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.
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.
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???
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?
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
> 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
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
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.
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.