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.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm
contains the complete info on this BORING (IMHO) urban legend.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I bet after a few years of linux being declared an official religion, RMS will form the bGNULinux protestant movement agaisn't the mainstream linux church.
You know Linus would cool with those pope hats. Especially at trade shows.
http://saveie6.com/
Discordia was actually worshipped in Rome. This was the source of a lot of angst in the Empire, since they were uptight about a lot of things, and especially people religiously inclined to buck the system.
The Greeks were much more laid back about the whole deal, so Eris herself enjoyed little to no known worshippers. Well, at least not that anyone would admit to seeing.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
How is it lazy to say "insufficient data", rather than sitting in an infinite loop because you don't have anything concrete, just circular dependencies. I'd say that's smart, not lazy.
Noone's going to get prosecuted, the census form makes it clear that the religion question is exempt from the requirement to be truthful.
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
Fine. Answer in a way that does demonstrate your active objection to the query. Some suggestions, to get you started:
I know, this doctorine may not be as ingrained in UK as it is here. But it isn't as ingrained here as some might like either. That's why you (theoretically) are objecting in the first place.
Get one of THOSE listed on the census form, and see who "votes" for it or accepts it as their religiouis view, then you've made a statement.
Why? It's clearly explained that statistical information is collected to facilitate planning public services. I accept and agree with that, and am happy to volunteer this information and anything else that helps to make everyone's life easier. Heck, I don't even really object to giving detailed information and identifying myself.
What I specifically object to is being lied to about it. The census clearly states that it collects only statistics, but then it obliges me to provide identifiable information, and personally to certify that this information correct, under penalty of law.
By threatening and quantifying punishment for providing misinformation, the message is clear: we can check this information. Probably it never will be checked, but it's the threat of action that gives the lie to the claim of statistical use only. That's quite apart from the distasteful presumption of guilt, and the strange consequence that if this information can be checked, then the census form is extraneous and needn't be completed!
A census absolutely relies on the goodwill of the people. You can threaten dire consequences all you want, but you'll just encourage people to question your motives, and to provide the answers that they think you want to see.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
'No evidence of a God' questions interpretation of events. Get too obsessive and pretty much anything can be attributed to a God (in much the same way that obsessive atheists might say "if God really existed then howcome he let me stub my toe?").
'Need for a God' on the other hand, that depends on the application. From a scientific perspective, we don't require a God-figure just to make certain theories or observations fit. There's no "well, relativity works like this and this observation was obviously an act of God". From a human perspective, perhaps there is need for a God - most societies develop Gods and/or religion, and such a figure can be comforting or uplifting to individuals, and a great power for good work. In a less rational society, or with more obsessive individuals, it can also be misused as a power for evil; most religions forbid killing yet they have been abused as an excuse for many wars.
I think one of my RS teachers once said something about "Science helps us understand how, religion helps us understand why". The actual conflict comes about when you try to say "it's impossible to flood the whole earth therefore there is no God", or "well, you can flood the earth if you assume this and that and the other for which there's no scientific evidence, and anyway God can create as much water as he needs." Otherwise there's little to say that you can't accept science as fact and still believe in God or religion.
I separate the two because, as I see it, it doesn't really matter if there is a God or not. Having faith that there is one (or more) helps a lot of people, and the basic ideas expressed in most religions ("do unto others...", don't murder, don't steal, karma, whatever) are pretty sound ones, that make sense and are the kind of things that make life more fair and fun. The important thing was to understand and apply the wisdom of the parables, not whether or not Jesus existed and what colour his beard was.
So, maybe there are 1000-foot tall purple gorillas, I don't know, and it's impossible to disprove. I just figure that if some people want to think there are, that's cool so long as nobody gets in a big fight over it. And if there's lots of clever advice attributed to these mythical(?) mystical gorillas, all the better if people do listen to it.