Pasta Quest: DMV. A Pastafarians Journey for Equality.

Cabaal

Kev W wrote: »

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.

Its your personal opinion that its a joke non-religion, I'm sure others take it very seriously.
Its a belief, it can't be proven as real. The same as any religion. I guess that makes every religion a joke?

Is it too much to ask for all faiths (and none) to be treated equally in our society? Its not a big ask,

Kev W

Cabaal wrote: »

Its your personal opinion that its a joke non-religion, I'm sure others take it very seriously.
Its a belief, it can't be proven as real. The same as any religion. I guess that makes every religion a joke?

Isn't that the point? wasn't the whole FSM thing started as a way to point out that religion is fundamentally nonsensical? So what is gained exactly by having it treated equally to genuine faiths? Doesn't that go against the entire point that was being made in the first place?

Cabaal wrote: »

Is it too much to ask for all faiths (and none) to be treated equally in our society? Its not a big ask,

Not at all. But FSM isn't a faith, it's a joke about faith. Asking for a joke to be taken as seriously as a genuine faith is petulant, entitled, stupid and let's not risk being unclear about this, horribly, embarrassingly unfunny.

robinph

Kev W wrote: »

...genuine faiths...

What makes a particular faith genuine?

Kev W

robinph wrote: »

What makes a particular faith genuine?

Not being based on sarcasm would be a good start.

robinph

Kev W wrote: »

Not being based on sarcasm would be a good start.

Do you have proof that any other religion didn't begin with someone winding someone else up about a magical sky being whilst sat around the camp fire telling each other stories?

Kev W

robinph wrote: »

Do you have proof that any other religion didn't begin with someone winding someone else up about a magical sky being whilst sat around the camp fire telling each other stories?

Do you have evidence that any of them did? Because there's plenty of evidence that the FSM is a joke.

Anyway, faith doesn't require proof, in fact it's destroyed by it.

Vojera

robinph wrote: »

Do you have proof that any other religion didn't begin with someone winding someone else up about a magical sky being whilst sat around the camp fire telling each other stories?

This reminds me of a point I read in a book about the Mormons, that the Church of the Latter Day Saints comes in for so much scrutiny because its roots are so (relatively) recent and are well documented by independent sources. If we had the same resources for any other religion, we would likely be just as critical, but because they're long established society tends to just accept them. But given time, who is to say that the FSM won't be the same?

Kev W wrote: »

So what is gained exactly by having it treated equally to genuine faiths?

Who gets to decide what is a "genuine" faith and what isn't? Is it any religion that sprang up before a certain year? What makes a Christian's genuine belief more "real" than a cult member's genuine belief? Is it the number of followers that religion has? Or having roots that are so long ago that they can't be criticised? And what qualifies the NDLS to make that distinction?

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

Do you have proof that any other religion didn't begin with someone winding someone else up about a magical sky being whilst sat around the camp fire telling each other stories?

It doesn't matter how it started. What matters is whether it genuinely functions as a religion now. Christianity, etc, plainly do. Whether pastafarianism does, if disputed, is a matter for evidence. Plenty of cases on this from the US, where the question of what is a religion, and gets benefit of free exercise clause, comes before the courts reasonably regularly.

(SFAIK, no case yet where courts have held pastafarianism to be a religion, but I'm open to correction. I'm also not aware of any case where the courts have held pastafarianism not to be a religion. Not many pastafarian cases have actually made it to the courts.)

Kev W

Vojera wrote: »

Who gets to decide what is a "genuine" faith and what isn't? Is it any religion that sprang up before a certain year? What makes a Christian's genuine belief more "real" than a cult member's genuine belief? Is it the number of followers that religion has? Or having roots that are so long ago that they can't be criticised? And what qualifies the NDLS to make that distinction?

I think one definition of "genuine" faith would be one that is actually based on a closely held belief. FSM is a sarcastic thought experiment, meant to demonstrate that such beliefs are ridiculous.

robinph

Kev W wrote: »

I think one definition of "genuine" faith would be one that is actually based on a closely held belief. FSM is a sarcastic thought experiment, meant to demonstrate that such beliefs are ridiculous.

So it just requires that someone brings up a child telling them that FSM is the one true church. At that point it would pass your test of being a genuine religion.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

So it just requires that someone brings up a child telling them that FSM is the one true church. At that point it would pass your test of being a genuine religion.

It doesn't matter whether it would pass Kev's test then. The question is whether it will pass the courts' test now.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether it would pass Kev's test then. The question is whether it will pass the courts' test now.

Agreed.

Kev's contention is that trying to pass the court test now is pointless as he claims it's not a "genuine" religion. Just seeing how that is defined by him.

Peregrinus

I think Kev is right, actually. Regardless of what test he applies, if we look at the tests applied in other countries where the scope of a constitutional provision dealing with religion has been tested, pastafarianism seems to me unlikely to cut the mustard.

The whole point of pastafarianism is that it's a satire on religion. It was founded as such and is widely recognised as such. While it's not impossible that what started as a satire of religion could transform into a genuine religion, the onus would very much be on UDP to show that it has. He can't show that simply by consisting claiming that he believes it, and pointing out that nobody can prove otherwise. Based on how this is approached in other countries, the courts will articulate characteristics that religions possess, in terms of their social function, and invite UDP to present evidence showing that pastafarianism in fact possesses them.

lazygal

http://alm.at/the-second-pastafarian-drivers-license/

I'm sure this has been posted before, its the Austrian FSM case.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

http://alm.at/the-second-pastafarian-drivers-license/

I'm sure this has been posted before, its the Austrian FSM case.

I'm aware of this one. But it's not a court case. The motor vehicle department has issued the licence with the colander photograph, but hasn't said why. No court has been involved.

It's tempting to conclude that that at least means that the Vienna licensing office accept pastafarianism as a religion, but they haven't said so. Even if they did, the motor vehicle department is not a court, so this wouldn't create the kind of legal precedent that would give another pastafarian the right to a licence with a colander photograph.

Could there be any other explanation for a DMV issuing the licence, other than that they at least accept pastafarianism as a religion? Well, yes, there could. Way back in the bowels of this thread there's a post from me pointing out that, although the Irish licence application form includes a note stating that head coverings are only allowed for religious reasons, that's not what the relevant regulations actually say. On my reading of the regulations, any photgraph in which the facial features are clearly discernible is compliant with the requirements, regardless of headgear or reasons for wearing it. In other words, UDP is entitled to have a colander photograph, so long as his face is not obscured, regardless of whether he is a pastafarian or of whether pastafarianism is a religion.

So they can issue UDP a licence with a colander photograph, and it won't be a vindication of the position that pastafarianism is a religion. To get that vindication, UDP must hope that they will refuse the licence, and then he can go to court, where he can get a reasoned decision. And he must hope that (a) he wins, and (b) the reasoning on which he wins is not the reasoning I have outlined above, but rather is based on acceptance of the claims that pastafarianism is a religion.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole point of pastafarianism is that it's a satire on religion.

To some people it certainly is. And to some people it certainly isn't. In this case, if a state-controlled licensing agency has denied a service to a citizen because they've determined that sincerely-held religious beliefs are in fact not sincerely held, well, that's direct discrimination no matter how you dress it up.

runawaybishop

robindch wrote: »

And to some people it certainly isn't.

No, its 100% a satire.

UDP

As this thread is part of the ongoing case with the Equality Tribunal I have asked the Mods to lock it until the case has completed. The case probably won't be heard until at least the end of the year so don't expect any updates until then.

runawaybishop

UDP wrote: »

As this thread is part of the ongoing case with the Equality Tribunal I have asked the Mods to lock it until the case has completed. The case probably won't be heard until at least the end of the year so don't expect any updates until then.

Good luck wasting everyones time and taxpayers money.

robindch

runawaybishop wrote: »

Good luck wasting everyones time and taxpayers money.

One could wonder whether taxpayers' money was well-spent providing you with lessons in English grammar.

In any case, the thread has been locked at the OP's request as it's material evidence in the ongoing Equality Tribunal case that's pending.