Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Turtwig

SNAP! Cabaal

bumper234

googled eyes wrote: »

Rather i'd say to you, prove to me FSM is a religion.

Is it just a religion because Atheists use it to parody creationism?

If I decided tomorrow that I followed the Mighty Fork of Dinnerism would you all be so happy to admit it as a religion?

I would never tread on your rights to believe whatever the hell you want. If millions can believe in a magic man in the sky who's son came here via a virgin, died then rose again and all the other bolloxollogy that goes with it then why can't you believe in a magic fork or whatever?

googled eyes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, seeing as this is a discussion forum I thought you may be interested in having a discussion...my mistake.

You carry on with posting statements then and refusing to discuss them.

But thats what I'm getting at. I find the idea that ridiculous. Why would anyone want to wear a colander on their head.

Why would an atheist want to say the believe in FSM? You come up against so many people who look down on you because you don't believe in god. Now if people google atheist they can read about a flying pasta monster. Doesn't do atheism any good.

Would it not be better to actually challenge governments on why religious people are allowed to wear their traditional garments or jewelry

UDP

runawaybishop wrote: »

We should draw the line when it is clearly someone acting the maggot, as is the case here by the ops own admission

I am not sure if this is directed at me or the OP as we are not the same person.

Nowhere have I said that I am acting the maggot. You may think I am acting the maggot because you are presumably not a Pastafarian but my beliefs are no more crazy than those held by Christians, Muslims, Sikhs or any other mainstream religion. I am genuinely a Pastafarian and I expect my rights with regards wearing religious headwear to be given the same treatment as any other religious person would receive. I am clearly being discriminated against by the RSA and if they want to give us religious people special treatment then they should be prepared to give all us religious people the same treatment - not just some.

bumper234

googled eyes wrote: »

But thats what I'm getting at. I find the idea that ridiculous. Why would anyone want to wear a colander on their head.

Why would an atheist want to say the believe in FSM? You come up against so many people who look down on you because you don't believe in god. Now if people google atheist they can read about a flying pasta monster. Doesn't do atheism any good.

Would it not be better to actually challenge governments on why religious people are allowed to wear their traditional garments or jewelry

I find it ridiculous that someone chooses to wear a crucifix...should they be banned?

googled eyes

Beruthiel wrote: »

As Cabaal mentioned above, Mormons, Scientology.



The FSM has many followers world wide.



And has a book. With pictures and stuff!

But why are atheists so quick to follow a religion?

Turtwig

googled eyes wrote: »

But thats what I'm getting at. I find the idea that ridiculous. Why would anyone want to wear a colander on their head.

Why would an atheist want to say the believe in FSM? You come up against so many people who look down on you because you don't believe in god. Now if people google atheist they can read about a flying pasta monster. Doesn't do atheism any good.

Would it not be better to actually challenge governments on why religious people are allowed to wear their traditional garments or jewelry

Why would anyone want to wear ash on their forehead?

FSM has noodles. I'm still agnostic on the matter though.

That's what people are doing. Challenging the consistency of government.

Knex*

googled eyes wrote: »

But thats what I'm getting at. I find the idea that ridiculous. Why would anyone want to wear a colander on their head.

Why would an atheist want to say the believe in FSM? You come up against so many people who look down on you because you don't believe in god. Now if people google atheist they can read about a flying pasta monster. Doesn't do atheism any good.

Would it not be better to actually challenge governments on why religious people are allowed to wear their traditional garments or jewelry

As mentioned before, you're literally on the doorstep of what we mean, and try to achieve, by it.

You can already see that its ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated as being a source for demanding special rights. Now extrapolate that out to other Religions, and BINGO! We're all happy again.

Any means necessary, within reason of course, to show up what a joke the system is.

googled eyes

Jernal wrote: »

Why would anyone want to wear ash on their forehead?

FSM has noodles. I'm still agnostic on the matter though.

That's what people are doing. Challenging the consistency of government.

Sorry I wasn't claiming you were one or the other, I meant in general.

I really can not see this way of challenge the governments consistency as ever really working.

googled eyes

Knex. wrote: »

As mentioned before, you're literally on the doorstep of what we mean, and try to achieve, by it.

You can already see that its ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated as being a source for demanding special rights. Now extrapolate that out to other Religions, and BINGO! We're all happy again.

Any means necessary, within reason of course, to show up what a joke the system is.

Knex, its never going to work.

I guess thats why I'm getting so annoyed. Religious groups are too powerful. They've too much money to challenge it. Which in turn costs the country more money we don't have.

stimpson

googled eyes wrote: »

But why are atheists so quick to follow a religion?

From http://www.venganza.org/about/

Q: A lot of Pastafarians seem to be anti-religion and/or atheists (why is this?)
A: We’re not anti-religion. This is NOT an atheists club. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join our church including current members of other religions. In addition to the Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers who have joined us, we have a number of Christian (and Muslim, and Hindu and Buddhist …) members and I would love to have more. Note to the religious: You are welcome here.

Let me make this clear: we are not anti-religion, we are anti- crazy nonsense done in the name of religion. There is a big difference. Our ideal is to scrutinize ideas and actions but ignore general labels.

Just because many religions don't allow atheists doesn't mean they all do. And as there is no church of atheism, athiests are not forbidden from joining.

homemadecider

googled eyes wrote: »

Knex, its never going to work.

I guess thats why I'm getting so annoyed. Religious groups are too powerful. They've too much money to challenge it. Which in turn costs the country more money we don't have.

First of all, the bolded sentence above is ridiculous. It's because they have so much power that they SHOULD be challenged.

Second of all, how is this pastafarian driver's licence application costing the country money?

Cabaal

googled eyes wrote: »

I guess thats why I'm getting so annoyed. Religious groups are too powerful. They've too much money to challenge it. Which in turn costs the country more money we don't have.

Nonsense,
if people took that backseated view it would still be illegal in Ireland for
- For somebody to be gay
- For people to use condoms
- For women to be told they have no job once they get married
- For a couple to divorce

It is because we challenge bigoted religious views that gay marriage will eventually be made legal in Ireland, likely in 2015.

money isn't the be all of everything and your comments about something costing money so it shouldn't be challenged its extremely short sighted, thankfully people in the past that have changed what I've outlined above didn't think like you.

googled eyes

homemadecider wrote: »

First of all, the bolded sentence above is ridiculous. It's because they have so much power that they SHOULD be challenged.

Second of all, how is this pastafarian driver's licence application costing the country money?

People going to the Ombudsman to challenge for the right is costing money. Then if the government decides its ridiculous and does what you want it will be challenged in a court by a group with deep pockets.

Would you all be happy to see the country dragged into a never ending, very expensive court battle ?

Look I'm never going to agree with you all on this subject. I never thought it would get this far.

Knex*

googled eyes wrote: »

Knex, its never going to work.

I guess thats why I'm getting so annoyed. Religious groups are too powerful. They've too much money to challenge it. Which in turn costs the country more money we don't have.

Have to start somewhere.

Something needs to be done, which is evident even in your own thinking by your labeling of them as "too powerful".

This is merely just one of the better angles to go about making people realise how ridiculous it is to advocate special rights to those who are part of an organisation with a specific belief system.

googled eyes wrote: »

Look I'm never going to agree with you all on this subject. I never thought it would get this far.

Not exactly a mindset conducive to debate, is it.

dantastic

I actually think this is a very important topic and one absolutely worthy of having "money wasted on it". It is political satire at its finest and I believe satire is one of the most effective methods of protesting. This is everything about who has the right to decide what is ok and what's not. It is about peoples' rights and privileges afforded to only some people.

I for one will absolutely submit my next license photo wearing a colander on my head, why? Because I believe this is worth fighting for.

Knex*

+ 1 with regards to Public Satire.

Spot on in my mind.

UDP

So as part of the ES1 form I am submitting I can ask questions relevant to the case that I am looking to have answered. Any suggestions? You can PM them to me if you don't want to post them. Thanks.

Gordon

googled eyes wrote: »

Knex, its never going to work.

I guess thats why I'm getting so annoyed. Religious groups are too powerful. They've too much money to challenge it. Which in turn costs the country more money we don't have.

"Never strain to change the world, the Holy Strainer will do thine work for you." ~ FSM

Sarky

googled eyes wrote: »

Would you all be happy to see the country dragged into a never ending, very expensive court battle ?

I'd be happier to see the country decide that religion doesn't exempt you from any of the laws. But, seeing as religion has denied us that option by insisting it get special treatment...

Sulla Felix

UDP wrote: »

So as part of the ES1 form I am submitting I can ask questions relevant to the case that I am looking to have answered. Any suggestions? You can PM them to me if you don't want to post them. Thanks.

How they establish which religions are "real" and which are a parody.
Which legislative act set down these factors.
Which officer is empowered to make the decision if it's on a case by case basis. (which is what they're going to come out with)

Cabaal

Sulla Felix wrote: »

How they establish which religions are "real" and which are a parody.
Which legislative act set down these factors.
Which officer is empowered to make the decision if it's on a case by case basis. (which is what they're going to come out with)

Very quick and perhaps not fully thought through,

- Can they (RSA) provide a comprehensive list of what they classify as "legitimate" religions?
- If you in all honesty believe in the flying spaghetti monster as your god do the RSA question your mental health? (this is something that has come up in other country's)
- if the Muslim faith is taken as an example would the RSA decide that a hijab and/or burqa would be unsuitable religious headwear even though the RSA rules clearly state:

Head coverings, other than for religious reasons are not
allowed and hair bands are not acceptable.

I think its important for people regardless of faith to be aware of what the RSA do or do not allow when it comes to their faith, their guidelines are far to vague in fairness.

Days 298

I'd be asking them do they discriminate all minority faiths like this.

Why do major faiths get preferential treatment?

Why don't they list what they define as a religion on their website if they can deny Pastafarian?

With religion being a truly personal matter and the constitution guaranteeing freedom to practice where do they draw the power to scrutinise and deny a minor religion equal treatment?

Would or have the RSA ever questioned a Hijab wearer do they actually believe in Mohammed. If not, could asking me to prove if I believe in FSM not offensive to all believers in minor faith groups in Ireland?

Do the RSA think I am joking/messing about my religion?

If yes I'm offended and would like to know why. If no then why won't you let me wear my religious apparel like fellow Muslim citizens can.


Just bouncing ideas...

kowloon

Touched by his noodly appendage.

Hotblack Desiato

googled eyes wrote: »

People going to the Ombudsman to challenge for the right is costing money.

Actually what is costing money is the arbitrary granting of rights by a state body to some citizens while denying those rights to others.

Then if the government decides its ridiculous and does what you want it will be challenged in a court by a group with deep pockets.

On what possible basis can one religious group traditionally granted a particular right challenge that right also being granted to other religions? This is supposedly a secular republic, the state should have no opinion on what is and isn't a 'valid' religion.

Would you all be happy to see the country dragged into a never ending, very expensive court battle ?

So the state should interpret and implement legislation according to what powerful vested interests dictate? Really?

MadYaker

How far are you prepared to go OP?

Dave!

Buy him a drink first at least!

UDP

Thanks for the suggestions. I have sent my notification of action under the equal status acts 2000-2011 by registered post this morning with the following questions included:

1. Do the RSA hold the position that my religious beliefs, with regards the wearing religious headwear as submitted in my application, are not genuine?
2. What conclusive proof can the RSA provide that proves my Deity does not command me to wear such religious headwear thus meaning I am not wearing the headwear in my submitted photos for religious reasons?
3. What process did the RSA follow to determine if my religion/religious beliefs were not genuine?
4. Who in the RSA was given the power to make this determination?
5. Do the RSA hold the view that they have the theological expertise to determine the validity of my religious beliefs?
6. If the RSA holds the view that they have the theological expertise, what qualification is held by the representative of the RSA who determined that the beliefs I hold in relation to the wearing of my religious headwear are not genuine that makes them qualified to make such an assertion?
7. With religion being a truly personal matter and the constitution guaranteeing freedom to practice where do the RSA draw the legal power to scrutinise and deny me equal treatment when it comes to the wearing of religious headwear?
8. Are all applicants who apply for a driving license with a photo in which religious headwear is worn requested to demonstrate that the religious headwear is being worn for religious reasons or is it just those from minority religions like me?
9. What is considered sufficient demonstration that religious headwear is being worn for religious reasons as I was requested to provide?
10. Can the RSA provide a comprehensive list of what they determine to be legitimate religions and/or religious beliefs that I must adhere to in order to wear religious headwear?
11. If the RSA can provide a list, what process was followed to compile this list, who compiled it and what qualification does the compiler hold that makes them qualified to compile such a list?
12. Must a person identify the religion they are a member of or religious beliefs they subscribe to during the driving license application process when their application includes photographs in which they are wearing religious headwear?
13. If applications must identify their religion or religious beliefs in their application, why is there no space on the application form to do so?
14. If applicants do not have to identify the religion or religious beliefs in their application, how do you know whether the applicant’s headwear is related to a religion?
15. Must an applicant be a member of an organised religion before they are allowed to wear headwear for religious reasons or can they form their own belief system that does not follow exactly that of an organised religion but which includes the wearing of religious headwear?
16. If applicants must be a member of an organised religion, how is it determined that an applicant genuinely believes all primary tenants of the religion associated with the religious headwear thus making them a genuine member of that organised religion?

Bannasidhe

^^^^

Can of worms.




Well done!

robindch

Beers on me!