Pasta Quest: DMV. A Pastafarians Journey for Equality.

Cabaal

Curious, would they also consider Scientology a parody religion?
It is after all based on a story written by a scifi writer,

Its not the RSA's job to decide how true somebody's faith is,

OU812

So what are you going to do UDP? Do we need to start a legal fund?

lazygal

Would it be worth getting Atheist Ireland on the case?

Absoluvely

lazygal wrote: »

Would it be worth getting Atheist Ireland on the case?

Now why would Atheist Ireland be getting involved in religious matters like this?

FouxDaFaFa

You should wear a turban made of spaghetti then, if they accept turbans...

They should know better than this.

Tzardine

I dont get it, whats the actual point.

Would your efforts not be better spent elsewhere.

actuallylike

Strituck wrote: »

I dont get it, whats the actual point.

Would your efforts not be better spent elsewhere.

It's his religious beliefs they're refusing to accept. they are flat out calling them a parody. As good a place as ever to focus your efforts.

Knex*

Strituck wrote: »

I dont get it, whats the actual point.

Would your efforts not be better spent elsewhere.

That's what I said when they tried to teach me Religion in school instead of Science, Maths, langauges, etc.

Didn't go down too well.

Tzardine

actuallylike wrote: »

It's his religious beliefs they're refusing to accept. they are flat out calling them a parody. As good a place as ever to focus your efforts.

But eh... FSM is a parody. Well a satire if we are to be correct.

Religious beliefs my left foot.

I wont reply anymore , because I dont want to be seen as trolling. I just dont get it.

Good luck with it.

robindch

UDP wrote: »

Looks like making it up. No mention of laws. I did mention on the re-submitted application that treating me differently to those of other religions would be a breach of the equal status act 2000.

Well you could explain that your choice of religion is yours alone and that, as the RSA, their role in this is to vet the application according to Irish law, and that Irish law does not permit the RSA to issue value judgments concerning theological issues.

For added marks, you could say that personally, you're feeling insulted by their traduction of your religion and if they're unwilling to process the application further for the invalid, inappropriate and entirely illegal reason stated, that you'll be taking the issue up with the equality commissioner.

And thank them for their kind attention to your application.

FouxDaFaFa

Strituck wrote: »

But eh... FSM is a parody. Well a satire if we are to be correct.

Religious beliefs my left foot.

I wont reply anymore , because I dont want to be seen as trolling. I just dont get it.

Good luck with it.

I can see why you might be like "what's the point?" but the point of FSM is to show how religious groups are continually given special privileges and allowances over others, touting their religion as justification. (Eg. tax exempt status)

Also, I can guarantee you that there is at least one person who genuinely believes in FSM. The world is a strange place. So, why should that person be made feel like his religious beliefs aren't as worthy as others?

Turtwig

Strituck wrote: »

But eh... FSM is a parody. Well a satire if we are to be correct.

Religious beliefs my left foot.

I wont reply anymore , because I dont want to be seen as trolling. I just dont get it.

Good luck with it.

Curiosity, I guess.

A religion with special underwear sounds equally silly. Scientology was written by a sci-fi author. The point is people will believe anything yet certain beliefs are given more privileges than others for seemingly arbitrary reasons. The RSA, a state body, has made a judgement call on what is and what isn't a serious religion. In a supposedly secular country that's opening a can of worms. Think about it, parody religion or not, there's nothing to say that person on this Island doesn't genuinely hold such beliefs. Put it another way, suppose Islam was a new and upcoming religion. Suppose also some people took it very seriously but a majority treated it as a parody. How exactly would a state body be correct in refusing licence photos to Islam?

A parody religion, is still a religion. It wouldn't be called a religion otherwise.

googled eyes

Strituck wrote: »

I dont get it, whats the actual point.

Would your efforts not be better spent elsewhere.

actuallylike wrote: »

It's his religious beliefs they're refusing to accept. they are flat out calling them a parody. As good a place as ever to focus your efforts.

Strituck wrote: »

But eh... FSM is a parody. Well a satire if we are to be correct.

Religious beliefs my left foot.

I wont reply anymore , because I dont want to be seen as trolling. I just dont get it.

Good luck with it.

Have to agree with Strituck. Why would Atheists be actively going out of their way for the country to acknowledge FSM. Isn't the place f*cked up enough?

It's like the people who put Jedi on the census......

Sarky

Well seeing as society went the stupid route and decided all religions should be equally protected by law instead of none, the only option is to show society how f*cking stupid and unworkable and expensive that is.

UDP

I have the option of going down the Ombudsman or Equality Tribunal routes. I was thinking the latter as they have the power to force something to go ahead but I don't know about the Ombudsman as I don't see this remedy expressly stated on their website. Their website does mention redress here but it doesn't seem as definitely - a lot of "shoulds" rather than "musts". Maybe I should go down both routes at the same time?

OU812

I wonder would you have them inder the blasphemy law?

They've effectively downgraded & rediculed your religious beliefs.

Days 298

Legend for fighting on.

I don't know much about either, but my business studies tells me that the ombudsman will do the heavy lifting, give a recommendation and if they don't comply it goes on some list read out in the Dail.

Become a minister of the pastafarian church so they have no wiggle room. And of course get offended if they question your faith and ask would they grill a Muslim or another faith that requires headgear.

Good luck

googled eyes

Sarky wrote: »

Well seeing as society went the stupid route and decided all religions should be equally protected by law instead of none, the only option is to show society how f*cking stupid and unworkable and expensive that is.

Ah picture the scene:

Constantine is in Rome. He's sick of all the religious holidays. So many different gods to bend to. And he has an idea of how to show everybody religion is silly and all the holidays do nothing but cost the empire...

He decides to say he's a minority group Christian.

recedite

UDP wrote: »

I have the option of going down the Ombudsman or Equality Tribunal routes. I was thinking the latter as they have the power to force something to go ahead but I don't know about the Ombudsman as I don't see this remedy expressly stated on their website. Their website does mention redress here but it doesn't seem as definitely - a lot of "shoulds" rather than "musts". Maybe I should go down both routes at the same time?

I'd be inclined to try the Ombudsman first, as this is more of a procedural matter, and they should be able to say if the driving licence people have exceeded their powers by making a value judgement on the "quality" or otherwise of a person's stated religion.

Days 298

It would be awesome to set a precedent that in years to come you can literally wear anything on ID pictures.
Just make up a fake religion around the item.

"Sir no hats in photo"
"Excuse me this is the hat of the River Liffey God, passed to me after being given to my grandfather by Lord Poseidon himself in Coppe, I must wear it"
"Right so..3...2...1"

stimpson

I think your missing a subtle point here. They say it's a parody religion, not a parody of religion. Therefore they have accepted that it is indeed a religion and are now discriminating based on the type of religion. It's shocking that it still goes on in this day and age.

rovoagho

Just a note to say that I will happily contribute to legal expenses for this, if they become necessary, up to €100.

lazygal

Anyone a solicitor who'd take on the case for funsies?

robindch

Put me down for another €100 towards any solicitors' letters.

UDP

I think I am going to go both the ombudsman and the equal status act routes. I know the equal status act route has time limits associated with it i.e. must make a complaint within 2 months of the event thus I want to keep all options open just in case the other route follows through.

runawaybishop

UDP wrote: »

I think I am going to go both the ombudsman and the equal status act routes. I know the equal status act route has time limits associated with it i.e. must make a complaint within 2 months of the event thus I want to keep all options open just in case the other route follows through.

How about you you go the route that doesn't waste tax payer money on frivolous bull****?

Bannasidhe

runawaybishop wrote: »

How about you you go the route that doesn't waste tax payer money on frivolous bull****?

You mean frivolous bull**** that means in certain instances laws don't apply to some people when those laws conflict with their religious beliefs?

If you think that is frivolous I hate to think what you would consider serious.

runawaybishop

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean frivolous bull**** that means in certain instances laws don't apply to some people when those laws conflict with their religious beliefs?

If you think that is frivolous I hate to think what you would consider serious.

Yes, i mean frivolous bull**** like this.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

How about you you go the route that doesn't waste tax payer money on frivolous bull****?

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, i mean frivolous bull**** like this.

Those frivolous bull**** anti-discrimination laws! What a waste of tax money! We could have been building churches!

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

Those frivolous bull**** anti-discrimination laws! What a waste of tax money! We could have been building churches!

And pyres to burn the heathens!

Bannasidhe

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, i mean frivolous bull**** like this.

WOW.

Sooooo - allowing people to opt out of laws because their particular religion says different is just hunky dory with you.

Where should we draw the line do you reckon?

Do you think it's grand that people can say 'Not keeping that law because it goes against my religion'?

Some crazy religious beliefs out there - should they all get a Get out of Jail Free card?

I believe in the Norse Gods therefore I must carry a sword or axe at all times as if I wish to go to Valhalla I have to die fighting and armed. :cool:

runawaybishop

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where should we draw the line do you reckon?

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

Absoluvely

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

If Pastafarianism is acting the maggot, then mainstream religions are the maggot.

runawaybishop

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or we could draw the line by applying the same rules to everyone. You know, fairness, equality and all that bs.

Grand so, let's waste tax payers cash so you can prove you need to wear a Bosco wig in your passport or whatever ****e is current.

[-0-]

I'd gladly donate as well.

Turtwig

runawaybishop wrote: »

Grand so, let's waste tax payers cash so you can prove you need to wear a Bosco wig in your passport or whatever ****e is current.

Ah now you're being offensive to his religion. That headgear is very sacred.

stimpson

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

So how do you draft a law to define someone "acting the maggot"? Who gets to decide which religions are worthy of protection and which ones can be persecuted for their beliefs?

runawaybishop

stimpson wrote: »

So how do you draft a law to define someone "acting the maggot"? Who gets to decide which religions are worthy of protection and which ones can be persecuted for their beliefs?

I'm not talking about drafting a law. I am referring to this thread and the OPs own admission.

Sarky

runawaybishop wrote: »

Grand so, let's waste tax payers cash so you can prove you need to wear a Bosco wig in your passport or whatever ****e is current.

You've almost grasped the central point. Let's see if you can make that final deduction. You've accepted that giving people exemptions to certain laws because of whatever they claim their religion is is a waste of money. So the options are 'Allow exemptions for every religion at the expense of the taxpayer' or..?

Bannasidhe

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

Is someone also acting the maggot when they refuse to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike as their religion says they have to wear a few yards of material?

Why stop at road safety laws?

Should there be exemptions in other areas too?

Oh wait...there are exemptions in other areas too - like employment law. :eek:

stimpson

runawaybishop wrote: »

I'm not talking about drafting a law. I am referring to this thread and the OPs own admission.

But the OP's beliefs are protected by law. The equality legislation does not qualify which religions are "acting the maggot" so his beliefs are every bit as protected as Catholicism, Voodooism or any other belief system.

If you want to discriminate against Pastafarian's then you'll have to draft a law specifying it as an "acting the maggot" religion, as opposed to "real" religions.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some crazy religious beliefs out there - should they all get a Get out of Jail Free card?

The get-out-of-jail card is only useful when they're in jail to start with.

Sarky

Should someone have told Kent Hovind before he was jailed for tax fraud..?

googled eyes

Would the money offered for legal fees not be better off being given to charity?

robindch

No. Why?

bumper234

googled eyes wrote: »

Would the money offered for legal fees not be better off being given to charity?

Would the BILLIONS the catholic church has not be better spent by giving it to charity?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

The get-out-of-jail card is only useful when they're in jail to start with.

This is true.

It's a Stay out of Jail card.

Genghiz Cohen

googled eyes wrote: »

Would the money offered for legal fees not be better off being given to charity?

Good point
As of now Pastafarianism is a charity.

swampgas

I wouldn't be too surprised if the staff dealing with this driver license request were aware of, and following, this particular boards thread. Not that that makes any difference to the issue, but it might give them advance notice of any planned course of action.

/tinfoilhat

googled eyes

bumper234 wrote: »

Would the BILLIONS the catholic church has not be better spent by giving it to charity?

Ah come on now. We're not talking about the catholic church?

Were talking about people wasting the ombudsman's time so they can wear a colander on their head.

Every one of us knows the problems and hypocrisy of the church.