Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Absoluvely · 10-12-2013 04:46PM

I think they're s'posed to provide the book relevant to the person's religion, or else just give you a non-religious oath. I'm pretty sure it's been discussed in a Separation of Church and State thread.

I'd like to send them looking for one of these:
(Note the fettuccine bookmark)

Cabaal · 10-12-2013 05:07PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Why would anyone place their hand on the bible if they don't believe in god?

You do know the FSM has a bible right?

bumper234 · 10-12-2013 05:09PM

Cabaal wrote: »

You do know the FSM has a bible right?

I do but i think/thought that his post implied the "holy bible" aka the good book aka jeebus's life story (LOL) my apologies if i misread or misconstrued his post.

Cabaal · 10-12-2013 05:12PM

bumper234 wrote: »

I do but i think/thought that his post implied the "holy bible" aka the good book aka jeebus's life story (LOL) my apologies if i misread or misconstrued his post.

Thats fair enough,
I think we need to clear this up in this forum, given there's so many gods and only faith religion just seems to use the word god for their god (very confusing)

Can we refer to the christian god and its bible as Yahweh and Yahweh's Bible in future?

recedite · 10-12-2013 05:33PM

Yahweh's Bible is the default method of swearing an oath in court.
Atheists, if they wish to make a fuss, can opt for a secular affirmation instead. I don't think the court is obliged to provide any holy book other than the default one.

bumper234 · 10-12-2013 05:37PM

recedite wrote: »

Yahweh's Bible is the default method of swearing an oath in court.
Atheists, if they wish to make a fuss, can opt for a secular affirmation instead. I don't think the court is obliged to provide any holy book other than the default one.

I know they provide the Koran as I did jury service during the year and we had a Muslim lady on the panel.

recedite · 10-12-2013 06:03PM

Maybe the Muslim lady brought along her own copy of the Koran and the judge allowed her to use it.
I can't imagine a Pastafarian being allowed to use a Pastafarian bible in an oath to swear he believed in the FSM. It becomes a somewhat circular argument (not that the legal profession is averse to those, as we saw with the statute earlier)

UDP · 10-12-2013 06:26PM

I could bring my own copy of "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" but i'm not sure if swearing on a kindle would be accepted.

bumper234 · 10-12-2013 06:38PM

recedite wrote: »

Maybe the Muslim lady brought along her own copy of the Koran and the judge allowed her to use it.
I can't imagine a Pastafarian being allowed to use a Pastafarian bible in an oath to swear he believed in the FSM. It becomes a somewhat circular argument (not that the legal profession is averse to those, as we saw with the statute earlier)

No they actually provided it (came in a nice fancy wooden box too

) I don't see why a PF shouldn't be allowed but then the judiciary are not known for their sense of humour or for allowing things that they personally deem to be fads/silly/disruptive (I don't think PF's are any of those things btw)

Roger Hassenforder · 10-12-2013 10:25PM

recedite wrote: »

Yahweh's Bible is the default method of swearing an oath in court.
Atheists, if they wish to make a fuss, can opt for a secular affirmation instead. I don't think the court is obliged to provide any holy book other than the default one.

I regularly have to affirm, there is no fuss.

MadYaker · 10-12-2013 10:39PM

Pretty ridiculous that you have to put your hand on a book to swear an oath in a court of law in the 21st century.

El Weirdo · 10-12-2013 10:47PM

MadYaker wrote: »

Pretty ridiculous that you have to put your hand on a book to swear an oath in a court of law in the 21st century.

You don't have to; you can affirm.

Peregrinus · 11-12-2013 02:14AM

recedite wrote: »

On the matter of perjury, I doubt it would come to that because the colander photo should be acceptable for the above reasons.

Anyway, if a person says they believe in a particular religion, then the only way a court can really decide the matter is to record the testimony of the witness under oath.

If the bloke in the office reads and applies reg. 53 and lets you use the colander photograph on the basis that the colander does not impede facial recognition, then the matter will never go to court. You’ll be issued with a driver’s licence showing you wearing a colander.

Unfortunately, you’ll have failed to strike a blow for religious freedom, or to register a protest against religious accommodations in civil law, because the decision will have been taken on entirely different grounds. Plus, unless you go around showing people your licence, no-one will ever know of your famous victory. And, of course, we must not forget the downside of being stuck, for the next ten years, with a driver’s licence that has you wearing a colander. Like a tattoo proclaiming your admiration for Justin Beiber, this is something you may come to regret.

If the purpose of all this is to Make A Point, then in fact you want the office to refuse to accept your photograph, so that you can challenge their decision in the courts. That’s the only way the world is ever going to know of your Heroic Stand for Truth, Justice and the Monsterish Way.

And, as I have suggested before, if you want your court challenge to succeed, I think you’re best advised to argue the reg. 53 point. But, again, this means you’ll succeed on grounds which fail to vindicate the point that you want to vindicate.

If you decide to fight the thing on the freedom of religion ground . . .

recedite wrote: »

As long as someone is prepared to stand up in court, place their hand on a copy of the Bible and swear by Almighty God that they are a true follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then its officially legit and nobody can say otherwise.

They certain can. If you give evidence about this, then you can be cross-examined on that evidence. And you’ll be cross-examined by people (a) who shrewdly suspect that what you have said is not true, and (b) who are probably more skilled and experienced in cross-examining witnesses than you are at being cross-examined. They will cross-examine you in a way intended to show that you are not a religious follower of the FSM and that your motivation is not religious obligation but rather some combination of satire and political protest.

At the end of all this the judge will decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, you really are a follower of a religion which requires the wearing of colanders. Obviously we can’t say how this would pan out without actually hearing your evidence and the ensuing cross-examination, but I think it’s safe to say that the ante post odds would not favour you. Judgment for the licensing authority, with costs.

recedite · 11-12-2013 03:55PM

I dunno, I think the wearing of the colander in your driving licence photo could become a badge of honour. And it would "strike a blow for religious freedom" regardless of whether they allowed it under Reg 53 or anything else, and sure isn't that the whole point?
If I say I believe in fairies, the best barrister in the land can't prove that I don't believe in them. I'm not sure this hinges on "the balance of probabilities". There is a constitutional right to freedom of religion. You don't have to prove the worth of your religion in order to be allowed practice it. Its a personal thing. A vocation, if you like. Or maybe a voice in your head. Whatever.

Hotblack Desiato · 11-12-2013 09:46PM

recedite wrote: »

You don't have to prove the worth of your religion in order to be allowed practice it.

If people had to prove the worth of their religion to be allowed practice it, would there be any religions left?

MrPudding · 11-12-2013 09:48PM

ninja900 wrote: »

If people had to prove the worth of their religion to be allowed practice it, would there be any religions left?

This is the case for general day to day stuff, but when you go to court over it it is a different matter. Check out the rash of cases in the UK over things like being allowed to discriminate against a class of people, not work on Sunday or wearing crosses.

MrP

Peregrinus · 11-12-2013 10:48PM

recedite wrote: »

I dunno, I think the wearing of the colander in your driving licence photo could become a badge of honour.

Yes. That's exactly what you said when you got the Justin Beiber tattoo, isn't it?

recedite wrote: »

And it would "strike a blow for religious freedom" regardless of whether they allowed it under Reg 53 or anything else, and sure isn't that the whole point?

How is it a blow for religious freedom, when everybody knows that your reasons for wearing the colander are not, in fact, religious?

If anything, it looks to me like a protest against religious freedom. My interpretation of colander-wearing in photographs is that people think that it is silly that the state makes an exception to the no-headgear rule for those who wear headgear for religious reasons because religion is, in their view, essentially silly. That's surely the whole point of the FSM meme? In states which allow people to wear kippahs, etc, in driving licence photographs there clearly already is religious freedom in this particular respect; there is no "blow" to be "struck".

recedite wrote: »

If I say I believe in fairies, the best barrister in the land can't prove that I don't believe in them. I'm not sure this hinges on "the balance of probabilities". There is a constitutional right to freedom of religion. You don't have to prove the worth of your religion in order to be allowed practice it. Its a personal thing. A vocation, if you like. Or maybe a voice in your head. Whatever.

"The state of a man's mind, like the state of his digestion, is a matter of fact". Courts are all the time in the business of assessing the truth of claims witnesses make about their beliefs, intentions, etc; the whole criminal justice system would grind to a halt if courts felt bound to accept at face value everything witnesses said about the state of their minds.

The issue here is not whether you believe in fairies; it's whether you feel bound by a religious obligation to wear a colander at all times. And people can easily make a judgment about the sincerity of your claims that you do by (a) listening to you explain (what you say are your) beliefs, their foundation, their purpose, etc, and (b) looking for evidence about whether you do or not wear a colander at all times. The FSM is generally recognised as a parody of religion, not a genuine religion and, while it's not conceptually impossible that someone would embrace it as a genuine religion it's a big ask to accept that someone actually has. There mere fact that he says he has is not convincing proof that he has because, well, parody.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-12-2013 01:43AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

If anything, it looks to me like a protest against religious freedom. My interpretation of colander-wearing in photographs is that people think that it is silly that the state makes an exception to the no-headgear rule for those who wear headgear for religious reasons because religion is, in their view, essentially silly.

No it's a protest against public bodies making arbitrary decisions on the basis of religion.
They allow certain people be governed by different rules because they say they're followers of certain religions, but this doesn't apply to followers of other religions or people of no religion.
The state deciding which religions are 'genuine' or allowed be excused from certain rules is by definition discrimination on grounds of religion, it is the opposite of freedom of religion.

Peregrinus · 12-12-2013 02:40AM

ninja900 wrote: »

No it's a protest against public bodies making arbitrary decisions on the basis of religion.

Well, if it is, it’s not a very well-thought-out protest.

How can you, in the one breath, say that the public body’s decision is both “arbitrary” and “on the basis of religion”? An arbitrary decision is one which is capricious, based on a whim of the decision-maker. A decision which is based on a principle like “the state should make no law abridging the free exercise of religion” is not an arbitrary decision. If you don’t accept the validity or practicality of that principle you can object to it (in which case you are opposing freedom of religion, not supporting it) but you can’t pretend that the principle doesn’t exist, or doesn’t underlie the state’s position with respect to headgear in driving licence photographs (as set out in the notes to the DL application form).

ninja900 wrote: »

They allow certain people be governed by different rules because they say they're followers of certain religions, but this doesn't apply to followers of other religions or people of no religion.

I see no evidence at all that, in this respect, the Irish state is refusing to allow anyone feeling a religious obligation to wear headgear to wear that headgear in their driving licence photograph. Not only do I see no evidence, but I see nobody even making an unsupported claim that this is so - except you, in the post just quoted. So, tell us, why do you think what you have just told us you think?

ninja900 wrote: »

The state deciding which religions are 'genuine' or allowed be excused from certain rules is by definition discrimination on grounds of religion, it is the opposite of freedom of religion.

Nonsense on a stick. You can’t possibly give meaningful effect to a guarantee of freedom of religion practice unless you are willing to recognise religion when you see it, which involves making a judgment about what is religion and what isn’t.

If you honestly think that religious belief is something which cannot be discerned by an observer, then you must think that discrimination on the basis of religious belief is impossible (how can I discriminate on the basis of your religious belief if I cannot know what your religious belief is?), in which case legal and constitutional protections against discrimination on the basis of religious belief are unneccessary.

Your argument is going nowhere fast, ninja. Religion is a real social phenomenon which can be discerned, described and identified. If that were not so, the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody would be meaningless.

Days 298 · 12-12-2013 08:06AM

So the state decides what is a religion. Well I can't wait until an atheist becomes Taoiseach.

Peregrinus · 12-12-2013 08:12AM

Days 298 wrote: »

So the state decides what is a religion. Well I can't wait until an atheist becomes Taoiseach.

Why? You think an atheist is unable to recognise religion when he sees it?

Days 298 · 12-12-2013 08:35AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why? You think an atheist is unable to recognise religion when he sees it?

A bunch of people who believe in something illogical without any concrete evidence other than a magic book? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Peregrinus · 12-12-2013 08:49AM

Days 298 wrote: »

A bunch of people who believe in something illogical without any concrete evidence other than a magic book? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong, but let that pass. If you think you can recognise religion so easily, why do you seem to assume that it would be a problem for atheist Taoiseach to do so?

MrPudding · 12-12-2013 08:58AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're wrong, but let that pass. If you think you can recognise religion so easily, why do you seem to assume that it would be a problem for atheist Taoiseach to do so?

I think be means that if the state decides what a religion is then an atheist leader would decide there is no religion. Not that it does not exist, but that it will not be recognised.

MrP

Peregrinus · 12-12-2013 09:03AM

MrPudding wrote: »

I think be means that if the state decides what a religion is then an atheist leader would decide there is no religion. Not that it does not exist, but that it will not be recognised.

He thinks atheist politicians are characteristically dishonest and oppressive, and will lie if doing so helps them to ignore the principle of freedom of religion?

It's not likely to be a view that finds much support in this forum!

Hotblack Desiato · 12-12-2013 09:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

.

what is it with the annoying COLOR tags in your posts??

Well, if it is, it’s not a very well-thought-out protest.

IYHO, of course. I think the point it's trying to make is entirely valid, however silly the method may appear to some.

How can you, in the one breath, say that the public body’s decision is both “arbitrary” and “on the basis of religion”?

It is on the basis of religion - certain religions get a free pass on the headgear rule.
It is entirely arbitrary - there are no criteria to determine which religions are 'genuine' enough to qualify.
It is dangerous and contrary to freedom of religion - the state should have no business in deciding which religions are 'genuine' and which are not, and should not treat people differently based on this.

I see no evidence at all that, in this respect, the Irish state is refusing to allow anyone feeling a religious obligation to wear headgear to wear that headgear in their driving licence photograph.

Who are you, or the state, to pass judgement on the sincerity of someone else's religious beliefs?

Nonsense on a stick. You can’t possibly give meaningful effect to a guarantee of freedom of religion practice unless you are willing to recognise religion when you see it, which involves making a judgment about what is religion and what isn’t.

Hmm will you 'know it when you see it', to quote a judge asked to define pornography?
The state taking on the power to define what can be and can not be religion (or what beliefs are 'sincerely held') is VERY dangerous territory for everyone, believer or not. I cannot emphasise that enough.

If you honestly think that religious belief is something which cannot be discerned by an observer

The state has no business attempting to do so, and then treating citizens differently as a result.

Your argument is going nowhere fast, ninja. Religion is a real social phenomenon which can be discerned, described and identified. If that were not so, the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody would be meaningless.

Wow, you kicked the sh!t outta that poor strawman.

Read the thread again, I suggest starting at the first page this time.

Dave! · 12-12-2013 09:42AM

Who is to determine what is or isn't a religion deserving of the special privileges they receive in this situation? Who distinguishes between a legit religion and a commonly acknowledged 'made up' religion (FSM? Scientology?) ? Who decides that a small cult or some personal belief system commands less privileges than an established one?

These are all arbitrary distinctions, and it looks like the power to make them is devolved to some clerk, or possibly manager, in the RSA. I think we should at least know on what basis these decisions are made, and whether there is any discrimination occuring.

Peregrinus · 12-12-2013 11:00AM

ninja900 wrote: »

what is it with the annoying COLOR tags in your posts??

God knows. I don’t put them in, and FWIW they don’t show up on my screen so I have no idea they are there unless someone mentions them, like just now.

Most of my posts I cut and paste from Word; probably Microsoft is to blame.

[/QUOTE]IYHO, of course. I think the point it's trying to make is entirely valid, however silly the method may appear to some. [/QUOTE]
What do you think is the point it’s trying to make?

ninja900 wrote: »

It is on the basis of religion - certain religions get a free pass on the headgear rule.

You seem to think that some religious reasons for headgear are acceptable to the state, while others are not.

I see no evidence that this is so. Nothing on the form suggests it, and I have heard no reports of anyone asking to wear headgear for religious reasons and being refused. So what makes you think that this rule is applied to some and not to others?

ninja900 wrote: »

It is entirely arbitrary - there are no criteria to determine which religions are 'genuine' enough to qualify.

Where are you getting this “genuine enough” notion from? There’s nothing in the policy as announced which suggests that a religion has to be “genuine enough” before the rule can apply.

To come within this rule, the reasons for wearing headgear don’t have to be “genuinely enough religious”, or “genuinely religious”; they just have to be “religious”. That’s what the stated rule says, and if you have reason to think that the rule is not applied that way in practice, now would be a good time to tell us those reasons.

If an applicant wants to wear headgear in his photograph and says that the reason is adherence to pastafarianism and that pastafarianism requires the wearing of headgear at all times, the licensing authority (and, on appeal, the court) has to ascertain three things:

1. Is the applicant an adherent of pastafarianism? His assertion that he is is prima facie evidence, but it’s not irrefutable evidence; it could be countered by evidence showing that the applicant doesn’t generally observe pastafarian precepts, or indeed that he doesn’t do so at all, except when applying for a driving licence.

2. Does pastafarianism require the wearing of colanders at all times? That can be established by evidence about the teachings of pastafarianism and the practices of pastafarians generally.

3. Is pastafarianism a religion? Clearly, this question doesn’t arise just in driving licence cases; it arises in every case involving establishment of religion, the freedom of religious practice and the freedom of religious belief. If you think the question is impossible to answer, or that it is improper for a stage agency to attempt to answer it, the logic of your position has implications for more than just driving licence photographs. You must believe that we can have no legal guarantee of freedom of religious belief, and no legal guarantee of freedom of religious practice, since a court could never find that a particular belief or practice was, or was not, religious. For the same reason we could have no meaningful prohibition on the establishment of religion.

But this is nonsense. Constitutional provisions dealing with the establishment of religion or the freedom of religion are commonplace, and there is a slew of cases from numerous liberal democracies in which the courts tackle questions about whether a particular act is a protected exercise of religion, or a prohibited establishment of religion. Every single one of those cases involves categorising the act concerned as religious or not. That’s a question of fact; courts decide questions of fact all the time.

I think you have to make a choice here. Either you think it is impossible or improper for courts to identify a religion, in which case you must think that constitutional guarantees about freedom of religion and constitutional prohibitions on the establishment of religion are unworkable and possibly objectionable, or you think that these things are possible and desirable, in which case you have to explain why the impossibility of knowing what a religion is only arises in driving licence photograph cases.

Peregrinus · 12-12-2013 11:02AM

Dave! wrote: »

Who is to determine what is or isn't a religion deserving of the special privileges they receive in this situation? Who distinguishes between a legit religion and a commonly acknowledged 'made up' religion (FSM? Scientology?) ? Who decides that a small cult or some personal belief system commands less privileges than an established one?

These are all arbitrary distinctions, and it looks like the power to make them is devolved to some clerk, or possibly manager, in the RSA. I think we should at least know on what basis these decisions are made, and whether there is any discrimination occuring.

See my reply to ninja above. If you think that, e.g., a constitutional prohibition on the establisment of religion is desirable and meaningful, or a guarantee of free exercise, then you must think that the courts can recognize a religion when they see one. And if you think that's possible in some cases, you need to explain why it mysteriously becomes impossible in a driving licence photograph case.

MadYaker · 12-12-2013 12:19PM

Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Comments