycle case, there’s a balance to be struck between the Sikh’s right to wear a turban (which necessitates a corollary right not to wear a helmet) versus the public interest in reducing head injuries. It’s relevant, I think, that the negative costs of not wearing a helmet – viz., an increased rsik of head injury – would largely fall on the individual concerned, rather than on others. While the state does have an interest in you not injuring yourself, it has a much stronger interest in you not injuring other people. So this wasn’t a case of Sikh principles trespassing on the rights of others, and that undoubtedly affected the balance struck.
This is a good argument for abolishing the law for everyone. If the law was truly necessary then there would be no possible justification for exceptions.As it happens, the motorcycle helmet issue might equally have been resolved the other way – different US states and different Canadian provinces go different ways on this, though they all have constitutional protections for the freedom of religion.
I don't know about Canada, but many US states do not require mandatory helmet use by fully qualified, adult, insured, riders. Nothing to do with religion but with the principle of individual liberty upon which that country was supposedly founded.In your framework, however, their religious convictions would simply be ignored. The state would take no account of them in framing its legislation, and they would have no basis for objecting to this. That’s not any kind of political freedom of religion that the western liberal tradition would recognise.
No, the law must be applied the same to everyone. If this cannot be justified, then the law cannot be justified for anyone. Religion is no basis for giving people individual rights - they should have these rights anyway regardless of religion.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »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.
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?
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.
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.
would a parody of religion not still be a 'religious reason'?
It does not state that you have to actually believe but only to have a religious reason for doing so0 -
Advertisement
-
But this is what freedom of and from religion is.Your definition of freedom of religion is bizarre, frankly.
Everyone has the right to worship how they wish in the private sphere; but everyone, religious or not, is constrained as to how they act in the public sphere by laws enacted for the common good.
You appear to think that the state should be willing to bend over backwards for any special treatment a religious group insists on; a 'proper' religious group of course not pastafarians...
Whether we like it or not, freedom of and from religion is a right. The natural extension of this is that certain manifestations flowing from that right, when they do not impinge on certain of other people's rights, are also protected.
You are, of course, correct to say that people are constrained in how they manifest their religion in public, but this does not mean they have no right to manifest it in public.
Of course, some people do believe the state should bend over backwards to accommodate the religious and their manifestations. Personally I don't believe this should be the case, nor do I believe it is the case.
Agreed. And for the most part this is the case.I couldn't get a free pass on sacrificing lambs on my front lawn just because of a religion; anti-social and/or behaviour which harms others should be illegal regardless of religion. Behaviour which does not harm other people should be legal regardless of religion.
I would tend to agree, but I can also conceive of situations where restriction might be justifiable for other reasons, public health, or the general good, for example.Banning individuals from consuming alcohol (religious ceremony or not) is not justifiable in a free society.
I agree that conscription is a pretty large intrusion, but the fact remains that countries that do maintain conscription do often have exceptions for the religious. I would suggest that it would also be appropriate for such exceptions to be granted for those that object for other, equally valid, non-religious reasons. I am not sure if such exceptions do exist, and I am not really in a position to research the topic right now.Quakers, ultra-orthodox Jews or any other group who object to conscription into armed forces should be allowed serve in some other way. These objections often have nothing to do with religion. And conscription is a large intrusion into the rights of the individual, so the state should have strong justification for enforcing it on anyone.
It may not be possible for Peregrinus, or anyone else for that matter, to satisfactorily demonstrate, to you, that the religious deserve special treatment, or special dispensations in certain areas. I am an atheist and anti-theist, but I still accept that there should be certain exceptions made for the religious in certain areas. I believe that these exceptions should end when they interfere with another's superior right, but I would not advocate the removal of the exceptions completely.Everyone has the right to refuse certain foods, and this is often not on religious grounds either. Vegetarianism is not a religion.
You have not demonstrated in any of your examples that religions deserve special treatment over and above the rights (and duties) which apply to everyone.
This is not a good argument for abolishing the law for everyone. As Peregrinus says, the state does have an interest in reducing harm in general. This does not mean that it can't make exceptions to accommodate people, particularly if the number being accommodated is small, but the fact that it is able to make accommodations of not invalidate the law. I am not sure of the number of Sikhs that tale advantage of this exception, but I can't imagine there are huge numbers.This is a good argument for abolishing the law for everyone. If the law was truly necessary then there would be no possible justification for exceptions.
Quite true, but not really relevant to this discussion where the right not to wear the helmet is religious in origin.I don't know about Canada, but many US states do not require mandatory helmet use by fully qualified, adult, insured, riders. Nothing to do with religion but with the principle of individual liberty upon which that country was supposedly founded.
Interestingly, perhaps, I was told by an American that insurers in the states where there are no helmet laws are strong lobbyists for people's right to not wear helmets. Apparently this is more to do with the fact that riders that don't wear helmets are cheaper, from a medical expenses perspective, as they are more likely to die and therefore not require expensive intensive care or long term physiotherapy or support. Not sure of the truth in this, but nothing would surprise me when it comes to insurance companies. Also, not really relevant to the topic at hand, but I do find it interesting.
Well this is simply not the case. Law cannot be applied the same to everyone, law is a fairly blunt instrument as it is, but if each law was to apply to each person equally we would not be living in a very happy place.No, the law must be applied the same to everyone. If this cannot be justified, then the law cannot be justified for anyone. Religion is no basis for giving people individual rights - they should have these rights anyway regardless of religion.
Religion is a basis for making exceptions, as is sexuality, race, pregnancy etc.
MrP0 -
I am not aware of any Irish cases but in the UK, as I mentioned in previous posts, the courts have interpreted religious belief to mean genuinely held religious belief.norrie rugger wrote: »would a parody of religion not still be a 'religious reason'?
It does not state that you have to actually believe but only to have a religious reason for doing so
That said, in an employment case, the name of which eludes me, religious belief was extended to included a genuinely held philosophical belief. The case involved a guy that did not want to travel for business because he had very stronly held ecological beliefs and felt that air travel was damaging.
The court probed his belief and found it to be genuinely held and was therefore protected as would a religious belief.
Perhaps pastafarianism could be argued along such lines...
MrP0 -
Yes, with you so far. But you need to remember that , in the standard conception of human rights which prevails in the western world, the right of people to live in accordance with their religious beliefs and convictions is an aspect of the common good.Your definition of freedom of religion is bizarre, frankly.
Everyone has the right to worship how they wish in the private sphere; but everyone, religious or not, is constrained as to how they act in the public sphere by laws enacted for the common good.
Oh, b*lls on a stick; I never said anything that you justify you forming this view. I said in fact precisely the opposite; that the tension between freedom of religion, other freedoms and other public interests had to be negotiated, and that freedom of religion would often have to give way to other interests.Your You appear to think that the state should be willing to bend over backwards for any special treatment a religious group insists on; a 'proper' religious group of course not pastafarians...
Yes, I haven’t suggested otherwise, as you’ll note if you reread my post more carefully.I couldn't get a free pass on sacrificing lambs on my front lawn just because of a religion; anti-social and/or behaviour which harms others should be illegal regardless of religion. Behaviour which does not harm other people should be legal regardless of religion.
Possibly so, but where did I mention societies which ban individuals from consuming alcohol?Banning individuals from consuming alcohol (religious ceremony or not) is not justifiable in a free society.
All societies control the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol. They do this in various ways and with various degrees of strictness. And they all, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia, accommodate the sacramental use of wine. It won’t have escaped your attention that churches don’t just use sacramental wine; the distribute it to members of the public who come into their churches. Anyone else who supplies alcohol to the public for consumption on the premises need a licence, and needs to comply with a comprehensive regulatory regime. But if there’s a society in the world which requires a church to have the same licence as a pub or a hotel, now would be a good time for you to point to it.
Allowing them to serve “in some other way” is a special accommodation just as much as allowing them not to serve at all, surely? And, if not, why not?Quakers, ultra-orthodox Jews or any other group who object to conscription into armed forces should be allowed serve in some other way.
I’m not trying to persuade you that it does. I’m not responsible for your beliefs; you are. I’m just pointing out the factual truth (a) that the freedom of religion has long been recognised as an important value in the western liberal tradition, and (b) that, in that tradition, “freedom of religion” is not limited to the freedom to believe what you want and the freedom to worship how you want; it extends to the freedom to live in accordance with your beliefs and convictions.You have not demonstrated in any of your examples that religions deserve special treatment over and above the rights (and duties) which apply to everyone.
Go off and read some actual real-life freedom of religion cases. Google is at your disposal, and there are literally hundreds of such cases from the US alone. Virtually every single one of them involves a dispute about how people behave, not about what they believe or how they worship.
Indeed. And the founders were explicit in their understanding that that “invididual liberty” had to include “the free exercise of relgion”. Note that word “exercise”. Think about what it means. And if you’re in any doubt about what it means, have a read of a few of the cases as I suggested earlier. That will rapidly disabuse you of the notion that it simply means the freedom to worship as you wish.I don't know about Canada, but many US states do not require mandatory helmet use by fully qualified, adult, insured, riders. Nothing to do with religion but with the principle of individual liberty upon which that country was supposedly founded.
Note that I'm not particularly concerned that you should agree with me about this. In a way, your current position is making my case for me. I'm saying that those who advance a pastafarian argument in support of allowing colanders in licence photographs do not, despite their protestations, believe in freedom of religion. And you're showing that, right enough, you don't believe in freedom of religion. At best, you believe only in a very watered-down notion which protects only religious worship, which the western liberal tradition simply would not recognise as freedom of religion.0 -
Actually no, I don’t. I’m not taking any court case here. The onus of proof will lie on the person who takes the case. If he chooses to fight it on freedom of religion grounds, the onus will be on him to persuade the court that pastafarianism is a religion. He’s going to have to proffer a definition (or better, look at definitions previously accepted by the court) and then satisfy the court that they should use that definition, and that pastafarianism comes within it.But the question is why Pastafarisnism isn't a religion. You need to come up with a definition of religion that excludes Pastafarianism but includes all others.
I’m not going to reread the whole thread, but from memory the only person who has even attempted a definition is Days 298 in post 266, and I think we can all agree that that definition is not one which a court would accept and apply.
Look, the conceit behind the suggestion that pastafarianism must be accepted as a religion is the idea that genuine religion can’t be distinguished from a parody of itself (therefore religions is silly, therefore religions people are silly, chortle, chortle). But, amusing as the conceit may be, it has to give way before the facts; most people have no difficulty at all in identifying pastafarianism as a parody of religion rather than as a religion. And those who maintain that a court could not make that distinction really need to advance some evidence, or at least some coherent argument, in support of that claim. At the very least, they’d be wise to try to put together a bit of evidence, and a coherent argument, before launching any court case.
Besides, think about the implications of insisting that pastarianism is a genuine religion. If you were a true devotee of pastafarianism, stimpson, you’d know a little of the history of the movement. And you’d know that it was started in response to an attempt to introduce “intelligent design” into science classes in Kansas. The basic idea is that intelligent design is science in the same way that pastafarianism is religion. But if you insist that pastafarianism is, in fact, religion then the corollary would be that intelligent design is, in fact, science. Is that a corollary you’re entirely comfortable with?0 -
... only problem is that pastafarianism isn't genuinely held as a religious belief ...I am not aware of any Irish cases but in the UK, as I mentioned in previous posts, the courts have interpreted religious belief to mean genuinely held religious belief.
That said, in an employment case, the name of which eludes me, religious belief was extended to included a genuinely held philosophical belief. The case involved a guy that did not want to travel for business because he had very stronly held ecological beliefs and felt that air travel was damaging.
The court probed his belief and found it to be genuinely held and was therefore protected as would a religious belief.
Perhaps pastafarianism could be argued along such lines...
MrP
... and there may be some jobs that people of a particular religion (or ethical viewpoint) cannot do ... and it wouldn't be discrimination not to employ them to do them e.g. a job in an abbatoir killing pigs might not be suitable for a Muslim or a Jew (or a Vegetarian) ... but they couldn't apply for and get the job ... and then 'down tools' (and expect to remain employed) on the basis that the job offended their religious or ethical principles.
The same could equally be true for a Christian with strong objections to say, Sunday work ... if a job clearly involved working on a Sunday then IMO it wouldn't be discriminatory to expect the Christian to work in the job on a Sunday - and if they didn't, then they couldn't expect to remain employed while refusing to work.
Equally, a Creationist employed in research into evolution (and many are) couldn't suddenly decide that it offended their beliefs and expect to remain employed at this work ... they would be expected to do the work to the standard set by the institution employing them and to do so wholeheartedly and without allowing any reservations they might have, to interfere with the performance of their work.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Actually no, I don’t. I’m not taking any court case here. The onus of proof will lie on the person who takes the case. If he chooses to fight it on freedom of religion grounds, the onus will be on him to persuade the court that pastafarianism is a religion. He’s going to have to proffer a definition (or better, look at definitions previously accepted by the court) and then satisfy the court that they should use that definition, and that pastafarianism comes within it.
I’m not going to reread the whole thread, but from memory the only person who has even attempted a definition is Days 298 in post 266, and I think we can all agree that that definition is not one which a court would accept and apply.
Look, the conceit behind the suggestion that pastafarianism must be accepted as a religion is the idea that genuine religion can’t be distinguished from a parody of itself (therefore religions is silly, therefore religions people are silly, chortle, chortle). But, amusing as the conceit may be, it has to give way before the facts; most people have no difficulty at all in identifying pastafarianism as a parody of religion rather than as a religion. And those who maintain that a court could not make that distinction really need to advance some evidence, or at least some coherent argument, in support of that claim. At the very least, they’d be wise to try to put together a bit of evidence, and a coherent argument, before launching any court case.
Besides, think about the implications of insisting that pastarianism is a genuine religion. If you were a true devotee of pastafarianism, stimpson, you’d know a little of the history of the movement. And you’d know that it was started in response to an attempt to introduce “intelligent design” into science classes in Kansas. The basic idea is that intelligent design is science in the same way that pastafarianism is religion. But if you insist that pastafarianism is, in fact, religion then the corollary would be that intelligent design is, in fact, science. Is that a corollary you’re entirely comfortable with?
Thats a very long winded way of avoiding the question. You stated that it would be easy to decide whether it was a religion or not. I just want to know what criteria you use.0 -
Any genuinely held belief could be a religious belief ... for example, any of the beliefs of the varieties of Secular Atheism or any of the beliefs of the varieties of Theism.:)Thats a very long winded way of avoiding the question. You stated that it would be easy to decide whether it was a religion or not. I just want to know what criteria you use.0 -
-
Law cannot be applied the same to everyone, law is a fairly blunt instrument as it is, but if each law was to apply to each person equally we would not be living in a very happy place.
Religion is a basis for making exceptions, as is sexuality, race, pregnancy etc.
MrP
Exceptions and exemptions are euphemisms for discrimination.
Are you advocating sexual, religious and racial exceptions, or just saying they exist?
Any law that needs to "know" a person's race before it can be applied to them is a racist law.
An example of such a racist law is that only the Sami are allowed to herd reindeer in Norway.
Any law that needs to "know" a person's sex before it can be applied to them is a sexist law.
An example of such a sexist law is a political "gender quota".
There should be no racial exemptions, or sexual or religious ones.
I don't care if I'm allowed to herd reindeer in Norway or not; what I want is for my race not to be the reason I'm not allowed to herd reindeer.
When it comes to hats in driving license photos, I don't know if they should be allowed or not. But I really really really don't want the law to have to "know" a person's religion before it can be applied to them. It's a red flag for discrimination.0 -
Oh, it's easy to see that pastafarianism is not regarded as a religion. I'm surprised at you asking me to demonstrate it; could you not work it out for yourself?Thats a very long winded way of avoiding the question. You stated that it would be easy to decide whether it was a religion or not. I just want to know what criteria you use.
We don't have to look very far for some pointers. Just have a browse around the "Atheism and Agnosticism" board, and see the contrast between the way the denizens here talk about pastafarianism on the one hand, and various religions on the other. It's quite obvious that they regard it as an entirely different class of a thing. They generally speak favourably of it, they're amused by it, they frequently identify with it in a light-hearted way, and clearly consider that identifying with pastafarianism in no way comprises their identiy as atheists, agnostics or non-religious people. This is not how they speak about religion. Does that not arouse your suspicions at all?
There's abundant evidence that pastafarianism is a parody, and widely regarded as such; you're sitting in it. By contrast, there's not a shred of evidence that it's regarded as a religion. Even in A&A, the home of evidence-based belief, even in this very thread, even those people who insist that it should be regarded as a religion make no attempt to adduce evidence that it is. They just assert that it's a religion, and then insist that a court would have to accept their assertion, because nobody can prove it wrong. But "you can't prove it wrong, so it must be so!" is not a good argument for the existence of God - and it isn't - and it's no better here.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Oh, it;'s easy to see that pastafarianism is not regarded as a religion. I'm surprised at you asking me to demonstrate it; could you not work it out for yourself?
We don;t have to look very far for some pointers. Just have a browse around the "Atheism and Agnosticism" board, and see the contrast between the way the denizens here talk about pastafarianism on the one hand, and various religions on the other. It's quite obvious that they regard it as an entirely different class of a thing. They generally speak favourably of it, they're amused by it, they frequently identify with it in a light-hearted way, and clearly consider that identifying with pastafarianism in no way comprises their identiy as atheists, agnostics or non-religious people. This is not how they speak about religion. Does that not arouse your suspicions at all?
There's abundant evidence that pastafarianism is a parody, and widely regarded as such; you're sitting in it. By contrast, there's not a shred of evidence that it's regarded as a religion. Even in A&A, the home of evidence-based belief, even in this very thread, even those people who insist that it should be regarded as a religion make no attempt to adduce evidence that it is. They just assert that it's a religion, and then insist that a court would have to accept their assertion, because nobody can prove it wrong. But "you can't prove it wrong, so it must be so!" is not a good argument for the existence of God - and it isn't - and it's no better here.
Why is Scientology a religion and Pastafarianism not?0 -
Both.Absoluvely wrote: »Exceptions and exemptions are euphemisms for discrimination.
Are you advocating sexual, religious and racial exceptions, or just saying they exist?
Really? How about a law that says an employer can't sack a person because he is black?Absoluvely wrote: »Any law that needs to "know" a person's race before it can be applied to them is a racist law.
I don't know anything about that law, so I can't really comment.Absoluvely wrote: »An example of such a racist law is that only the Sami are allowed to herd reindeer in Norway.
Really? How about a law that says and employer can't sack a person because she is a woman?Absoluvely wrote: »Any law that needs to "know" a person's sex before it can be applied to them is a sexist law.
What is the purpose for such a gender quota?Absoluvely wrote: »An example of such a sexist law is a political "gender quota".
Unless I am picking you up completely wrong, which is a distinct possibility, this is ridiculous.Absoluvely wrote: »There should be no racial exemptions, or sexual or religious ones.
I am not sure I really know where to begin here...Absoluvely wrote: »I don't care if I'm allowed to herd reindeer in Norway or not; what I want is for my race not to be the reason I'm not allowed to herd reindeer.
When it comes to hats in driving license photos, I don't know if they should be allowed or not. But I really really really don't want the law to have to "know" a person's religion before it can be applied to them. It's a red flag for discrimination.
MrP0 -
Hardly euphemsisms, Absoluvely. In any instance in which we treat two things in different ways we are discriminating between them.Absoluvely wrote: »Exceptions and exemptions are euphemisms for discrimination.
So, no separate toilets for men and women, then? 'Cause that involves, you know, distinguishing between men and women and treating them differently on account of sex which is, well, discrimination.Absoluvely wrote: »There should be no racial exemptions, or sexual or religious ones.
You've fallen into the common error of assuming that in all cases "discrimination" = "bad". Discrimination may well be useful or even necessary in order to protect rights or advance important public interests, and the free exercise of religion is widely recognised as one of these. Separate toilets is another.
You don't have to agree, of course, that this is right; you can take a different view. You are entitled to. But you should recognise that, in doing so, you are rejecting freedom of religion as long accepted and understood in the western liberal tradition. And, relevant to the context of the current thread, you probably need to accept that your view is not one which is likely to find favour in a courtroom in any western democracy. Anyone arguing this case in a courtroom dooms himself to irrelevance if he proceeds on the basis that the state simply cannot recognise religion for any public purpose.0 -
Becuase some scientologists went to court and the judgement said that it was a religion.smee again wrote: »Why is Scientology a religion and Pastafarianism not?
MrP0 -
I haven't said that scientology is a religion. In my view, whether pastafarianism is a religion does not depend on whether scientology is. If you think the two questions must have the same answer I will be interested to read why you think so.smee again wrote: »Why is Scientology a religion and Pastafarianism not?0 -
Advertisement
-
I assume he is refering to this:Peregrinus wrote: »I haven't said that scientology is a religion. In my view, whether pastafarianism is a religion does not depend on whether scientology is. If you think the two questions must have the same answer I will be interested to read why you think so.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/woman-wins-marry-church-scientology
MrP0 -
To which I would suggest that parody is part of Pastafarianism and by accepting, perhaps even declaring this, one is adhering to the True Spirit of the religion, in the Truest sense of The Word.That said, in an employment case, the name of which eludes me, religious belief was extended to included a genuinely held philosophical belief. The case involved a guy that did not want to travel for business because he had very stronly held ecological beliefs and felt that air travel was damaging. The court probed his belief and found it to be genuinely held and was therefore protected as would a religious belief.
Perhaps pastafarianism could be argued along such lines...0 -
How about a law that says an employer can't sack a person because he is black?
How about a law that says and employer can't sack a person because she is a woman?
These two sentences are highly ambiguous, which is problematic. A negative statement followed with "because" introduces extraneous and conflicting meanings. I'll just say that sacking a person on the grounds of their sex or race should be illegal. I doubt we're in disagreement on that.
Presumably it's to approximately match the number of women on a certain political level with the number of men on that same level. Its purpose is entirely irrelevant though, isn't it?What is the purpose for such a gender quota?Peregrinus wrote: »Hardly euphemsisms, Absoluvely. In any instance in which we treat two things in different ways we are discriminating between them.
In its broadest sense, discriminating means discerning. Discerning on sexual or racial grounds should not be necessary to enforce any law. Discerning on other grounds (e.g. sending a person to prison or not on the basis of whether that person has committed a crime or not) obviously is important and necessary. It's an incredibly simple idea. Please don't pretend you're not able to understand it.
Providing toilets for men and toilets for women does not involve discerning on whether a person is a man or a woman.So, no separate toilets for men and women, then? 'Cause that involves, you know, distinguishing between men and women and treating them differently on account of sex which is, well, discrimination.
You've fallen into the common error of assuming that in all cases "discrimination" = "bad". Discrimination may well be useful or even necessary in order to protect rights or advance important public interests, and the free exercise of religion is widely recognised as one of these. Separate toilets is another.
And I'm not aware of any law against people using toilets that weren't sexually assigned to them.You don't have to agree, of course, that this is right; you can take a different view. You are entitled to. But you should recognise that, in doing so, you are rejecting freedom of religion as long accepted and understood in the western liberal tradition. And, relevant to the context of the current thread, you probably need to accept that your view is not one which is likely to find favour in a courtroom in any western democracy. Anyone arguing this case in a courtroom dooms himself to irrelevance if he proceeds on the basis that the state simply cannot recognise religion for any public purpose.
Contrary to what you'd have us believe, freedom of religion does not necessitate statutory discrimination between religions. You're simply fighting against equal legal rights for people of different religions and sexes.Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A bishop is (presumably) allowed to wear a mitre in a driving license photo, but I amn't allowed to wear the same mitre in a driving license photo. There's no fair and logical defence of this position.0 -
To which I would suggest that parody is part of Pastafarianism and by accepting, perhaps even declaring this, one is adhering to the True Spirit of the religion, in the Truest sense of The Word.
I really don't know to be honest. If it went to court I think it would be really difficult. As has been pointed out by Peregrinus, evidence would have to be adduced to support the idea it is a religion. I think it would be difficult for the court to get beyond the parody aspect. The main problem being the interpretation that has developed for religion, that it should be genuinely held. That a religion is a parody makes it difficult to argue that it is something that can be genuinely beleived in which is religious in nature.
As for the philisphical angle, I really don't know. The most relevent case I am aware of is that of Tim Nicholson. His environmental views were held to be worthy of protection. The Guardian did a reasonable job of reporting the case:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief
The judge proposed 5 tests:- The belief must be genuinely held.
- It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.
- It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.
- It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
- It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
He went on to suggest that Humanism could qualify, but a belief in the awesomeness of Jedi Knights would not. I would suggest that pastafarianism would probably fall under the same catagory as the Jedi.
MrP0 -
Number 5 all by itself has some serious problems. Whether something is worthy of respect is pretty ambiguous.0
-
I thought you said there should be no laws where a person's sex or race had to be known?Absoluvely wrote: »These two sentences are highly ambiguous, which is problematic. A negative statement followed with "because" introduces extraneous and conflicting meanings. I'll just say that sacking a person on the grounds of their sex or race should be illegal. I doubt we're in disagreement on that.
Or to correct previous discrimination that that particular sex suffered from? I am not 100% sure how I feel about positive discrimination, to be honest, but I am willing to accept that it probably does have it place, in certain circumstances.Absoluvely wrote: »Presumably it's to approximately match the number of women on a certain political level with the number of men on that same level. Its purpose is entirely irrelevant though, isn't it?
MrP0 -
The judge proposed 5 tests:
1 The belief must be genuinely held.
By how many people?2 It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.
Did a judge just declare that a religious belief cannot be, by definition, based on information?3 It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.
Did he define "weighty and substantial aspect of human life"? Surely if someone believes that their god is telling them to do something, then that thing, no matter how inane it may looks to others, becomes a "weighty and substantial aspect of human life".4 It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
Did he define those levels? It can be easily argued that all religions fail cogency and coherence, and seriousness and importance fail for the same reason as "weighty and substantial aspect of human life" fails.5 It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Again, it can be easily argued that all religions fail the second and third requirements here, and therefore fail the first.0 -
Bang on.I thought you said there should be no laws where a person's sex or race had to be known?
An employer's sex or race is not relevant to whether <their firing of an employee due to the employee's sex or race> should be illegal.
The employee's sex or race isn't either. If it is provable that the employer's firing of an employee was sexually or racially motivated, the sex or race in the case is irrelevant.
I want one set of laws that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, race, and religion. It's very simple. You can still have higher taxation for higher earners (an example of discerning on relevant grounds), but things like sex, race and religion should not be grounds for giving people different laws and rights.0 -
Or to correct previous discrimination that that particular sex suffered from? I am not 100% sure how I feel about positive discrimination, to be honest, but I am willing to accept that it probably does have it place, in certain circumstances.
MrP
If gender quotas are supposed to be some kind of reparations, that's even worse. But still irrelevant.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I haven't said that scientology is a religion. In my view, whether pastafarianism is a religion does not depend on whether scientology is. If you think the two questions must have the same answer I will be interested to read why you think so.
Isn't that the whole point of this? Pastafarianism is of course a parody—but Scientology is 100% as transparently made up, yet is recognised as a religion in the UK and other jurisdictions. So if for argument's sake Scientology were recognised in Ireland, and their leaders decided to introduce a new teaching which required adherents to wear a giant penis-hat at all times (naturally, as in any religion, some people will feel it is sacrilege to not wear it; others won't take it seriously), then the State would have to accommodate it.
But I think more important is that this kind of accommodation is only extended to established religions. Lots of people would profess to have some sort of vague "spiritualty", or indeed to have some sort of personal relationship with God which does not necessitate membership of a Church. They might have their own interpretation of the Bible or Koran, and they might even share it with a small number of people. I can't say that I'm sure of the law here, but would these people be accommodated, or would they not fall under the umbrella because they happen to number just a few, or to be individuals?
The question isn't whether or not the courts can or do determine whether something is a religion or not, but whether it is fair that they should.0
Advertisement