Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, from the OP, the topic, surely, is whether pastafarians have a legal right to wear colanders in their driving licence photographs in Ireland?

Yeah and at this stage the only way this can be found out is challenge the RSA on this and actually find out and pursue the matter.

You can guess this and that until the cows come home, its not going to answer anything.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah and at this stage the only way this can be found out is challenge the RSA on this and actually find out and pursue the matter.

You can guess this and that until the cows come home, its not going to answer anything.

Sure it is. You can look at what the law actually says, you can identify the legal and constitutional issues involved in interpreting that law, you can look at how similar legislation has been interpreted and applied in other countries. You can discuss whether the law ought to make exceptions for religious sensibilities, and if so why, or if not, why not.

Some of this might actually be helpful to UDP, you know. He's the one whose bringing the application; he's going to have to mount an argument that the interpretation put forward by the licensing authority is wrong. He'll find plenty of material in this thread which will be useful to him in putting together that argument.

Some people may not enjoy reading the stuff that's been posted here, but their remedy is obvious; don't read it. By the standards of a lot of the threads in A&A, this one has stayed remarkably on-topic.

norrie rugger

Cabaal wrote: »

I started the thread and really its gotten derailed in a big way at this stage with alot of nonsense back n forth, I'd like the thread to very much stay on topic and not turn into this silly tit for tat

Tee hee, you said tit

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

When the regulations were first passed, in 2003, they had afforded protection to “any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief”, but they were amended in 2007, and it was the amended regulations which applied to Nicholson’s case. The amendment was made, apparently, because of a view that at least some non-religious people would object to the implications that their views were only worthy of protection to the extent that they were “similar” to religion; religion was being treated as a kind of gold standard. Hence the new wording which independently protects (a) religion, (b) religious belief and (c) philosophical belief.

Ok, I think I understand know - the law specifically separates religious from philosophical belief and that judges tests were only for philosophical beliefs.

But does that mean the tests wouldn't therefore apply to a pastafarian trying to justify his/her religious beliefs in court?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, I think I understand know - the law specifically separates religious from philosophical belief and that judges tests were only for philosophical beliefs.

"Separates" is not quite the word, I think. The law in question protected both religious and philosophical beliefs, so in that sense they weren't separated; they were treated the same. Mr Nicholson sought a remedy on the basis that his views were a philosophical belief. In order to succeed, he did not have to show that they were similar to a religious belief.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But does that mean the tests wouldn't therefore apply to a pastafarian trying to justify his/her religious beliefs in court?

I think it would mean that, yes. The challenge for a pastafarian would be to show that his stated beliefs were religious beliefs. And I think, for reasons already discussed, that on the face of it this is not a very plausible claim, which means that the burden of showing it to be the case is not a trivial one.

If the case went all the way to the High Court - UDP's application won't, I think - you might then get a judgment like Nicholson, except that instead of the court articulating a comprehensive set of tests to help decide whether a particular belief came within the protection the legislation gives to "philosophical beliefs", you'd get a set of tests to help decide whether a particular stance was a religion or not.

Or, you might not get that kind of judgment. The judgments which attempt to articulate comprehensive general rules that will be useful in cases other than the one immediately before the court tend to be given in cases where the facts really are borderline, and the decision is difficult. No offence to UDP, but I have to say that pastafarianism, as exemplified by UDP, does not look to me as if it is on the borders of being a religion; it's quite a distance away.

Basically, it comes down to this; I don't have to set out rules that will allow people to decide exactly when lavender becomes mauve before I can say that scarlet is not navy blue. I only need to talk about lavender and mauve if the case before me involves lavender and mauve.

I suspect that a court would rule basically like this: "There's abundant evidence that pastafarianism orginated as a parody of religion, and that it's regularly employed as such to express criticism of religion. The onus is on the applicant to show the court, through evidence, that at some point it has transitioned from that to being an actual religion itself. He hasn't produced that evidence."

Of course, it will depend on what evidence UDP produces, a point I've been making all along. But I don't think any of the advocates of the "pastafarianism is a religion" viewpoint in this thread have actually pointed to any evidence that UDP could produce that might satisfy the court.

I haven't looked at the scientology cases, or even looked very much into scientology itself, but my gut feeling is that scientology is probably a lot closer to being a borderline case than pastafarianism is, and therefore the scientology cases are more likely really to get to grips with the question of what's a religion, for public policy purposes. Plus, there are more scientology cases, so cumulatively they'll give us more to go on. For some reason, pastafarians seem to be a bit slow to press their demands for recognition so far as to actually argue them in court. ;-)

homemadecider

*Unfollows thread*

hardCopy

Things are getting quite technical here but I just wanted to throw in my own two cents.

People should have the right to religious freedoms, but they shouldn't have any additional rights above and beyond people of another or no religion.

If a legal requirement is so trivial that we can allow people an exemption based on their own beliefs they should not have to cite a particular creed or book to back up their beliefs. If I feel compelled to wear something on my head it shouldn't matter why, it's either acceptable or it isn't. If something is so dangerous that it needs to be forbidden then religion shouldn't be considered.

If we just passed less laws this would all be a lot easier.

Aenaes

Is anybody else half-hoping this will escalate into almost anything being accepted as religious headgear? This thread has me wondering if I'll be able to show up with a Batman cowl and DC comic book for my next driving licence photograph.

Days 298

Can't see the logic that it's okay for some to cover the top of their head and not others just because one of their religions says. Discrimination at its finest. Either everyone or no one.

Maybe I'll wear a big fake moustache and shave me head for my next one.

Malcolm.

I hope people get to wear saucepans in all offical driving licence and passport photos from now on. Ireland is a joke, so it fits in perfectly.

Mark Hamill

Thanks for your response, I have much clearer view of the situation now

Just a question on this though:

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suspect that a court would rule basically like this: "There's abundant evidence that pastafarianism orginated as a parody of religion, and that it's regularly employed as such to express criticism of religion. The onus is on the applicant to show the court, through evidence, that at some point it has transitioned from that to being an actual religion itself. He hasn't produced that evidence."

Wouldn't this require the court to offer a definition of, or a test for, "an actual religion" though?

Mark Hamill

I think the whole problem with religious headgear in ID photos is that the criteria for the photo's were very poorly thought out at first and they are too reluctant to update them.

When someone first started crying religious discrimination when told to remove headgear, they backed down pretty quickly and allowed people religious exemptions because they were too afraid to stand up to them (imo). Thereby defeating the point of photo IDs by possibly allowing people to bypass the security supposedly afforded by them in the first place.

What they should have done is realised that for many of these religious exemptions (Sikhs turban, most open-faced headscarfs), the photo ID was still perfectly viable - you can still identify the face. They should have just changed the criteria to recognise that your headgear doesn't really matter as long as your face is identifiable, thereby giving the exemption to religious people (who would be most of who wanted it) while not explicitly giving exemptions to them. They could then also turn to those whose religious head coverings were too obstructive and say headscarfs/wraps are allowed, but your specific one is too big (thereby avoiding any counter claims of discrimination).

TLDR: If a photo ID still works for someone with a religious exemption to one or more criteria, then that/those criteria should just be removed or reworked, so that everyone can avail of it.

Sulla Felix

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think the whole problem with religious headgear in ID photos is that the criteria for the photo's were very poorly thought out at first and they are too reluctant to update them.

When someone first started crying religious discrimination when told to remove headgear, they backed down pretty quickly and allowed people religious exemptions because they were too afraid to stand up to them (imo). Thereby defeating the point of photo IDs by possibly allowing people to bypass the security supposedly afforded by them in the first place.

What they should have done is realised that for many of these religious exemptions (Sikhs turban, most open-faced headscarfs), the photo ID was still perfectly viable - you can still identify the face. They should have just changed the criteria to recognise that your headgear doesn't really matter as long as your face is identifiable, thereby giving the exemption to religious people (who would be most of who wanted it) while not explicitly giving exemptions to them. They could then also turn to those whose religious head coverings were too obstructive and say headscarfs/wraps are allowed, but your specific one is too big (thereby avoiding any counter claims of discrimination).

TLDR: If a photo ID still works for someone with a religious exemption to one or more criteria, then that/those criteria should just be removed or reworked, so that everyone can avail of it.

Wasn't part of the arguement behind the Sikh headhat specifically, that forcing them to remove it for the id would render that picture a less identifiable representation? In all likelihood the Sikh will be wearing it when stopped by a gendarme anyway.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wouldn't this require the court to offer a definition of, or a test for, "an actual religion" though?

No, I don’t think so. Or, at any rate, not a complete definition.

For example, I can say that the UK is not a republic because it has a queen. In doing so, I’m implicitly defining a republic as a state that doesn’t have a monarch, but I’m not saying anything more than that. I’m not saying, for example, whether an oligarchy or a theocracy could be a republic. I don’t need a full definition of “republic” to answer the question with respect to the UK.

Another way to look at this is to say that in this instance you don’t need even a partial definition of “religion”; all you need is a definition of “parody”. A fake Rolex is not a Rolex, and I can say this with confidence even if I have no idea what a Rolex is; I know what “fake” means. Similarly, the whole point about a parody is that it is not what it parodies, so if you can produce evidence that pastafarianism is intended as, and functions as, a parody of a religion it shouldn’t be difficult to a court to accept that it’s not itself a religion.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

. . . What they should have done is realised that for many of these religious exemptions (Sikhs turban, most open-faced headscarfs), the photo ID was still perfectly viable - you can still identify the face. They should have just changed the criteria to recognise that your headgear doesn't really matter as long as your face is identifiable, thereby giving the exemption to religious people (who would be most of who wanted it) while not explicitly giving exemptions to them. They could then also turn to those whose religious head coverings were too obstructive and say headscarfs/wraps are allowed, but your specific one is too big (thereby avoiding any counter claims of discrimination).

TLDR: If a photo ID still works for someone with a religious exemption to one or more criteria, then that/those criteria should just be removed or reworked, so that everyone can avail of it.

Well, two thoughts:

First, somewhere buried in this thread is a series of posts where it’s argue that, correctly interpreted, Irish law does say precisely that; the only issue with headgear is whether it impedes recognition, and the individual's reason for wearing headgear is irrelevant. The notes on the form, which say that headgear is permitted if worn for religious reasons, are simply wrong; they do not reflect what the law actually says.

If this view is correct, UDP will win his claim to be allowed to wear the colander (assuming it's a small colander and doesn’t obscure his face) but he won’t have won any point about pastafarianism either being recognised as a religion or being incapable of being distinguished from real religion. (As far as I know, this is in fact how the Austrian and Czech cases were won.)

But, secondly, is it in fact true to say that “doesn’t cover face or ears” is the only relevant criterion ? I recall reading (sorry, no cite) that psychological studies about facial recognition show that, even if headgear doesn’t obscure the face, we remember and recognise faces from photograph less well if the subject was wearing a hat. Something to do with how the presence of the hat alters the way we perceive the photograph, or the way we remember it, or something of the kind.

Now, you might think, if that’s the case, then nobody should be allowed to wear hats, full stop. But it’s not quite so straightforward, since the main function of a licence photograph is not to be looked at and remembered later; it’s to be looked at and compared with the person in front of you. Memory doesn't enter into it. And there may be no studies showing that headgear is any kind of a problem here.

But, on the other hand again, you might feel that while the main function of licence photographs is for comparison with the person holding the licence, they also provide a database of photographs of citizens which could be used for other police purposes, e.g. shown to officers who are looking for someone.

But, on the other other hand, there are serious civil liberties issues with the idea of the state maintaining a vast photographic database of all virtually adult citizens for general police and security purposes, and that’s definitely not the purpose for which the driving licence scheme is set up, and the terms of the driving licence scheme should not be geared towards facilitating this.

And there’s another factor. Suppose we conclude that “general security” is, all other things being equal, something we would like to be able to use the licence photograph database for. But suppose also that the psychological studies show that allowing (non-obscuring) headgear does make the database slightly less useful for this purpose, but it’s only a very marginal effect; hardly measurable at all. So all headgear does is to make a photograph slightly less useful when applied to a purpose which, while not improper, is not the main purpose for which the photograph exists, or is used. You might then say that the public interest in you not wearing a hat is pretty small, and might easily be outweighed by other considerations, like individual liberty - the right to dress how you like - or freedom of conscience - the right to live in accordance with your convictions, which may include wearing a hat.

Which brings us back to square one. Is the free exercise of religion a human or civil right which a state should respect? If it is, then it may be that religious convictions about headgear are something that would be balanced against the public interest in you not having a hat in your photograph, and the balance might tip in favour of the religious convictions. And I don’t see how you can say, a priori that this is impossible unless you take the view that the free exercise of religion is not a human or civil right or anything that the state needs to respect or accommodate.

Mark Hamill

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Wasn't part of the arguement behind the Sikh headhat specifically, that forcing them to remove it for the id would render that picture a less identifiable representation? In all likelihood the Sikh will be wearing it when stopped by a gendarme anyway.

Possibly, I don't know. Sure makes sense though.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which brings us back to square one. Is the free exercise of religion a human or civil right which a state should respect? If it is, then it may be that religious convictions about headgear are something that would be balanced against the public interest in you not having a hat in your photograph, and the balance might tip in favour of the religious convictions. And I don’t see how you can say, a priori that this is impossible unless you take the view that the free exercise of religion is not a human or civil right or anything that the state needs to respect or accommodate.

Why reduce the question down to "free exercise of religion" though? Why not just have it as "free exercise of will"? I do think this is where a lot of the disagreement comes from, not from people saying religious people shouldn't be allowed to do something, but from asking why can't they do something similar?

If the criteria for ID photos in this country was changed to suit a religious exemption, but without actually mentioning the religious exemption, would anyone actually complain? Anybody could avail of the free exercise of will, even though it would primarily be availed of by religious people for religious reasons. Everyone with equal freedoms.

Peregrinus

There’s lots of areas where that works just fine, and there are no complaints. For example, anyone can go into an Irish swimming pool wearing a swimming cap; nobody demands a special law to say that people who have religious reasons for wearing headgear have a particular right to wear swimming caps in public pools.

But the "free exercise of will" approach you suggestg would only work in this instance if, in fact, the state was fine with anybody wearing headgear in a licence photograph for any reason or no reason at all. “Free exercise of will” is basically the same thing as saying that you can wear a hat if you want to - “don’t wear a hat, unless you want to, in which case, do”. Exactly the same result could be achieved by having a law which said nothing at all about hats - no prohibition at all.

That law would suit religious people just fine, but it seems that it wouldn’t suit the state. Given that the state, for whatever reason, does have an issue with hats in licence photographs, they’re going to put in a rule against hats. It seems to me that you take the view either that the rule applies with no exceptions whatsoever (so even if I have a medical reason, for example, for keeping the suppurating open wound on my scalp covered at all times, I have to uncover) or that you have to look at the state’s reason for objecting to hats, and then consider whether there are any other proper considerations which might, in particular cases, outweigh that reason and lead us to conclude that, in this instance, a hat should be permitted. (There could, of course, be more than one consideration that could outweigh the state’s interest in no-hats.)

Now, it may be that you can frame a rule which does not refer to religion, which accommodates people whose objection to bare heads is in fact religiously grounded, and which doesn’t admit hats in cases where the public interest requires that they not be admitted. If you can, everybody will be happy. (And in fact it may be that “doesn’t obscure face, forehead or ears” is precisely that rule.)

We only have a problem if the law doesn’t contain a rule meeting those criteria - e.g. a blanket hat requirement, no exceptions. And someone who objects to the hat requirement will frame his challenge in terms of his reason for wearing a hat - by and large, in an Irish court you can only challenge a law as it affects you, or as it affects a group of which you are a member. If his reason is a religious one, his objection will probably be framed in terms of the right to free exercise of religion.

But he’s not demanding a law which allows hats only for religious reasons. Any law which allows him to wear a hat will meet his objection, regardless of wording, and regardless of who else it accommodates. All he is arguing is that any law has to at least accommodate the wearing of hats for religious reasons, on account of the constitutional imperative to respect the free exercise of religion. And I think you can only argue against that by saying (a) the state has no obligation to respect the free exercise of religion, or (b) the state does have that obligation, but it’s not an absolute obligation; free exercise has to be balanced against the public policy underlying the no-hat rule, and a decision made as to which way the balance falls.

If the decision is that the law fails to accord proper weight to the importance of free exercise, then the state can go off and write another law, which may well be capable of respecting free exercise without actually mentioning religion.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

(a) the state has no obligation to respect the free exercise of religion

I would argue against that, at least as it is worded to refer to religion so specifically. The state (especially a so-called secular state) has no obligation to specifically respect the free exercise of religion, the entire point of the state as a the law making body (imo) is to put the minimum limits possible on everyone's free exercise of will, to ensure social harmony.

However, this doesn't means that when someone presents a religious disagreement with some limit or criteria around a limit they should be disregarded out of hand. It means that that when someone presents a non-religious disagreement, that they should be treated the same as the religious disagreement currently is. The state shouldn't question if its a valid (it wouldn't be the secular states place to discuss the validity of a religious belief, so it shouldn't do so with a non-religious one), it should only question if it is workable with respect to the aim of the limit. This would mean that it doesn't matter how a disagreement is presented (religious or otherwise).

Hotblack Desiato

hardCopy wrote: »

Things are getting quite technical here but I just wanted to throw in my own two cents.

People should have the right to religious freedoms, but they shouldn't have any additional rights above and beyond people of another or no religion.

If a legal requirement is so trivial that we can allow people an exemption based on their own beliefs they should not have to cite a particular creed or book to back up their beliefs. If I feel compelled to wear something on my head it shouldn't matter why, it's either acceptable or it isn't. If something is so dangerous that it needs to be forbidden then religion shouldn't be considered.

If we just passed less laws this would all be a lot easier.

This says, more eloquently and more briefly, what I was trying to say earlier Especially the bolded part, but the Irish state does give special privileges to religion e.g. blasphemy law, and the ability to set up schools which discriminate in enrolment and employment.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I would argue against that, at least as it is worded to refer to religion so specifically. The state (especially a so-called secular state) has no obligation to specifically respect the free exercise of religion, the entire point of the state as a the law making body (imo) is to put the minimum limits possible on everyone's free exercise of will, to ensure social harmony.

So on what basis would we object to a law which says, in the interests of ensuring "social harmony", that everybody should attend mass twice a day, and three times on Sundays?

You’ll object, of course, that a secular state would not pass such a law. But, if free exercise of religion is not an important social value, why do we assume that the state will be secular, or how can we assert that it ought to be? One of the main planks in favour of the secularity of the state is precisely that it’s a good way of ensuring the free exercise of religion. Take that away, and what's left?

Freedom of religion isn’t some abstract principle dreamed up by philosophy eggheads in university common rooms. Nor is it a kind of fallback defence devised up by churches once they realised that they could no longer hope to be established by the state. It’s a response to this:



Wallenstein: A Scene of the Thirty Years War
- Ernest Crofts

Developing the concept of freedom of religion was a long, hard struggle, never mind actually getting it widely accepted. It took an awful lot of not just argument, but blood, tears, suffering and death before people saw what was necessary if the world was to be changed for the better. You should be slow to jettison it too lightly.

(Particularly if your views on religious questions put you in a minority, a point which denizens of the atheism and agnosticism forum might bear in mind. Just sayin'.)

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

So on what basis would we object to a law which says, in the interests of ensuring "social harmony", that everybody should attend mass twice a day, and three times on Sundays?

Could this secular state define what 'mass' is? If I utter 'Hail Satan/Dawkins' (same thing in the eyes of some ) and call it a mass, who can prove me wrong?

(Particularly if your views on religious questions put you in a minority, a point which denizens of the atheism and agnosticism forum might bear in mind. Just sayin'.)

Uh-oh. Argumentum ad populum :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Could this secular state define what 'mass' is? If I utter 'Hail Satan/Dawkins' (same thing in the eyes of some ) and call it a mass, who can prove me wrong?

Don't be silly, ninja. There's abundant examples of states imposing religious practice tests on citizens. And since the state imposes the test, they get to define it. Do you seriously think that what protects you from state-imposed religious tests is the inability of the state to define practical tests, rather than the principle of free exercise of religion?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Don't be silly, ninja.

You're often patronising, but I didn't think you'd be so explicitly patronising. Oh dear.

There's abundant examples of states imposing religious practice tests on citizens. And since the state imposes the test, they get to define it.

Conveniently ignoring the word 'secular' just before I mentioned 'state'. I've no doubt a theocracy could with 'justification' snuff out my life with a passage from koran or bible.

Do you seriously think that what protects you from state-imposed religious tests is the inability of the state to define practical tests, rather than the principle of free exercise of religion?

Yes, because all religion is bunk.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Conveniently ignoring the word 'secular' just before I mentioned 'state'. I've no doubt a theocracy could with 'justification' snuff out my life with a passage from koran or bible.

Well, you're conveniently ignoring the question I raised earlier; if we don't think freedom of religion is an important political value, why would expect that the state would or should be secular?

You're also ignoring the reality that many states claiming to be secular did or do impose effective religious tests, e.g. the Soviet Union, China.

You can argue, of course, that a state which imposes religious tests isn't truly secular, despite what it may say. But, if that were your point, all you would be saying is that a state which by definition doesn't impose any religious tests couldn't impose any religious test. True, but not particular helpful. And not a particularly ringing defence of liberty.

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes, because all religion is bunk.

I'd point out that that sounds a bit patronising, but you might think I was patronising you by doing so. ;-)

Hotblack Desiato

Again the fascination with 'atheist' communistic states that effectively imposed their ideology as a state religion. Of course they were going to be hostile towards any competing ideologies.

Yes, a state which imposes religious belief tests can't be secular - by definition I would say.

As for 'all religion is bunk' - if it was what its adherents claimed it to be, it would be trivial to prove my assertion false, they cannot do so, yet maintain that they have an inside track to 'morality' and believe our legislators should eschew democracy and listen to them exclusively.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Again the fascination with 'atheist' communistic states that effectively imposed their ideology as a state religion. Of course they were going to be hostile towards any competing ideologies.

Yes, a state which imposes religious belief tests can't be secular - by definition I would say.

OK. So your argument for why we don't need a principle of free exercise of religion comes down to this; a truly secular state state would never impose any kind of religious test.

Really? That's it? You don't feel any need at all to address the question of why the state would or should be "truly secular"?

ninja900 wrote: »

As for 'all religion is bunk' - if it was what its adherents claimed it to be, it would be trivial to prove my assertion false, they cannot do so, yet maintain that they have an inside track to 'morality' and believe our legislators should eschew democracy and listen to them exclusively.

How is this relevant to the point at issue? (Or are you just gettting something off your chest?)

Turtwig

Now now don't panic but there should be a second thread in this forum entitled "Pasta Quest". Unfortunately I think I may have moved it to a different forum.

shruikan2553

Jernal wrote: »

Now now don't panic but there should be a second thread in this forum entitled "Pasta Quest". Unfortunately I think I may have moved it to a different forum.

aha, posted something in the other thread and all of a sudden I was in this one and it grew by 10 pages. Was very confused. Your "FOUND YOU" comment also makes sense now.

Roger Hassenforder

god be with the days this thread was a bit of craic, gone too high brow for me...my brain hurts