Pasta Quest: DMV. A Pastafarians Journey for Equality.

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!

Obliq

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?


This one is my favourite. I hope they answer this one...

And well done UDP

rovoagho

They'll probably have lawyers jumping on use of tenants instead of tenets. You can hear the ah-ha! from here.

FouxDaFaFa

rovoagho wrote: »

They'll probably have lawyers jumping on use of tenants instead of tenets. You can hear the ah-ha! from here.

Who are you to say he doesn't have religious tenants? They live in the glow of Pastafarianism and he charges them in smiles and loyalty.

What are you, a bigot?

:pac:

rovoagho

Do the tenants wear headgear, that is the question.....

robindch

UDP wrote: »

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:

I'd also have noted:

This post where the local authority claimed that pastafarianism isn't a belief:

Local Authority wrote:

"While it is acceptable to wear head covering in accordance with religious beliefs we do not believe that you have demonstrated that the use of head covering is related to a religious belief"

And this post in which the RSA declares that the beliefs to constitute a "religion", albeit a 'parody religion'":

RSA wrote:

However, it is not possible to accept that headgear worn in relation to a 'parody religion' can be accepted.

In this case, the RSA has admitted that the beliefs are a genuine religion, hence the local authority's grounds for refusal have been removed, so the local authority should have no problem in granting you a license with the colander in its rightful place.

BTW, it seems the story is getting some coverage:

http://www.theemptyshirt.com/2013/11/27/irish-rsa-discriminate-against-follower-of-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/

UDP - have you contacted TheJournal about this? I think it's the kind of thing they'd be quite happy to cover.

UDP

rovoagho wrote: »

They'll probably have lawyers jumping on use of tenants instead of tenets. You can hear the ah-ha! from here.

Pretty stupid mistake on my behalf. Even with something as bad as that the grammar used in their letter to me was much worse.

UDP

robindch wrote: »

I'd also have noted:

This post where the local authority claimed that pastafarianism isn't a belief:

And this post in which the RSA declares that the beliefs to constitute a "religion", albeit a 'parody religion'":

In this case, the RSA has admitted that the beliefs are a genuine religion, hence the local authority's grounds for refusal have been removed, so the local authority should have no problem in granting you a license with the colander in its rightful place.

The problem is the change to using NDLS centres.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, it seems the story is getting some coverage:

http://www.theemptyshirt.com/2013/11/27/irish-rsa-discriminate-against-follower-of-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/

UDP - have you contacted TheJournal about this? I think it's the kind of thing they'd be quite happy to cover.

I would rather not contact anyone. I don't exactly want it all over the news if possible (probably unlikely now).

Cabaal

I think the media covering this would undermine the faithful such as UDP and this in turn could be used to the RSA's advantage should they catch wind of it.

cerastes

I presume the purpose of all this is to highlight the prejudice of deferring to mainstream/religions?

Didnt someone mention here on this thread, that in Canada? no religious intrusion on id/driving licences?
Do mainstrem religions expect or are allowed to have headgear or other religious related paraphernalia on passport photos?

Sulla Felix

cerastes wrote: »

I presume the purpose of all this is to highlight the prejudice of deferring to mainstream/religions?

Didnt someone mention here on this thread, that in Canada? no religious intrusion on id/driving licences?
Do mainstrem religions expect or are allowed to have headgear or other religious related paraphernalia on passport photos?

I can't find anything newer than 2012 to establish whether French Sikhs won the right or not. I'm pretty sure though that France is the exception, that in most of the EU they would be able to wear their headgear for official ID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16547479

recedite

UDP wrote: »

I would rather not contact anyone. I don't exactly want it all over the news if possible (probably unlikely now).

Spoken with true humility, there can be no doubt now that you are a
genuine and humble servant of His Noodly Highness, the FSM.

Pantech

MrPudding wrote: »

If the colander on the head is going to be challenged it is not going to be by way of this EU legislation trying to standardise driving licences, simply because there is nothing there of any use. Irish legislation already gives a person the right to wear items of clothing related to their genuinely held religious belief on their driving licence photo, it is this legislation that must be used to challenge the refusal to allow such pictures.

MrP

Words cannot describe how much I love this thread!

Personally, I'd prefer to see this succeed for the reason outlined by MrP above - that if they allow religious headgear, they can't pick and choose which religious headgear, so the absurity of this can be pointed out by insisting on wearing a pasta strainer.

If this is only allowed on a technicality such as it was allowed in another EU country and therefore must then be allowed in Ireland, it doesn't really address the key issue. It also gives the authorities here an "out", in that they can then throw their hands up and say it was only allowed because of the EU, rather than it being a perfectly valid point on it's own.

John

Turtwig

FOUND YOU!

Malcolm.

Pantech wrote: »

Personally, I'd prefer to see this succeed for the reason outlined by MrP above - that if they allow religious headgear, they can't pick and choose which religious headgear, so the absurity of this can be pointed out by insisting on wearing a pasta strainer.

Wearing a pasta strainer is absurd, a true believer such as I shall be wearing a saucepan. That is how his noodliness likes it.

It is written in the "Bring a pan of salted waterto the boil (approx. 1 litre per 100g pasta), add pasta and simmerfor 7-8 minutes, stirring occasionally"

May those noodles who do otherwise boil for eternity.

shruikan2553

As an ordained minister of the church of latter day dudes I am appalled that members of minority religions like ours can be treated like this. I doubt anyone in the RSA is qualified in anything related to religion.

Malcolm.

I'm appalled that blatant sectarianism is being shown in this campaign by seeking colander headgear and no mention of saucepans.

It is written "Bring a pan of salted water to the boil (approx. 1 litre per 100g pasta), add pasta and simmer for 7-8 minutes, stirring occasionally"

No mention of colanders there.

Absoluvely

Malcolm. wrote: »

I'm appalled that blatant sectarianism is being shown in this campaign by seeking colander headgear and no mention of saucepans.

It is written "Bring a pan of salted water to the boil (approx. 1 litre per 100g pasta), add pasta and simmer for 7-8 minutes, stirring occasionally"

No mention of colanders there.

Well some of us like our Pastafarianism the way we like our pasta - à la carte.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm appalled at the American confusion between noodles and pasta. Blasphemers!

UDP

Still nothing from the RSA so it looks like they are going to just ignore my notification of action under the equal status act as the one month response time has already passed a week ago. Have the ES3 form nearly ready for sending but will give the RSA until the end of the week first. Should I be successful in my claim I can be awarded up to €6,348 compensation all of which will be donated to charity - either the Irish Road Traffic Victims Association (if they are secular - which they appear to be) or the Boards Santa Strike Force (unless there are any better ideas).

robindch

Might be an idea to remind them that you'll be taking this further.

Notification by registered letter and also by speaking with somebody whose name you take. That way, they can't (im)plausibly claim that they'd misplaced the note when the case comes up in front of the Equality Authority.

UDP

Complaint is now referred to the Equality Tribunal.

johndoc

UDP wrote: »

Complaint is now referred to the Equality Tribunal.

And they shall judge whether the ridiculous is more deserving than the utterly ridiculous.
This is absolutely worthy of following through. Well done UDP.

(Apologies to any Pastafarians who may be offended...)

IvySlayer

I'm in court doing jury duty on Monday, I can choose any Holy Book to take an oath on or I can affirm, will they offer me Gospel of FSM?

Cabaal

IvySlayer wrote: »

I'm in court doing jury duty on Monday, I can choose any Holy Book to take an oath on or I can affirm, will they offer me Gospel of FSM?

you can ask but i'd very much doubt it

robindch

This was the front page of the IT a week or two back. For a moment, I thought UDP's referral had been processed and he'd got his license. Ok, not yet, but can a front page like that be far away?

UDP

So the RSA claim they sent a reply to my notification of intention to make a complaint last year. I didn't receive it - they haven't offered any proof of sending - only a copy of what they claimed to have sent.

They are arguing that Pastafarianism is not a religion thus it does not fall under the equal status act. They provide the following as proof:
1. a description as provided by the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe.
2. That information provided by the creator of the religion on his website and via twitter shows it is a parody of religion.

The answers to my questions are (paraphrased):

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?

We don't think Pastafarianism is a religion

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?

They presume I am referring to the FSM. They don't consider Pastafarianism a religion.

3. What process did the RSA follow to determine if my religion/religious beliefs were not genuine?

The decision was based on experience and knowledge of the legal principals and equal status act.

4. Who in the RSA was given the power to make this determination?

Those that were authorised to do so.

5. Do the RSA hold the view that they have the theological expertise to determine the validity of my religious beliefs?

The RSA don't claim to have theological expertise.

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?

See 3 and 5

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?

Part 3 of the RTA but that as Pastafarianism is not a religion then the constitutional rights don't apply.

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?

Case by case basis

9. What is considered sufficient demonstration that religious headwear is being worn for religious reasons as I was requested to provide?

Case by case basis

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?

Case by case basis

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?

n/a as is Case by case basis

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?

Only if asked to by the RSA.

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?

n/a as they ask if they feel they need to.

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?

case by case basis

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?

Question not understood. Case by case basis. Additional information requested if needed.

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?

Case by case basis.


They then say that the ICAO photo standards must have uniform lighting, no shadows, flash relections and no red eye.
Also that head covers are allowed for religious reasons, facial features from bottom of chin to top of forehead must be clearly shown.
They claim I didn't meet these standards.

They claim that I did not follow procedures as I was entitled to re-submit my application to the NDLS but didnt do so.

They are willing to partake in mediation.

runawaybishop

UDP wrote: »

So the RSA claim they sent a reply to my notification of intention to make a complaint last year. I didn't receive it - they haven't offered any proof of sending - only a copy of what they claimed to have sent.

They are arguing that Pastafarianism is not a religion thus it does not fall under the equal status act. They provide the following as proof:
1. a description as provided by the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe.
2. That information provided by the creator of the religion on his website and via twitter shows it is a parody of religion.

The answers to my questions are (paraphrased):

We don't think Pastafarianism is a religion
They presume I am referring to the FSM. They don't consider Pastafarianism a religion.
The decision was based on experience and knowledge of the legal principals and equal status act.
Those that were authorised to do so.
The RSA don't claim to have theological expertise.
See 3 and 5
Part 3 of the RTA but that as Pastafarianism is not a religion then the constitutional rights don't apply.
Case by case basis
Case by case basis
Case by case basis
n/a as is Case by case basis
Only if asked to by the RSA.
n/a as they ask if they feel they need to.
case by case basis
Question not understood. Case by case basis. Additional information requested if needed.
Case by case basis.


They then say that the ICAO photo standards must have uniform lighting, no shadows, flash relections and no red eye.
Also that head covers are allowed for religious reasons, facial features from bottom of chin to top of forehead must be clearly shown.
They claim I didn't meet these standards.

They claim that I did not follow procedures as I was entitled to re-submit my application to the NDLS but didnt do so.

They are willing to partake in mediation.

Thanks for wasting everyone's time and taxpayers money. Its not like this could have been expected to happen and there were no other more reasonable avenues open to you.

GG :rolleyes:

robindch

UDP wrote: »

They are arguing that Pastafarianism is not a religion thus it does not fall under the equal status act. They provide the following as proof:
1. a description as provided by the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe.
2. That information provided by the creator of the religion on his website and via twitter shows it is a parody of religion.

UDP wrote: »

The RSA don't claim to have theological expertise.

If the RSA doesn't claim to have religious expertise, then how are they able to judge that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (huh?) does? Anyhow, your religious beliefs are your own and neither the PACE or Venganza defines them and your deity has clearly indicated that you need to wear a colander for religious reasons. Neither do I buy their "Oh, we sent it" story.

Personally, I'd thank them for their time and effort and request information on how to resubmit the application with your "facial features from bottom of chin to top of forehead" indicated on a blown-up version of the application photo.

Alternatively, you could try the mediation route, but I think they'll just try to catch you out. You'd also have to show up with a colander which might make things a trifle difficult. Probably best to stick to a paper trail.

Brian Shanahan

runawaybishop wrote: »

Thanks for wasting everyone's time and taxpayers money. Its not like this could have been expected to happen and there were no other more reasonable avenues open to you.

GG :rolleyes:

Challenging unwarrented privilege is never a waste of time. Otherwise Martin Luther King would have stayed home watching tv instead of leading all those civil rights marches.

But on the other hand disparaging other people's actions because you don't personally like those actions is often a wasteful thing to do.

runawaybishop

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Challenging unwarrented privilege is never a waste of time. Otherwise Martin Luther King would have stayed home watching tv instead of leading all those civil rights marches.

But on the other hand disparaging other people's actions because you don't personally like those actions is often a wasteful thing to do.

This was not the way to challenge it. It was never going to be anything but a waste of time and money.

robindch

runawaybishop wrote: »

This was not the way to challenge it. It was never going to be anything but a waste of time and money.

And your posting to point this out is useful?

stimpson

runawaybishop wrote: »

This was not the way to challenge it. It was never going to be anything but a waste of time and money.

I think it's interesting that you have issues with sexuality based discrimination, but not religious based discrimination.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88828699&postcount=1681

runawaybishop

robindch wrote: »

And your posting to point this out is useful?

Yes? Am I not allowed post my opinion here or something?

stimpson wrote: »

I think it's interesting that you have issues with sexuality based discrimination, but not religious based discrimination.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88828699&postcount=1681

At no stage did I say I had no issues with discrimination based on religion, I am not sure how you got that impression. My issue is how this was went about. Using pastafarianism was always going to fall flat on its face.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

{...}

At no stage did I say I had no issues with discrimination based on religion, I am not sure how you got that impression. My issue is how this was went about. Using pastafarianism was always going to fall flat on its face.

Why? What makes it less of a belief than any other religion? Because the founder made it as a parody? For all we know that could be true of any of the religions.

runawaybishop

gaynorvader wrote: »

Why?

Because that isn't how you change policy. Making an application such as this with something that is unquestionably bull**** was always going to result in this. You'd be better off engaging with the equality tribunal directly rather than this attempt - they won't (and haven't) see it as a clever way to expose the inadequacies of the system, they will dismiss it out of hand.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

Because that isn't how you change policy. Making an application such as this with something that is unquestionably bull**** was always going to result in this. You'd be better off engaging with the equality tribunal directly rather than this attempt - they won't (and haven't) see it as a clever way to expose the inadequacies of the system, they will dismiss it out of hand.

What makes you think that it is "unquestionably bull****"?

runawaybishop

gaynorvader wrote: »

What makes you think that it is "unquestionably bull****"?

Hey, lets discuss pastafarianisms legitimacy and by extension the legitimacy of all religions lol! But seriously, no. I am not interested.

How about you put forward your reasoning why this was a good approach. We can pretend it wasn't already dismissed out of hand if it makes it easier.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

Hey, lets discuss pastafarianisms legitimacy and by extension the legitimacy of all religions lol! But seriously, no. I am not interested.

How about you put forward your reasoning why this was a good approach. We can pretend it wasn't already dismissed out of hand if it makes it easier.

Who said I thought it was a good approach? I was asking you to provide reasoning as to why you thought it was a bad approach.

Brian Shanahan

runawaybishop wrote: »

This was not the way to challenge it.

Says who? I don't think you're an expert on this matter.

It was never going to be anything but a waste of time and money.

Again just because you, personally, don't like a particular action doesn't make it a waste of time. If we all lived our lives according to the prejudices of random strangers we'd still be up in the trees.

runawaybishop

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Says who? I don't think you're an expert on this matter.

Says the fact that it was fired back.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Again just because you, personally, don't like a particular action doesn't make it a waste of time. If we all lived our lives according to the prejudices of random strangers we'd still be up in the trees.

What makes it a waste of time was that it was never going to work in the first place. That isn't prejudice, its common sense. People were too busy slapping themselves on the back at how funny and audacious this is to stand back and think about it logicically.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

Says the fact that it was fired back.


{...}

You're totally right, if something fails the first time it was a waste of time and we should just give up. :rolleyes:

Cabaal

runawaybishop wrote: »

Says the fact that it was fired back.


What makes it a waste of time was that it was never going to work in the first place. That isn't prejudice, its common sense. People were too busy slapping themselves on the back at how funny and audacious this is to stand back and think about it logicically.

And yet you've been proven wrong a number of times as it's been successful in other country's when a rejection was challenged.

runawaybishop

gaynorvader wrote: »

You're totally right, if something fails the first time it was a waste of time and we should just give up. :rolleyes:

Strawman. Away with you.

Acting the bollocks doesn't get policy changed. If you want to be taken seriously you should act seriously.

Cabaal wrote: »

And yet you've been proven wrong a number of times as it's been successful in other country's when a rejection was challenged.

This isn't other countries.