Slashdot Mirror


Jedi Knight Now (Not) Officially a Religion

osiris writes: "The Register is reporting that being a Jedi Knight is now an official religion in the UK after the 2001 census conducted earlier this year. The final number of 'Jedi Knights' has not been confirmed yet as only about 95% of the census forms have been returned. As you could probably imagine, the Home Office is none too pleased. Apparently though, you can't get fined for lying about your religion in the census." Actually, according to the story, this gives the Jedi way no more official status than Plumbing would have if everyone put that down.

26 of 643 comments (clear)

  1. None v. Atheist by dmarcov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok - so someone's really decided there needs to be separate categories for "Atheist" and "None". I want to see the discussion here the delineates the differences between someone who says there's no God (which seems to me to be saying that religion would necessarily be a fabrication), and "None" ... which means. I dunno -- pretty much the same thing? That there is a god and they choose not to believe -- it seems that you start to get into one of those Douglas Adams'-ish loops about proof denying faith, and without faith god being nothing -- with of course proof, proving god doesn't exist because god exists.

    1. Re:None v. Atheist by Jubedgy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None is really agnostic...

      As far as I understand it, atheism is a belief in itself that there is no god or whatever.

      Agnosticism is saying sure there might or might not be a god, I don't care either way, let's just get on w/ our lives.

      So I'd equate 'None' meaning 'no religion' with agnosticism rather than atheism (which could, itself, be considered a form of religion).

      --Jubedgy

      --
      Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
    2. Re:None v. Atheist by catbutt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "None" means you don't have a religion or belief system or whatever. Like if you just don't think about it or give a shit.

      Atheist means you are convinced there is no god.

      (and agnostic means you've thought about, and haven't drawn any conclusions)

    3. Re:None v. Atheist by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God (which ironically is actually a position of faith, but that's another debate).

      Agnostic: You take the position that the existence of God is not knowable. This IMO is the most intellectually honest position.

      None: I guess this means that you take absolutely no position at all on the subject.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    4. Re:None v. Atheist by bps300 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of people confuse faith and religion. Religion is the organized practice of one's faith. An athiest is of the faith that there is no god, and belongs to the 'religion of atheism'. Some one who selects none believes that there is a god(s), but does not belong to any particular religion.

    5. Re:None v. Atheist by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That *is* a belief though. It's completely dismissed the possibility that somewhere - either on this world or some distant planet - someone has genetically engineered a "1000 foot tall purple gorrilla". You've taken a definite position, rather than sitting on the fence and admitting that you really have no proof that there is no gorrilla (which is what faith is all about)

    6. Re:None v. Atheist by CamelTrader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Atheist: There is no God.

      Agnostic: God cannot be proved nor disproved.

      None: God who?

      Seriously though, it seems perfectly reasonable that a person who has a belief in a God (not necessarily any particular God) could be non religious, in that they practice no specific religion. It doesn't help that 'religion' has five definitions.

      --
      Your .sig is important to us. Please hold.
    7. Re:None v. Atheist by Coward,+Anonymous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That *is* a belief though

      Yes, but a belief doesn't imply faith. I believe that the dark side of the moon is not covered by rivers of chocolate milk. That I have no evidence directly disputing any chocolate milk moon river claims does not mean it is faith, just common sense.

    8. Re:None v. Atheist by PeterP · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Its surprising how uncommon common sense is.

    9. Re:None v. Atheist by efuseekay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *sigh*, another statement of faith masquerading as an argument.

      God has made himself known through many ways, and it behooves us to seek Him.

      Please show scientifically testable/repeatable proof.

      As for agnostics being lazy, you are accusing people who have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and evaluating the evidence but came up with the an intellectually honest answer : "We don't have sufficient evidence to decide on whether God exists" of being lazy. I think that's a strawman argument.

      I am an agnostic. I spend all my time seeking the Truth as a physicist. That's my job. And if I get lazy, my advisor will kick my butt. Perhaps you should widen your views about what constitutes "Truth" and what constitutes "Faith."

      Feynman once said, "It's hard to sit on the Fence." Agnostics sit on the fence all the time, and Feynman's is right : it's not easy.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    10. Re:None v. Atheist by magi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God (which ironically is actually a position of faith, but that's another debate).

      This is unfortunately common view of atheism, and is mostly just a strawman usually used only by non-atheists. Atheism simply means that an atheist does not have a belief in any (supernatural or personal) god.

      That doesn't imply that an atheist believes that there is no god. That view is called "dogmatic apriori atheism", which though probably exists, is not very common. The distinction in not, however, always so clear, depending on what viewpoint you take.

      Atheism definitely is not a religion, as religion is much more that belief in something. Am I a Seventh Day Slashdottist, just because I believe that Slashdot exists? Atheism is just a non-belief, it doesn't have rituals, holy texts, or other institutions of religions. Not that religion is easy to define (there is no perfect definition for it).

      Agnosticism means, as you said, that existence of gods is not knowable. This is a more general and epistemological issue, while atheism deals with a more specific and ontological issue. Therefore, most atheists are agnostics, and vice versa.

    11. Re:None v. Atheist by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Atheist" is no more a position of faith than saying "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is a statement of faith.

      Actually, that's not true. We have no evidence for purple gorrilas, but we do have (supposedly) eyewitness accounts of Jesus being resurrected. I don't believe that evidence is very strong, but it is evidence.

      I know you're next argument: Santa Claus. Let's hit that one. :)

      We can actively disprove Santa Claus, because we can trace the origins of the legend, and see that it is clearly made up. With the Judeo-Christian God, it's not easy to see, because he's pretty much been around since the dawn of writing (8000 years?).

      So to actively say that there is absolutely no God presupposes evidence that you don't have, and in fact, ignores that there really is some (admittedly weak) evidence for the existence of God.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  2. All it takes is a following and some faith.... by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2000 years ago a group of people believed in a man called Jesus Christ. And now an enormous amount of our society is based around his sacrifice.


    2000 years from now, perhaps the world will pray to a man named Luke Skywalker???

  3. Re:And governments need this type of info because. by Ho-Lee-Cow! · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually, if you get enough of a population of something located in an area, what they are and their needs become important. Heavily Jewish areas of the US, for instance, often have vast influence over the local school schedules, since many of the kids aren't in school on those days.

    What this means is that in the UK, should they amass enough Jedi Knights, that they will possibly have to make special considerations for facilities and transportation. Very serious stuff indeed.

    *SMIRK*

    --
    In space, no one can hear you moo.
  4. The article admits that by Ghoser777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "As such, Jedi Knight is not officially recognised as a religion."

    For whatever reason, the article starts off with the complete opposite statement. The point is that a lot of people are putting down Jedi for their religion because they want to mess with the British government. I can't believe this got posted on slashdot.

    F-bacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    1. Re:The article admits that by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • point is that a lot of people are putting down Jedi for their religion because they want to mess with the British government. I can't believe this got posted on slashdot.

      It's highly relevant under YRO (as this data is held on puters and used by a whole raft of government and quasi-government bodies). Britain leads the US in invasions of privacy and fucked up tech laws (we've had a DMCA since 1988). Anything that happens regarding privacy/censorship/state control in the UK is a good indicator of future behaviour in the US.

      Sure, this time around the religion question is voluntary. But by not answering it, all you demonstrate is apathy. By giving a bullshit answer, you send a clear signal that you actively object to it.

      The UK census start with the bold statement that (approximate quote) "This data is anonymous, will be used for statistical purposes only, and will not be used to identify you." Then the first question demands to know your name. Do they need to know the statistic of how many people have my name? I don't think so. The presumption is that I will lie on the census, and they need to know who I am so that they can prove this and punish me.

      Go ahead and trot out the usual response of "it won't be used against you, stop bitching". If it's not going to be used, then why demand to know it? What purpose does knowing my name serve, other than to identify and punish? I'm not saying that it will be used, but if that's the case, then don't ask.

      Similarly, I had to disclose who I work for and where I work. Exactly, not approximately. If this is being used only for traffic planning, why demand to know exactly this? Again, it's probably benign, but it's more information than is needed for the stated purposes.

      For these reasons and more, I thoroughly enjoyed fucking with my census. The questions asked do not tally with the reasons given for asking them. I don't enjoy being fed bullshit or treated like an idiot, and so will take every possible opportunity to protest these censii by whatever means I have available. (Yes, I write to my representative regularly, politely and constructively, and just as regularly fail to get any response).

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. Questions for the many knights out there by Alpha+State · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't the religion be just "Jedi"?



    Does this cover the dark side of the force as well?



    Can you be of the Jedi religion without being a knight?



    What's the official Jedi position on abortion, contraception and religious killing?



    How do you make those lightsabers anyway?



  6. Purists might object? by mrbkap · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It occurs to me that purist Star Wars fans might object to other humans calling themselves Jedi Knights. A Jedi Knight implies that the person has mastery of The Force, an as-of-yet non-existant force-field around (and through) everything and everybody. Nobody has been able to even sense this on Earth, much less control it. Therefore, by Star Wars standards, nobody can be one.

    On the other hand, it is also an interesting concept in the fact that a Jedi is also completely calm, and in tune with his/her environment. By this definition, it might do some people good to attempt to be calm and in tune; they might be able to think their way more clearly, and act on less rash thoughts. If they define themselves this way, then it might not offend as many people. I believe that some people will still be irked by someone calling themself a Jedi Knight.

    Just my $0.02 worth

    --
    -mrbkap
  7. Re:The sad thing is... by Muggins+the+Mad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > None of the people who check it are actually Jedi,
    > whether they say they are or not :

    True, however many people profess to be christians/moslems/whateverists without showing any
    real evidence of actually *believing*.

    I find religious belief options on census reports to
    be a good way of measuring the overall mental health of a country. :)

    - MugginsM

  8. Re:The sad thing is... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I put a clear plastic tube onto a torch. Doesn't that count?


    A religion is just a system of belief, so there's no reason not to believe that all life flows from the force. I guess the correct religion would be Force Worshiper or something though. Putting "Jedi" would be like a catholic putting down "monk"

  9. No, not religion by kenneth_martens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've seen the Star Wars movies, and read a great number of the "expanded universe" books. Although there are some inconsistencies in the details as presented by different authors, the best I can make out is that using the Force and being a Jedi Knight is not a religion; it is more like a philosophy or a profession. The Force is simply there to be used--it is not some sort of God to be worshipped. So you could be a Jedi Knight, use the Force, and be a devout .

    Of course, I could be entirely wrong.

  10. Hello. . . Fourth alternative anybody? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This particular debate is hilarious!

    It demonstrates with great clarity, (provided one is able to pull back from their damned tunnel vision first of all), just how bloody Christ-centric most of the world is. -By this, I mean, everybody wants to put everybody else in one of those three stupid little boxes; Atheist, Agnostic, or None; people, I find, tend to stutter like the brain damaged when you tell them that their little score card is a conceited piece of shit.

    For instance:

    What if you happen to be Native American Indian? That is, you believe in the spirits of the Earth, Water and Air, believe in magic and spiritualism and such, but have absolutely no use for a foul-tempered bearded man in the sky with a 'good' book.

    "Atheist", while etymologically accurate in describing you, is too strong because while it means one doesn't believe in God, in a colloquial sense it firmly suggests that one also has no belief whatsoever in the spiritual realm, which would be a total misrepresentation.

    "Agnostic"; The wait and seer's wonder-word, doesn't apply either, because the Native American isn't waiting to see anything; s/he is actively pursuing another religious system altogether, one which doesn't have a God, (graven or otherwise), and thus doesn't give a hoot one way or another about the self-important Christian Million Dollar Question.

    And "None" is just, well. . , nice life. Hope Hollywood and Sony Entertainment are able to fill all the gaps in your heart; the things of man get pretty dry after a while. --The new season of Buffy certainly doesn't have the zing it used to. . . (Pardon my Soap Box here, but living a 'None' life appears to take a lot of medication (drugs, alcohol,), and mis-direction, (Hollywood, Games, War, going to work, kayaking like those guys in the cigarette ads, hunting for sex and love, and generally doing all the average-life things to distract yourself from the over-arching back ground noise of gnawing emptiness), and my favorite, over-rationalization, (Shit! Did I just see a unicorn? Why the hell does Asian Astrology work? How can this place be haunted? Why can a 60 year old Chinese guy punch through inch-thick steel plate that I can't even dent with a freaking sledge hammer? Why can I see auras? And Who is this Castaneda guy anyway? -Oh wait. . . That's right. I keep forgetting; It's that pesky swamp gas again! Ho ho!)

    Gotta love that swamp gas!


    -Fantastic Lad

  11. Learn from the prostitutes by DaSyonic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Things like this don't work. A while back, some woman decided to start a church for her bordello ('whore house') in which the 'followers' would enter the 'temple' and perform 'religous services' and upon leaving, would leave 'a charitable religous donation'. Obviously, it got shot down, and they spent some time in jail if I recall.

    You can not create a religion that violates the law without a lot of precedent. For example, a group of Indians, I dont recall the tribe, but they are the only group who may use peyote legally. Why? It's their religion, and they've been doing it for hundreds of years. If you had been doing this for many years before the DMCA, and all these laws, you might stand a chance. Otherwise, better just spend your time writing your local representatives.

    --

    Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
    James Brents
  12. Re:Jedi as a real religion by feorag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Who cares what religion you are? The "official" religion of England was created because one man wanted a divorce, yes? Does filling the form out "wrong" (claiming to be a Jedi) get you free stuff, a tax break, or a chicken in every pot? If not, who the hell cares?"

    It could get very interesting in the next few weeks as the government plans to bring in laws against religious hatred. Don't ask me why, but I thought arson and assault were already illegal.

    The government is going to have a fun time implementing such a law, especially when the first cases come to court and questions about what a religion is are asked. The census data demonstrates that religious belief (and even lack thereof) is remarkably diverse. While inclusion on the list of 'religions' doesn't indicate anything other than enough people wrote it in to be worth allocating it a number (to help the data entry people), it could be considered descriptive--this is what people in the UK think religion is.

  13. Re:Mmmm. Jedi. by ShavenYak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The admission price is lower, for now. Remember, at one time L. Ron was just a bad sci-fi writer too. It's not unimaginable that Lucas might see the Jedi religion as a huge money-maker. Then again, he seems to have already made plenty; L. Ron complained about writing not being lucrative enough before founding $cientology.

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  14. Re:The sad thing is... by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • None of the people who check it are actually Jedi, whether they say they are or not

    Prove that anybody who puts down Buddhist has been reencarnated.

    Prove that anyone who puts down Catholic suffers the consequences of original sin.

    Kind of missing the point of belief, aren't you?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.