Pasta Quest: DMV. A Pastafarians Journey for Equality.

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.

bumper234

googled eyes wrote: »

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.

So what makes the catholic church more "deserving" of respect than any other religion? If someone was told they couldn't wear a crucifix on their drivers licence there would be uproar right?

runawaybishop

bumper234 wrote: »

So what makes the catholic church more "deserving" of respect than any other religion? If someone was told they couldn't wear a crucifix on their drivers licence there would be uproar right?

Nothing to do with respect, its to do with recognised religions.

stimpson

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nothing to do with respect, its to do with recognised religions.

Where is this list of recognised religions?

swampgas

googled eyes wrote: »

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.

Yes, wearing a colander on your head is silly, but the point you are missing is that the colander is being used (in a comic way perhaps) to illustrate a very serious point: that the followers of some religions are allowed to ignore some very important laws that the rest of us have to follow.

RCC controlled schools do not have to follow normal rules when it comes to discriminating against applicants for jobs, they can discriminate against applicants that might not be Catholic, or not be considered good enough Catholics, and this is currently perfectly legal.

This is not really about driving licenses, this is about religious discrimination being embedded in our constitution and laws.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nothing to do with respect, its to do with recognised religions.

Recognised by whom? Does a religion only become worthy of being a religion when the wizards recognise it?

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

[...] might give them advance notice [...]

Hardly matters -- the course of action from here is straight-forward enough and I don't think it matters whether they know about it ahead of time. They've been informed about it as well, so I don't see any immediate issue, tonfoilhat or otherwise.

In fact, assuming the good faith of all concerned, I'd have thought that knowing about, say, a previous successful campaign against religious prejudice might encourage the good folks at the RSA just to stop being silly about it and just approve the license and be done with it, rather than make an issue of it.

Sarky

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nothing to do with respect, its to do with recognised religions.

You're still skirting around the logical conclusion. Come on, you've almost got it! I believe in you!

googled eyes

bumper234 wrote: »

So what makes the catholic church more "deserving" of respect than any other religion? If someone was told they couldn't wear a crucifix on their drivers licence there would be uproar right?

Look I don't want to drag this off topic because this tread had nothing to do with the catholic church.

Lets put it like this. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in a God. In my eyes a Pastafarian can longer call themselves an atheist.

Bannasidhe

googled eyes wrote: »

Look I don't want to drag this off topic because this tread had nothing to do with the catholic church.

Lets put it like this. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in a God. In my eyes a Pastafarian can longer call themselves an atheist.

Why?

Genuine question.

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

[...] a colander on your head is silly [...]

I submit that a colander isn't any more silly than this old forum favourite:



Are these fine chaps allowed to wear their silly headgear for their driving license photos? I'll bet they are.

googled eyes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why?

Genuine question.

Why not? If they're going to make statements and follow the holidays of a parody religion I'm going to make statements of my own.

bumper234

googled eyes wrote: »

Look I don't want to drag this off topic because this tread had nothing to do with the catholic church.

Lets put it like this. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in a God. In my eyes a Pastafarian can longer call themselves an atheist.

So should a Sikh be allowed wear a turban on his DL? Should a jew be allowed wear a yarmulke?

googled eyes

robindch wrote: »

I submit that a colander isn't any more silly than this old forum favourite:



Are these fine chaps allowed to wear their silly headgear for their driving license photos? I'll bet they are.

All those hats are just as silly as a colander

googled eyes

bumper234 wrote: »

So should a Sikh be allowed wear a turban on his DL? Should a jew be allowed wear a yarmulke?

In my views no. But I'm just one man and those are hundreds and thousands of years old and are well entrenched in governments.

bumper234

googled eyes wrote: »

In my views no. But I'm just one man any those are hundreds and thousands of years old.

So a religion is only a religion if it is

(A) More than X amount of years old.

(B) Has X amount of followers.

(C) Has a book written about it.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

I submit that a colander isn't any more silly than this old forum favourite:

Aww I was expecting that to be the man in a condom inside the plane. Forum favs just ain't what they used to be.

Bannasidhe

googled eyes wrote: »

Why not? If they're going to make statements and follow the holidays of a parody religion I'm going to make statements of my own.

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.

Cabaal

googled eyes wrote: »

In my views no. But I'm just one man and those are hundreds and thousands of years old and are well entrenched in governments.

Not in Ireland they're not,
Its a relatively new thing to Ireland

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Aww I was expecting that to be the man in a condom inside the plane. Forum favs just ain't what they used to be.

Like to see him drive a motorbike in that get up.

Cabaal

bumper234 wrote: »

So a religion is only a religion if it is

(A) More than X amount of years old.

(B) Has X amount of followers.

(C) Has a book written about it.

Yet
- Mormons faith isn't old (created 1820's)
- Scientology def isn't old (created 1954)

Be curious what people think the cut off point is,

googled eyes

bumper234 wrote: »

So a religion is only a religion if it is

(A) More than X amount of years old.

(B) Has X amount of followers.

(C) Has a book written about it.

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?

Dont be at yourself

googled eyes wrote: »

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

Absolutely. Religion is a personal choice.

Knex*

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?

It would be just as plausible as any other Religion, in my eyes.

Issue shouldn't be that this new Religion might get the same rights as the older, more traditional Religion. Issue is that there shouldn't be special rights full stop.

Dinnerism still holds as equal a claim to being a Religion as any other.

Cabaal

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?

Prove to me Mormonism is a religion? (you've read how it was founded right?)

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

FSM fits this perfectly, same as any faith.
The CSO shows that there under 1,500 Mormons in Ireland as of 2011 data, there are likely far more Pastafarians then this in Ireland.

If you want to found a faith called Mighty Fork of Dinnerism and it gets you through life then more power to you, my issue begins when you try to force that faith on others through our education system, health system or laws.

Until then you should be treated equal to all other faiths, so if that includes headwear that doesn't cover the face in public then go right ahead.

Turtwig

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?

Can you prove that Mormonism or Christianity are religions? I don't think so. Religion is very subjective. Yep that if you believe that Migthy Fork is a religion then really that's all that matters.

Beruthiel

bumper234 wrote: »

So a religion is only a religion if it is

(A) More than X amount of years old.

As Cabaal mentioned above, Mormons, Scientology.

Has X amount of followers.

The FSM has many followers world wide.

Has a book written about it.

And has a book. With pictures and stuff!

stimpson

googled eyes wrote: »

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'd be happy to admit it as a religion, but I believe the only true Fork is the Lunch Fork.

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...