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.

28 of 643 comments (clear)

  1. The sad thing is... by BiggestPOS · · Score: 4, Funny

    None of the people who check it are actually Jedi, whether they say they are or not :(. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone build a real working lightsaber....

    --
    What, me worry?
    1. Re:The sad thing is... by Spootnik · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've checked out the UK Statistics Office list of religions and it is indeed coded as 896.

      Satanism is 331.

      They even allow you to have your "Own Belief System" (code 344).

    2. 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.
  2. Once again, without a net by banky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. 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 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.
    2. Re:None v. Atheist by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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. Based on available evidence and the self-controdictions of most Gods (I'm using a Christian definition here), being an atheist is accepting the evidence for what it's worth.

      Here come the flames...

    3. Re:None v. Atheist by lemox · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      I believe a friend of mine said it best when he called himself an 'apatheist'. ; )

      --

      "We obviously need a new moderation category: (-1, Woo-fucking-hoo)" --Mr. AC

    4. Re:None v. Atheist by dopplex · · Score: 4, Informative

      None is not agnostic. An agnostic is not someone who can't make up his or her mind. What an agnostic actually believes in (Yes, real agnostics do believe in something...) is that the human race cannot know the form of a supreme being/beings or whether any in fact exist. In essence, agnosticism is the belief that there are some things that we as humans cannot know.
      Agnosticism is a belief system in itself, and it most certainly doesn't fall under the category of "no religion".

      --
      "You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
    5. 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.
    6. Re:None v. Atheist by Chagrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dyslexic, Agnostic Insomniac: Lies awake at night wondering if there is a Dog.

      --

      I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation

    7. Re:None v. Atheist by nathanh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Too simplistic. You can break down Atheist into Strong and Weak positions. The definition you wrote is arguably one form of Strong Atheism but even that is stretching it.

      Try and think of it like this: the Weak Atheist does not believe in the existence of God whereas the Strong Atheist position believes in the non-existence of God.

      To further understand the problem: Atheism is about belief, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. In practise you can be Gnostic and Atheist, Agnostic and Theist, or any other ridiculous combination.

      Back to your definitions. Atheism isn't a position of faith, it's a statement of belief. The Strong Atheist could arguably be accused of having "faith" in their assertion of God's non-existence, but to do this would trivialise the meaning of "faith". Suddenly you have "faith" that you are hungry and "faith" that it is cold. Clearly this isn't the same meaning of "faith" that a Christian uses when they claim to have "faith in God".

      I don't have much of a problem with your definition of Agnostic, although it's nothing like Huxley's original definition. But I hope you now understand that your definition of Atheist is the one popularised by the United States of Christianity, and is not a reasonable definition of Atheism.

    8. 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.
  4. Mmmm. Jedi. by Kreeblah · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this "religion" at all involve paying for the same "holy text" over and over again, in varying "special release" formats?

  5. 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???

  6. Makes you wonder... by kypper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is our bible written as such: "Saul begot Jim... yes... mmmm-hmm.... Help him he could... yes..."

  7. Anti-DMCA possibilities here by heretic108 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thinking along the lines of the Rastafarians who (in some places) have gained the ability to smoke pot legally as a 'religious sacrament'....

    How about forming a new religion, dedicated to interpreting the holy scripture as given by the Great Kernel to humankind through /dev/random, and concealed in the Mysteries of the Digits of PI.

    Amongst the religious edicts would be:
    1) Any and all binary data may contain manifestations of the Lord Kernel. Therefore, followers are instructed to decode any and all binary data they get their hands on, and apply technical skills to defeat all encryption inherent in such data/code (including copy-protection barriers).
    2) All followers must celebrate the Lord Kernel's holy abundance by freely sharing any data and code which they feel personally moved to make available.
    3) The Lord Kernel's abundance takes precedence over any human notions of intellectual property
    4) Members of the Church of the Great Kernel may transform their data in any way before transmission to other Members.

    This way, the DMCA, SSSCA, ATA etc can be ruled unconstitutional as they interfere with religious practice.

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  8. All joking aside -- by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Jedi religion does in fact have many stated ideas that aren't too far from "real" religions, so who is to say that one can not actually proclaim themselves Jedi followers?

    The question is a whole lot like asking "Is Discordianism Real?"

    Any Discordian will tell you with absolute uncertainty that it probably isn't unreal. But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel doesn't mean that the beliefs are not valid, even if a bit loony.

    I say if someone wants to be a Jedi, so be it. They have every bit as much a right to create miracles as any Christian, Jew, or Muslim. In fact, they're probably just as good at it!

    Hail Eris! fnord

    --

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

    Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  9. 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?



  10. And the new religion's first dogma should be... by gregwbrooks · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the Immaculate Misconception: Believing that Jar-Jar Binks was a good idea. Ever.

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
  11. Re:Mmmm. Jedi. by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this "religion" at all involve paying for the same "holy text" over and over again, in varying "special release" formats?

    No, that would be Scientology.

  12. 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
  13. The meaning of life by Glytch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Calvin: Why do you suppose we're here?
    Hobbes: Because we walked here.
    Calvin: No, no, I mean here on Earth.
    Hobbes: Because Earth can support life.
    Calvin: No, I mean why are we anywhere? Why do we exist?
    Hobbes: Because we were born.
    Calvin (angry): Forget it.
    Hobbes (angry): I will, thank you.

  14. Mormons vs. Jedi's by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    When a Jedi comes knocking door at my at 11AM to give me a pamphlet and ask me if I've ever used the force, I think I'm going to take them a lot more seriously. That lightsaber really stings!

  15. 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.
  16. You can't get fined, but... by gill · · Score: 4, Funny

    This could be the start of something else terrible...

    From a followup article about a month later in the same magazine:


    "Neither have the Obi-wan Kenobi wannabes thought through the possible
    downsides to their plan. What happens if 10,000 Darth Vaders declare themselves
    for the 'Dark Side'? Would it be possible for the two churches to live together in
    harmony? No chance. It's only a matter of time before some unrepentent Luke
    Skywalker ends up tied to a stake on the village green with Darth Maul lighting a
    bunch of faggots under him."


    Please, use the force carefully regardless of your luminescent or sexual preference.

  17. Reported in major British news media: by thejake316 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Census Officer: What's all this then? You've put down bleedin' "Jedi Knight" as religion, you bloody well can't do that. I could give you a whopping big fine for that. Let's see some flippin' identification, mate, or it's off to clink for you faster than you can say "Bob's your uncle."
    Jedi: You don't need to see my identification.
    Officer: I don't need to see your identification.
    Jedi: You can't fine me for anything.
    Officer: I can't fine you for anything.
    Jedi: I can go about my business.
    Officer: You can go about your business.
    Jedi: Move along.
    Officer: Move along. Move along now.

    --
    AC's cheerfully ignored
  18. Re:The article admits that by brigmar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course, once you've put your religion down as Jedi, all other questions can be answered with:

    "This is not the information you are looking for"