Pasta Quest: DMV. A Pastafarians Journey for Equality.

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.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

Strawman. Away with you.

{...}

<paraphrasing>

Brian Shanahan wrote:

Why was it a waste of time?

runawaybishop wrote:

Because it failed

gaynorvader wrote:

Just because it failed doesn't mean it was a waste of time

runawaybishop wrote:

That's a strawman, I never said that.

</paraphrasing>

Which part have I interpreted incorrectly?

runawaybishop

gaynorvader wrote: »

<paraphrasing>

</paraphrasing>

Which part have I interpreted incorrectly?

The part where you equated something failing once to never retrying anything ever again.

ravendude

runawaybishop wrote: »

Strawman. Away with you.

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



This isn't other countries.

Valid comparisons are often made to other countries where scenarios are similar. Similar scenarios have happened in other countries with complainants having their cases upheld.

It is a valid means of seeking policy change. I suggest you look up "reductio ad absurdum" as it is a very serious and effective means of demonstrating the absurd outcomes of certain positions, not that I am saying that the OP isnt serious in his dedication to Pastafarianism.

Who are you to say the OP is acting the bollox?Provide some evidence to demonstrate the truth of this statement..Wearing a collander as religious headwear is no more absurd than wearing a towel-like attire.

He has stated that he is very serious about his Pastafarianism and does not regard it a parody religion. Proponents of pastafarianism have always maintained that it is not a parody religion.

gaynorvader

runawaybishop wrote: »

The part where you equated something failing once to never retrying anything ever again.

That's not what I said. Anywhere. I implied that you were saying "That didn't work, what a waste of time, I won't try this again." My, rather boorishly made point, being that trial and error is an excellent way of getting something done, and the errors are rarely a waste of time.

ravendude

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:

It hasnt failed yet though? That was just a response to his list of questions from the RSA?

recedite

UDP wrote: »

1. a description as provided by the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe.

Can you give more detail on this, is it a description of what constitutes a religion?

Carawaystick

Is this claim precluded from going to the equality tribunal now for being out of time?

If so the govt have done well to still a rocking boat

If not
The govt will have to give evidence of sending the response.
It seems strange there would be no receipt of postage given the monetary downside of a decision against them

You could always try making AIE and FOI requests for documentation on the decision making process in your case

You know the hooks they relied on to come to their decision, you need the rationale for picking those hooks
Like why the definition of religion used was chosen, rather than any Irish or other common law definition

Also there is the issue that the founders of many religions didn't mean to found them, like Haile Selaise, or Buddha or Jesus
So founders intent is irrelevant

FouxDaFaFa

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is this claim precluded from going to the equality tribunal now for being out of time?

If so the govt have done well to still a rocking boat

If not
The govt will have to give evidence of sending the response.
It seems strange there would be no receipt of postage given the monetary downside of a decision against them

You could always try making AIE and FOI requests for documentation on the decision making process in your case

You know the hooks they relied on to come to their decision, you need the rationale for picking those hooks
Like why the definition of religion used was chosen, rather than any Irish or other common law definition

Also there is the issue that the founders of many religions didn't mean to found them, like Haile Selaise, or Buddha or Jesus
So founders intent is irrelevant

That sounds like something with legs.

The founder of FSM may consider it a satire but what about those who have taken the idea of the religion he created and ran with it? The followers?

I would think the RSA cannot discriminate based on the perceived legitimacy of a religion or the strength of an individual follower's faith in it.

Hotblack Desiato

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

The founder of FSM may consider it a satire but what about those who have taken the idea of the religion he created and ran with it? The followers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW8fDw8VzKI

Peregrinus

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.

I'm not sure that this is true. There have been a number of cases in which applicants have been allowed to wear colanders in licence photographs, but I think none in which this decision was based upon an acceptance that pastafarianism is a religion.

(I'm open to correction here, if anybody wants to correct me.)

Peregrinus

UDP wrote: »

So the RSA claim they sent a reply to my notification of intention to make a complaint last year . . . They are willing to partake in mediation.

Have you decided yet if you will go to mediation?

Or accept their decision?

Or some other course of action?

ravendude

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

That sounds like something with legs.

The founder of FSM may consider it a satire but what about those who have taken the idea of the religion he created and ran with it? The followers?

I would think the RSA cannot discriminate based on the perceived legitimacy of a religion or the strength of an individual follower's faith in it.

I believe the position is that the religion itself is not a satire nor a parody. Satire however is an important component and practice of the religion in the same way that prayers are an important practice of Christianity.

At no time have the founders of FSM accepted that the religion itself is a satire.

UDP

recedite wrote: »

Can you give more detail on this, is it a description of what constitutes a religion?

They took what was on the Venganza.org website quoting an adopted resolution that criticizing the Creationist movement with a brief mention of a movement called pastafarianism that included a brief description of pastafarianism.
http://www.venganza.org/2007/10/council-of-europe-recognizes-pastafarianism/

Here is the full text (go to #52):
http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=en

UDP

Peregrinus wrote: »

Have you decided yet if you will go to mediation?

Haven't decided yet but unlikely considering that the RSA are refusing to even accept Pastafarianism is a religion in the first place. How does a person prove it is a religion to someone who refuses to accept it? I have full right to refuse mediation at which time it goes to investigation. There is no compromise solution here - either my application is allowed or not. The RSA had ample opportunity to contact me for further information when I made my applications but they chose to go with internet descriptions of what Pastafarianism is instead.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or accept their decision?

They already gave their decision to my first two applications. They just forwarded on what they claimed they sent me in December.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or some other course of action?

This course of action has not ended yet since this is just another step in its course.

stimpson

One thing that occurred to me last night - by saying they decide these things on a case by case basis, surely they have admitted to religious discrimination.

robinph

stimpson wrote: »

One thing that occurred to me last night - by saying they decide these things on a case by case basis, surely they have admitted to religious discrimination.

They are deciding to not explain their reasoning, and the hoping the issue goes away with saying "case by case" to each answer.

recedite

UDP wrote: »

They took what was on the Venganza.org website quoting an adopted resolution that criticizing the Creationist movement with a brief mention of a movement called pastafarianism that included a brief description of pastafarianism.
http://www.venganza.org/2007/10/council-of-europe-recognizes-pastafarianism/

On the "About" page of the Venganza website;

Pastafarianism is a real religion.

UDP wrote: »

Here is the full text (go to #52):
http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Doc/XrefViewHTML.asp?FileID=11751&Language=en

Referring mainly to the teaching of creationism, it says as an aside;

In this connection, in accordance with the principle of an open attitude to the alternative theories advocated by the scientific creationists, and in order to show the illogicality of teaching intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution, a movement has, ironically, developed in the United States. The so-called Pastafarian movement supports the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pastafarianism is a parody on religion created in response to the decision of the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design in science courses on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. According to Pastafarianism, an invisible and omniscient being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in one day. The supporters of Pastafarianism are demanding the same place in the school curricula as intelligent design. Full of irony, this pseudo-religion is setting a trend and the cult is spreading.

Last I heard, a cult was a form of religion?

Peregrinus

stimpson wrote: »

One thing that occurred to me last night - by saying they decide these things on a case by case basis, surely they have admitted to religious discrimination.

No. It's perfectly possible to decide thiings, case by case, on a non-discriminatory basis. All they're saying is that we won't decide whether, e.g., pastafarianism or Jedi is a religion until we need to decide it because the outcome of an application for a licence turns on it. It's no different from a state agency saying. e.g, that we won't decide if a particular condition amounts to a disability until we need to because someone has applied for a disability pension on the basis of having the condition.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Last I heard, a cult was a form of religion?

Not necessarily; you can have a personality cult, for instance, or a fashion cult, or a cult of ignorance. And, in the context of the paragraph you quoted, the word is clearly not intended to identify pastafarianism as a religion.

johndoc

Would an FOI request detail how they arrived at the response provided?
Or is it too early in the process to exercise that one?

MadYaker

Time for a bit of a reality check here, this was never really going to work was it. I support the aim of this endeavour and I do think what you're trying to achieve is important but using a religion that was intended from day one to be a parody of other religions was never going to work. I know its hilarious and terribly clever and all but really, taking the issue of people with religious beliefs being given special privileges up with the equality tribunal would probably have been a bit more productive.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It's perfectly possible to decide thiings, case by case, on a non-discriminatory basis. All they're saying is that we won't decide whether, e.g., pastafarianism or Jedi is a religion until we need to decide it because the outcome of an application for a licence turns on it. It's no different from a state agency saying. e.g, that we won't decide if a particular condition amounts to a disability until we need to because someone has applied for a disability pension on the basis of having the condition.

But they shouldn't be making it up as they go along. The criteria they use to determine disability should be set out and should be publicly available. Similarly, they surely have criteria to determine what is a religion and what is not?

Or are they taking a similar approach to Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court judge?

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
Concurring, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

But they shouldn't be making it up as they go along. The criteria they use to determine disability should be set out and should be publicly available. Similarly, they surely have criteria to determine what is a religion and what is not?

Not necessarily.

What we’re talking about here is challenging an administrative decision in a court or tribunal, and it’s well established here that on such questions the courts and tribunals take a pretty focussed, pragmatic approach. You are challenging this decision, and your right to challenge it arises because it affects you. So if, hypothetically, UDP decided not to take this any further, you or I couldn’t take up the cudgels (“in the public interest”) and appeal the decision to a court or tribunal - we’re not affected by the decision. And if UDP does decide to take this further, he doesn’t get to interrogate the basis on which all such decisions are taken; just the basis on which the decision relating to him was taken.

And the question will not be “would the court or tribunal have taken a different decision”? The Oireachtas did not confer the function of issuing licenses on any court or tribunal; it conferred it on the RSA. So the fact that a different decision was possible and that somebody who is not the RSA would have made a different decision is irrelevant.

The question will be “did the RSA go about making this decision in the right way?” And that can be expressed as a number of subsidiary questions - Did the RSA take relevant circumstances into account, and attach proper weight to them? Did it take irrelevant circumstances into account? Did it behave in a way that no reasonable decision-maker could have behaved? Etc, etc.

A case-by-case approach is not fatal, when these questions are asked. Consider the disability example. I can easily say that a broken fingernail is not a disability, without have to develop and articulate criteria for saying whether a broken finger, or a broken wrist, would be a disability. So if somebody applies on the basis of a broken fingernail, I can reject their application without saying how I would have decided an application on the basis of an entirely different injury, and the person with the broken fingernail won’t be able to challenge my decision on the basis that I failed to say how I would have decided an application involving a broken wrist.

From this point of view, the choice of pastafarianism is not optimal. The RSA does not have to show that they have a reliable basis for determining all questions about what is a religion and what is not. They just have to show that their determination that pastafarianism is not a religion is not unreasonable or improper; that it’s a decision a reasonable RSA, charged by the Oireachtas with making such decisions, could make. And, no offence to pastafarianism, but for reasons I have discussed at some length in the other thread, it’s not exactly a borderline case. It’s pretty much analogous to the broken fingernail, to be honest. If somebody wants to give the state a tough decision that they might have trouble defending on a challenge they should demand accommodation as something a bit more plausible - as a scientologist, say.

Brian Shanahan

runawaybishop wrote: »

The part where you equated something failing once to never retrying anything ever again.

I think you'll find on reading back the posts that it was you doing the equating, for example by saying that because UDP failed once that his whole effort was a waste of time. Or was that because you thought that pointing out the fact that certain religions are getting an unearned privilege a waste of time?

UDP

This is now going to investigation and decision phase which requires me to give a statement as to why I think the RSA have treated me less favorably on the grounds of Religion contrary to the Equal Status Acts.

Equality Tribunal wrote:

It should set out details of the link between the ground and the alleged discrimination.......and any other information...... The statement should also include any legal arguments you want to make.

What would you say?

Genghiz Cohen

UDP wrote: »

This is now going to investigation and decision phase which requires me to give a statement as to why I think the RSA have treated me less favorably on the grounds of Religion contrary to the Equal Status Acts.


What would you say?

Something like they decided that my beliefs were not valid where they would take "Protestant" or "Catholic" at face value and approve them.

lazygal

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Something like they decided that my beliefs were not valid where they would take "Protestant" or "Catholic" at face value and approve them.

Or Muslim/Hindu and accept religious head covering maybe?

OU812

The Constitution guarantees freedom of worship, and forbids the state from creating an established church.

Article 44.1 as originally enacted explicitly "recognised" a number of Christian denominations, such as the [Protestant] Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, as well as "the Jewish Congregations"; most controversially of all, it also recognised the "special position" of the Roman Catholic Church. These provisions were removed by the Fifth Amendment in 1973

robindch

UDP wrote: »

[...] requires me to give a statement as to why I think the RSA have treated me less favorably on the grounds of Religion contrary to the Equal Status Acts.

They haven't accepted that your religious beliefs are genuine - ie, they've applied the additional religious test of "genuineness" or whatever the adjective is, which they have not applied to people who claim other religious beliefs.

In this case, the RSA is putting itself in the position of passing judgement upon religious beliefs. The RSA has no power in law to decide such matters, so its ground for rejecting your application is null and void.

recedite

UDP wrote: »

This is now going to investigation and decision phase which requires me to give a statement as to why I think the RSA have treated me less favorably on the grounds of Religion contrary to the Equal Status Acts.

Because they allowed some other religious people to wear headgear in their photos, but not you. Also don't forget to point out that the headgear was not going to obscure your face; it would have complied with the requirements for the photo as stated in the rules.

robindch

Quick question here - are there any posters here who've been ordained as Pastafarian Ministers?

The ordination form is here for anybody who's interested:

http://www.venganza.org/ordination/

recedite

I'm already ordained in The Church of The Latter Day Dude.
But yeah, I'd be interested in a second ordination.

Hotblack Desiato

I treat 'fake' religions with the same disdain I treat 'real' religions. There is absolutely no difference, after all.

robindch

^^^ Just to clarify my post above, the submission to the Equality Tribunal is going to be completed shortly and one of the items that would help is evidence of Pastafarian ministers here in Ireland.

If anybody's an ordained Pastafarian minster, or would be prepared to become one in the next few days, then please let us know

Ragoo be with you.

Cabaal

Just a suggestion,
maybe contact http://www.venganza.org and ask them do they have any ministers in Ireland that have applied?

Obviously data protection would prevent them from telling you who they are but if you explain the reason why they might contact the people/person and say if they want to get in contact they can. Worth a shot?

I've not been ordained yet, its something I feel I'm not ready for yet...perhaps some day things will become more clear for me

MythicalMadMan

Any updates??

robindch

A submission was made, but so far as I'm aware, the Equality Authority has yet to rule on the issue.

Meanwhile elsewhere, Pastafarians have had mixed success - a guy in Vancouver was given the royal runaround by his licensing authority - with recordings of calls with reps:

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/pastafarian-fights-right-wear-colander-drivers-license-photo/
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Vancouver+Pastafarian+boiling+over+ICBC+photo+flap+with+video/10116066/story.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pux7jummtfA

But good news from Oklahoma where a pastafarian was successful in her application, although the licensing authority has indicated they may review the rules:

http://kfor.com/2014/09/05/oklahoma-woman-claims-spaghetti-strainer-as-religious-headwear-in-license-picture/

recedite

That's a great video. The guy has made his point calmly. Somebody in the Vancouver licencing authority has resorted to moving the goalposts to stop him.
But the fact that they chose not to apply their own rule fairly only proves that the Pastafarian was right all along.

sff

UDP wrote: »

This course of action has not ended yet since this is just another step in its course.

Hey UDP, any update on this?

UDP

sff wrote: »

Hey UDP, any update on this?

Nothing yet.

Kev W

This joke's still going, eh?

UDP

Kev W wrote: »

This joke's still going, eh?

Discrimination is no joke.

sff

That kind of bigoted attitude is probably why UDP didn't hear about all the ordained ministers in Ireland when making their application.

I myself was afraid to put my head forward in case i was told my deeply held religious views were nothing but a joke. And also because i didn't see the thread.

Kev W

UDP wrote: »

Discrimination is no joke.

In this case it is. Though I can see how the joke is obscured by the complete lack of humour.

robindch

Kev W wrote: »

[...] I can see how the joke is obscured by the complete lack of humour.

It might be a laugh to you, but for myself, I don't think there's much to laugh at about somebody being denied a driving license for close on two years because a state-run licensing authority chooses to practices religious discrimination openly.

Peregrinus

UDP, do you have a current driving licence?

(If you don't mind me asking.)

Kev W

robindch wrote: »

It might be a laugh to you, but for myself, I don't think there's much to laugh at about somebody being denied a driving license for close on two years because a state-run licensing authority chooses to practices religious discrimination openly.

It's a stupid joke non-religion and acting like you're being discriminated against because society won't pretend it isn't is insulting to people who have to deal with real discrimination. Grow up.