Slashdot Mirror


Australia Oppresses Jedi

eberry writes "Despite over 70,000 respondents (.37% of the population) replying "Jedi" to an optional faith question on Australia's census, it will not become a recognized religion According to CNN "Australian officials say respondents could face a $1,000 fine for supplying false information. Citing, and I quote, "...people of a particular religious affiliation do not provide the correct information, certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be." Personally I find their lack of faith disturbing." And I find the fact that this is on CNN even more so ;)

685 comments

  1. Separation of Church and State by nuggz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no reason the state needs to know my religion.
    They should not even ask for this information. It is irrelevant to any aspect of the governments purpose.
    My tax money shouldn't be used to provide any religious services to anyone.

    1. Re:Separation of Church and State by jhines · · Score: 2

      That was my response to the article, it made me (US citizen) glad for the seperation of church and state, even though it is some what un popular these days.

      Government shouldn't be allocating resources based on folks faith beliefs.

    2. Re:Separation of Church and State by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      I'd like to see some ballsy Congressman publically call on President Bush to explain how to reconcile the White House _Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives_ with the separation doctrine. I don't see a problem with funding faith-based programs, but only if it's done on the exact same grounds as everybody else; IOW, faith-based shouldn't matter at all compared to need and expected efficacy.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    3. Re:Separation of Church and State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be kidiing! I see no separation of state and church in the US. As a matter of fact I see not much difference between Bush's religious talking and some of the speeches by religious-ridden countries

    4. Re:Separation of Church and State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN GOD WE TRUST DAMNIT!

      "Good night and GOD bless" after every freakin public address

      separated MY ASS

    5. Re:Separation of Church and State by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The problem is my uninformed friend, bushes faith based is done on the same grounds as everyone else, if not its even harder.

      An organization must demonstrate what it is doing for the community (drug counseling, food pantry, etc..) before it can recieve government dollars. This is more than many charities must do to recieve government dollars.

      I am against the Bush measure because I dont trust the government to not use this money to pressure churches to tote the PC line later (like in canada where Christian Stations cant say Homosexuality is a sin on the air).

      --
    6. Re:Separation of Church and State by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Well I was suspended once for bringing a Bible to school, is that seperate enough for ya chuckles?

      --
    7. Re:Separation of Church and State by Doom+Ihl'+Varia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with some of these faith based programs (the ones where you are forced to live on-site) is they REQUIRE you to partake in religious activities more often then not. Say you are an athiest and you are alcoholic. Then let's say you got arrested for drunken & disorderly. The judge orders you to rehab. Wouldn't you be a little irked if a court inadvertently ordered you practice a religion you want no part of?

    8. Re:Separation of Church and State by scott1853 · · Score: 2

      That's the beauty of the current administration. They don't have to do a damn thing they don't want to no matter who requests it. Nor do they have to ask for permission to do anything they want to.

    9. Re:Separation of Church and State by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm. That I would definitely have a problem with (compared to, say, a soup kitchen that distributes /just/ food, not food+religious tract). Has it been tested in the courts? If not, hopefully it will be soon.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    10. Re:Separation of Church and State by Doom+Ihl'+Varia · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, no.

    11. Re:Separation of Church and State by IAMAJACKASS · · Score: 1

      "I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed." Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, In official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April, 2000. "Jesus Day 2000" Proclamation

    12. Re:Separation of Church and State by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Simple. There is a prohibition against endorsing a particular faith by the federal government (states can vary), but that does not mean that there is no such thing as religion. Acknowleding and even (in certain ways) supporting faith based charities, such as homeless shelters and free kitchens, is helping the people help themselves.

      Or are you saying that we should have a federally mandated atheistic state? That would worry me as much as dictating any particular religious faith. Religion is part of society, and society creates the government. It's chilling to think of it your way - a government that dictates the society.

      --
      Evan (no reference)

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    13. Re:Separation of Church and State by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      http://www.snopes2.com/religion/jesusday.htm

    14. Re:Separation of Church and State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool, could I get the name of that school so I can send my children there? I definitely want them to go someplace which takes learning very serious and doesnt tolerate mindless superstitious types. Nothing is worse than having a science teacher who is actually a creationist. I should get a law passed that bars xtians from prostheletyzing young minds with thier silly mythology. honest, xtians want the have defacto carte blanche ability to present xtianity's superstitious nonsense about some gaseous alpha male in the sky of astronomical heft mischievously creating dinosaur bones to mislead the unfaithful, but try and present another religeon's mythology or texts and they will be the first to howl about it.

      please let me know where this school is so I can have them properly educated for a secure future rather than working on an assembly line.

    15. Re:Separation of Church and State by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 2

      link so people don't think you're just making things up. But it is 100% true.

      --
      MORTAR COMBAT!
    16. Re:Separation of Church and State by gorgon · · Score: 2

      What did you do, whack some dude with your Bible?

      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    17. Re:Separation of Church and State by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The first amendment says that Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This is an executive office, not legislative, and it doesn't establish a religion past acknowledging they exist and are a part of American communities. If anyone thinks that's not okay somehow, they can bring it up with the federal courts.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:Separation of Church and State by Francis+Avila · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem with some of these faith based programs (the ones where you are forced to live on-site) is they REQUIRE you to partake in religious activities more often then not.

      Yes, but you don't have to listen. (Isn't that what everyone is always saying about the 1st Amendment? You have the right to speak, but I have the right to ignore?) And if it solves this following problem...

      Then let's say you got arrested for drunken & disorderly.

      ...then what does it matter? I thought we were supposed to fund organizations based on how effective they are. If an organization is very good at, say, alcoholic rehab, why should it be denied funding because it also happens to be faith-based? The state isn't funding a religion, it's funding a charitable organization. How is this any different from the state funding scientific research? Or art? Or hospitals? Or street-cleaners? Or even granting scholarships to people who hold a given religious belief, or any kind of belief? He/she/it does what it does well, and so they receive money so they can do it better and so that the gov't knows it isn't wasting its money. Don't corporate investors do the same thing (dot-com frenzy aside)? Who cares about anything else?

      (Of course, many argue somewhat plausibly that the constitution says nothing about denying government support even to religions, just that it would guarantee religious freedom, in contrast to what was happening in England at that time and before. But I'm not here to argue that.)

      If one who is an atheist (to use your example) is bothered by being in a "faith-based" organization, perhaps that person's own faith in atheism (contradiction?) is weak. He should be able to remain firm without trouble, I would think, as many others have in the past, even to the point of being killed over it. (Ancient Rome, anyone? Modern China, anyone?)

      Remember also that many hospitals are religiously-affiliated. In times past, especially in Catholic hospitals, a very large percentage of the staff would actually be comprised of priests and nuns. I don't think anyone was ever shocked and horrified by that, so why should this small-time stuff bother you now?

      I say this: if the gov't is to be involved in maintaining quality of life in any capacity, it should act like a corporate investor, funding charitable organizations ("companies") that give a good return on investment, not ones that are cash sinkholes and don't benefit anyone. Who should care about ideology if the job gets done?

      The only other possibilities I see are (A) the gov't doesn't concern itself with quality of life at all (unreasonable), (B) the gov't funds everybody regardless (a huge waste of money), (C) the gov't does everything itself (bloat and corruption) or (D) the gov't only funds "ideologically pure" organizations.

      Of course, since it's impossible for an organization to be ideologically pure (everyone has an ideology), "purity" becomes defined simply on the basis of whatever the regime in power says it is, which sounds to me like a much more tyrannical and arbitrary exercise of gov't power than any of the above. The gov't should be non-descriminatory, and denying funding solely because an organization is a religious one, regardless of its merits, doesn't sound like non-discriminatory behavior to me.

      So if someone opens a Jedi alchoholic rehab center, and they do have a good rehab rate, what do I even care whether "Jedi" is a real religion or not?

    19. Re:Separation of Church and State by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2
      The judge orders you to rehab. Wouldn't you be a little irked if a court inadvertently ordered you practice a religion you want no part of?
      Whaddya mean, "inadvertently"? Courts do it quite deliberately all the time, by forcing people to attend Alcholics Anonymous and other "12 step" religion-based rehab programs.
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    20. Re:Separation of Church and State by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      No just free reading time (i think it was the 6th grade).

      --
    21. Re:Separation of Church and State by DrNibbler · · Score: 1
      Whaddya mean, "inadvertently"? Courts do it quite deliberately all the time, by forcing people to attend Alcholics Anonymous and other "12 step" religion-based rehab programs.
      Wrong.... AA does not require you to practice any form of religion! As a matter of fact most 12 steppers I know tend to refer to a Higher Power more then a particular God. I believe that the AA third step essay particularly address the issue of atheism stating that you can use your group, your sponsor or AA as a whole as your Higher Power.
      --
      Sean.OutaHere()
    22. Re:Separation of Church and State by FCAdcock · · Score: 1
      I disagree whole-heartedly.

      I believe in what I believe, and do not believe that a church can tell me what I need to do, think, or believe; so I do not attend church. Yet my money still goes to churches, and religous programs, that I do not attend...

      The US Government does sponsor religion. The Christian religion. They don't allocate money for hindus, they don't give money for muslims, and I'm damn sure they don't give money to our Rastafarian friends....

      When I get a letter in the mail telling me that EVERY single religion in this country is being given a share of my tax dollars, then I'll support giving them my money. Unitl then, I'll just sit here and grumble to myself...

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    23. Re:Separation of Church and State by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      I'd doubt that most of the people partaking in those programs have the money to take it to court. Any anyways, Judges don't get elected by not going to church every sunday... If you DID take it to court, you'd probably get to stay in the program even longer just so that the judge didn't upset the lady who sits beside him every sunday, and who might just vote for his re-election...

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    24. Re:Separation of Church and State by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Yes, you do have the right to speak, but not if you have government backing, and you want to speak of church, or God, or religion. That falls under seperation of church and state, which last time I checked, was still on the books, even if not used anymore.

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    25. Re:Separation of Church and State by Tassach · · Score: 2

      Suprisingly, most of the opposition to the Faith-Based programs is coming from religious groups. They don't have problems with the government giving THEM money... but when the government gives money to those [heretics|heathens|papists|jews|whatever] it's a BIG problem.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    26. Re:Separation of Church and State by Atryn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Office of Faith Based Initiatives and Community Programs was created specifically for the purpose of getting more federal funding to faith-based organizations. I have no problem with equal funding for all organizations as long as it harms none.

      However, what we cannot have is a gov't program specifically designed to benefit faith-based organizations over non-faith based organizations. We also cannot have court-mandated participation in any faith-based organization because that amounts to a state endorsement of religion.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    27. Re:Separation of Church and State by cpeterso · · Score: 2


      What if the government gives money to a homeless shelter to help them pay for food and clothing? That sounds ok. What if that homeless shelter uses the government money to buy each homeless person in their shelter a warm meal, clothing, AND a copy of the Satanic Bible? Is that still ok?

      This is not a troll argument because a Christian charity group has already used federal money to buy Christian Bibles to give away.

    28. Re:Separation of Church and State by Atryn · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite... From FirstGov:

      The executive branch is responsible for executing and enforcing the laws of the land. The power of the executive branch is vested in the President.

      More specifically, from The Consitution, we have Article II, Sections 1-4 describing the Executive Branch... Summed up:

      Article II, Section 1: We have a president and here is how he's elected...

      Article II, Section 2: He commands the military, militias, makes treaties, appoints ambassadors, judges, and officers of the executive branch.

      Article II, Section 3: He needs to inform congress of the state of the union.

      Article II, Section 4: He can be impeached for...

      So, we can see that there is really no basis in law for why the Executive branch should be involved in the allocation of funding to faith-based organizations anyway. It has nothing to do with the enforcement of law, international affairs, military actions, etc.

      This administration, perhaps more than many recently, has gotten into many things it should not.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    29. Re:Separation of Church and State by Atryn · · Score: 1

      I'd hate for you to think that this is the position of supporters of separation of church and state. If you simply brought the book to school and were reading during assigned reading time, I see NO reason why you should have been suspended, and I am not christian.

      Besides, the Bible is one of the greatest works of fiction of all time right? (ok, that was a cheap shot) ;)

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    30. Re:Separation of Church and State by prismatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Atryn's post needs to get modded up. His interpretation is essentially what the First Amendment says about religion.

      In addition to what he said, however, the government cannot legally create a program which specifically benefits secular organizations over sectarian ones, either. That would be discriminating against a religious org.

      --
      Brian Voils
      "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
    31. Re:Separation of Church and State by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      If they did, they would lose their funding, just as certainly as if they used the money to boy copies of the King James Bible.


      You might as well ask: "What if they took the government money and used to it buy cages to attach to the homeless men so they could drop rats into them and the rats chews on their private parts while they danced around, waving burning torches and singing "Strokin'".<p>
      They would lose their funding.<p>
      But it would be more interesting than losing their funding just for giving out books.<p>
      --<br>
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    32. Re:Separation of Church and State by prismatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you should probably write (dead-tree, snail-mail version) to your representatives and senators, and tell them exactly that (minus the "sit here and grumble" part). Tell them you want your taxes either directed to all religions equally, or to none of them.

      Then get all your friends who feel the same way to do the same. And all their friends. And advertise it to people you don't know.

      Then, when your congressmen get thousands of letters saying this, they might bring it up in Congress and it might eventually change the system.

      And I can assure you, by the sheer fact that Muslim and Jewish and Mormon and Catholic Chaplains exist in the US Military, and get paid equally and receive the same support from the government, that our government does in fact allocate funds to non-Christian religious institutions.

      --
      Brian Voils
      "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
    33. Re:Separation of Church and State by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Saying Higher power instead of naming a particular God is just a dancearound. In 12 step programs, you must admit that you, personally are powerless. This is the first thing wrong with them. Next, you must turn to "Higher Power" for help. What else is this higher power but a deity? 12 step programs replace addiction to alcohol or street drugs, or gambling with addiction to the opium of the masses. They do not cure addiction.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    34. Re:Separation of Church and State by bitchx · · Score: 2

      States cannot vary based on the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.

      Hope that helps.

      --

      I'm the best IRC client ever.
    35. Re:Separation of Church and State by jhantin · · Score: 1
      Besides, the Bible is one of the greatest works of fiction of all time right? (ok, that was a cheap shot) ;)

      More like one of the greatest anthologies of all time, actually. It's a collection of books that includes political and religious history, poetry, parables, biography, myths, legends, advice on dealing with people, et cetera.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    36. Re:Separation of Church and State by issachar · · Score: 1
      I do believe that the "Chuckles" reference puts you somewhere in the greater vancouver area. So I'd be interested to know... what Elementary school was this?

      Let me say, I do believe that that could occur in BC schools. They can be quite hostile to Christianity... (note, NOT to religion in general). In my highschool we had a class that taught us about a few carefully selected religions (Christianity was not one of them), but our choir teacher got in trouble for selecting religious themed music for the after school choir when they were doing a series on music in the middle ages... (Just try finding music from that period that is NOT religous)...

      Then there's the fight that Trinity Western University had with the BC College of Teachers who felt that people who believe (not teach) that homosexual behaviour is sinful might be prejudiced against homosexual students, and on the basis of what they might do, TWU should not be permitted to train teachers despite the recommendation of the BCCT's own panel that TWU should be allowed to train teachers as their academic standards were excellent...

      Anyway, I'm definately off-topic at this point, but I am curious to hear what school that was... To all the Americans reading this post, I only WISH my country had the same degree of religious freedom that yours did. At the very least, you have a healthy debate on the subject...

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    37. Re:Separation of Church and State by bitchx · · Score: 2

      It has been held over and over and over that the first amendment applies to the government at large, as the executive branch only acts through the empowerment of the legislature.

      --

      I'm the best IRC client ever.
    38. Re:Separation of Church and State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mormon and Catholic...non-Christian religious institutions.

      I think the Church of Later Day Saints and the Catholic Church would disagree with your asertion that they are not Christian organisations. Not to mention that Judaism and Christianism share a common root (Judeo-Christian, heard of that?), which really only leave Muslim out of your whole list.

      Guess which God Muslims pray too...

      Yeah, watch that multi-faith supporting Not-Judeo-Christian-Muslim-God lovin' US Government Military go!

    39. Re:Separation of Church and State by issachar · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with that? He just proclamed "Jesus Day"... somewhat like declaring "American Cheese Month", National Book Week, or Gay Pride Day... it holds no weight of law...

      --
      . --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
    40. Re:Separation of Church and State by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Wrong.... AA does not require you to practice any form of religion!

      I'm sorry, but that is simply a lie. Five of the 12 Steps mention God (even if they say "as we understand him"), and the second of the "12 Traditions" of AA says "there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself..."

      And being forced into worshipping your group or sponsor or organization as a "higher power" is no more acceptable than being forced into worshipping a diety.

      I am a spiritual anarchist - I do not believe in any "higher power" any more than I beleive in a "higher authority", for both presuppose hierarchy.

      If 12 Step programs work for you, great. (Though it's more likely to be due to social support than to the steps themselves.) But forcing anyone into "recovery" is a bad idea, and forcing a faith-based system on people - especially in the absense of evidence that it's better than the alternatives - is unconscionable.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    41. Re:Separation of Church and State by gi-tux · · Score: 1

      And your attitude is exactly why I hope the church that I attend will never accept any federal funding for its programs. I don't want anything to stand in the way of teaching the truth. According to my bible (Mark 16:15), "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature". And I certainly don't want anyone in government to tell me what the gospel is.
      The church I attend does participate in the faith-based work with the local prison, and has been quite successful with it. I am thankful that we have been able to help some people live a more productive life in some way. However, I believe that the government dictating what the faith in a faith-based program is would completely distroy most programs.

      --
      I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
    42. Re:Separation of Church and State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can assure you, by the sheer fact that Muslim and Jewish and Mormon and Catholic Chaplains exist in the US Military, and get paid equally and receive the same support from the government, that our government does in fact allocate funds to non-Christian religious institutions.

      How on earth did someone going 'innocently' implying that Mormons and Catholics aren't Christians get moderated up as insightful instead of down as troll/flambait? That post is about as textbook a troll as you're going to get.

    43. Re:Separation of Church and State by FCAdcock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you wouldn't mind it if muslims tried to teach you about Allah when you went to Wendys for lunch? See, you seem to love religous freedom, all christians do. They just want religous freedoms to only extend to other christians, and not to others. If we lived in the middle east, where Christianity is banned, I'd bet you wouldn't be quite so happy...

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    44. Re:Separation of Church and State by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      i agree. i am a more an agnostic than anything else, i think religion is a load of garbage, but i have no problem with the bringing of a bible to class. just as long as you follow the idea that you are free to believe whatever you want, just dont expect anyone else to believe the same stuff.

      and i agree with the second point too, from my point of view, i would also be incredibly interested in reading and studying a book that has convinced millions of people to believe all sorts of crap and then to convince them that they need to try to convince others. its the worlds greatest control mechanism, and my hat goes off to its writers.

    45. Re:Separation of Church and State by packeteer · · Score: 1

      ok i can tell by your statement that you have not gone through a 12 step program...

      let me correct you a bit.. in a 12 step program you do NOT have to flee to a "higher power" but yes it is true they do not "cure" addiction...

      unfortunatly addiction is an as yet uncurable disease... all a 12 step program does is replace your abuse of alcohol or drugs or gambling or whatever with a healthier activity...

      a lot of people start doing stupid things when they get sober... many of them smoke more and engage in rickey behavior but here is the key ideal behind AA: ITS BETTER THAN DRINKING

      there is no fix to alcoholism... you must admit when you go into a program that it WILL caseu you problems and it WONT go away... this is a problem that you cant get out of only make it less worse...

      sorry but its true 12 step programs arent easy or pretty but they DO help people... they considerably help people's lives because to many of them drinking is the biggest problem in their life and once that goes away all the other problems are easier to deal with...

      there is no "higher power" there is no "easy way out"... its going to suck and god may help you but it wont do the work for you...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    46. Re:Separation of Church and State by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      Um... so then what was your point in the first post?
      Bush's initiative would be nothing new if all it meant was giving money to religious charities. We ALREADY do that, and rightly so... under the condition that they are actually doing charity work, not religious evangelizing. Most religious charities set up boards to keep the church and the charity financially separate, and that generally works out great. What people object to in Bush's proposal is that he is pushing for federal funding of programs that make evangelism the central part of their programs and services.

    47. Re:Separation of Church and State by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      Some courts disagree with you. like this one, In NY

      Being forced into a treatment program that uses religious evangelism is NOT considered justifiable, and "well, you don't have to listen" is not considered an excuse. The key difference is not who runs the program, but rather if the program mixes mandatory evangelism with its services. Catholic hospitals treat the sick: they don't force people to pray before treating them, or subject patients to prayers if they don't want them. But some programs do. In the case I am reffering to, it was an atheist who was sentanced to attend a particularly evangelical sect of AA as part of his treatment. That's just not justifiable: government cannot mandate religious practices.

    48. Re:Separation of Church and State by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      AA is not only very religious, but it has even argued that it's meetings have the protections of religion. The Big Book contains several passages that basically insult nonbelievers, most in the section titled "We Agnostics." At one point, it threatens with DEATH (via failure to get sober) anyone who does not believe: "To one who feels he is an atheist or agnostic such an experience seems impossible, but to continue as he is means disaster ... To be doomed to an alcoholic death or to live on a spiritual basis are not always easy alternatives to face." and "But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life -- or else. Perhaps it is going to be that way with you. But cheer up, something like half of us thought we were atheists or agnostics."(both from page 44)

      Here are a smattering of more of it's quotes:

      "If you think you are an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptic, or have any other form of intellectual pride which keeps you from accepting what is in this book, I feel sorry for you." (page 181) ( i.e., not believing in god, or not believing that one can know if there is a god, is a form of intellectual pride! (despite both being professions of lack of belief or ignorance!)

      Even a cursory read of AA materials will find countless examples not simply of religious evangelism, but even slanderous insults on the character of non-believers like the ones above.

    49. Re:Separation of Church and State by Hestas+Coyote · · Score: 1
      What else is this higher power but a deity?
      To automatically presume that a higher power must be a diety of some form is highly presumptous. I am going out on a limb, but what if your "high power" is some supreme alien lifeform, and who is to say "God" isn't that as it is. A higher power can be someone or something of great importance and/or influence. It can even be just the thought or idea or something greater than one's self. To paraprase Carlin, if there is a God, why should he bothered with all my petty problems. He has enough to do as it is. We are here for him, to one day be his equals. To do this, we must overcome our own problems first.
    50. Re:Separation of Church and State by gooberguy · · Score: 1
      According to my bible..

      The bible says a lot of things. Here are a few:

      Should we kill?
      • Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
      • Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

      Are we saved through works or faith?
      • Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
      • James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)

      There are a lot more contradictions in the bible. That's one reason why I am an athiest. This site seems to have good list of contradictions. Scroll down the page to view them, and don't tell me they can't be taken literally (otherwise who would determine what parts of the bible should be taken literally) or must be read in context (even if you read the passages around the contrdictions, it doesn't help the fact that the bible is saying two completely different things).

      D/\ Gooberguy
      --


      Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    51. Re:Separation of Church and State by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      It seems that you agree with what I am saying but let the god part of it muddy the waters. The point I was hoping to make is that we must solve our problems ourselves, or they won't be solved. We can get others to help us, but not to do it for us. Twelve step programs start out by asking you to accept that you are powerless, and someone else, the "higher power" must fix things for you. Whether that's God, E.T., or Mommy, it is no different.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    52. Re:Separation of Church and State by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      Hey, I was never speaking about Bush's proposal. The closest I came to saying anything about Bush was replying to someone who said "I wish I had a say" by pointing out that he won a vote by the electorates.

      In fact, I've focused more on religious uses of tax money in things like military clergy, where tax funds are directly used to print and purchace faith based writings and scripture. I think that's a good example of where Government must acknowledge religion and fund the support of that religion. An excellent example where blinding following doctrine is stupid.

      And the reason I've focused on that is because I know how that works, it exists now, and is not an unfinished, unimplemented proposal that has quite a few opponents, and will not survive past the current president's term, unless a very like minded president is elected, in which case, the public gets what they vote for. It's not like he's Nehemiah Scudder, no matter how much it seems like we've entered the crazy years.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    53. Re:Separation of Church and State by gi-tux · · Score: 1

      Context is very important. Especially in interpreting any text. That would be like saying "pointers in C are a good thing" and then saying "pointers in C are a bad thing". Both statements are correct, depending upon the context. Without context you can't even determine if X + Y = Z is a correct equation.
      Ex. 20:13 is the giving of the 10 Commandents. These commandments are the basis of the Law of Moses as given unto the Hebrew (God's chosen) people. The context is murder or killing without provocation. Ex 32:27 is a command given unto the men of the tribe of Levi (the Levites were to be the religious leaders of the Hebrew nation). These men were expected to be model citizens and keepers of the laws, and in this case these men had lead the nation astray. Gods punishment for this crime was death. The punishment for many crimes under the Law of Moses was death. God also in many cases command the army of the nation of Israel to kill their enemies, but this is still not murder.
      As for salvation by faith or works, again there is no contradiction here. We are saved by the grace of God. However, we are required to prove our faith by our works. If I told you that I would give you $100.00 if you would drive to my house and pick it up, would the drive earn you that $100.00? No, the $100.00 is a gift, you did not earn it, I gave it to you. However, you had to get to me to get it.
      I am not sure what Matt. 19:16-21 has to do with the topic of work and faith. The "rich young ruler" had something between him and God. He loved his wealth as much or more than he loved God. God demands the number 1 spot in our heart and our life, he is a jealous God, and the "rich young ruler" apparently could not deal with that, in Matt. 19:22 "he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."
      One more point on this, is that you are saved before you do any work of faith. The commandents apply to the saved, not to the unsaved. You (as an atheist) are not commanded to go into the world and teach, or anything else. I (as a Christian) am under that commandent. Therefore you can not be saved by works, as you perform the works after salvation.
      I wish that I could take the time to comment on each and every one of the so called contradictions on the site that you pointed out. However, the time and space aren't best used here on SlashDot. As this would be getting O.T. (Off Topic not Old Testament) quite a bit.

      --
      I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
    54. Re:Separation of Church and State by gi-tux · · Score: 1

      You are correct, I wouldn't be quite so happy. However, I would hope that I was as much a Christian in that situation and I am now. I do disagree with you on religious freedoms or any freedoms. Freedoms are totally separate from beliefs. There are many things posted here on /. that I disagree with, however I will fight for the right for them to be posted. The same is true for religous freedom in the U.S.A. I don't agree with a large number of belief systems including many "christian" religions. I will, however, fight for the right of religous freedom for each of them and for each non-christian religion as well.
      If anyone or anything can silence any one freedom, they can silence any other freedom also. If you really believe in the right of free speech, free press, or any other freedom granted by the Constitution and its amendments, you should fight for every other freedom granted by those same documents.
      I personnally believe that the press often times takes their freedom a little too far, but I wouldn't dare start a campaign to remove their freedom. The same goes for free speech, in that I believe sometimes it is used incorrectly as a shield to say hurtful things about others, but I wouldn't dare suggest that free speech be impaired. There are many rights that we have in the U.S.A. that could be impaired in what would seem reasonable ways, but once you start impairing them, even a little, it will start a land slide.

      --
      I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
    55. Re:Separation of Church and State by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      But I do expect others to believe, I dont want to come off as an 'im ok youre ok' type because they are mostly gutless wonders afraid of conflict. I dont think that *I* can convince anybody, but it is my duty to share with them.

      Now its your right not to believe, and I would go so far as to say an authority figure in the school has no right to push religion, but we should not punish students for coming in and expressing their beliefs (whatever they may be) to other students.

      As for as the whole 'youre a bunch o mental midgets because you believe in God/Jesus' its a bit tired, as someone working on my masters in engineering I know how science works (Im no Einstein but I would put myself in at least the 95th percentile).

      I dont need the Bible/am not a Xtian to give me comfort and make all the really hard to understand things go away. Quite the contrary I find I put much more effort into understanding the workings of 'secular' science (if there is such a thing) than most atheist/agnostics put into trying to understand Xtians.

      Final point, religion is garbage Jesus himslef was hated by the 'religious' of his time, and had little for empty prayer (read in tradition withouth heart and mind). Being a Xtian is about having a relationship with Jesus, not about going to church and being a good person.

      Did not mean to rant but 5 years at liberal 'be a xtian in your room alone'. and 'listin to everything i say or youre an intolerant right wing nut' schools has made me a bith bitter..


      Regards

      --
    56. Re:Separation of Church and State by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Naa Im American (WNY), but I have faimly in Fort Erie (which I still consider WNY (JK).

      As an American I know youre 100% right in how hostile Canada is for non pc stances on issues, the sad part is the US will be right there with you in no time. Not so much because of experiences like mine, but because people are beging to equate thinking something is a sin and teaching it to your children makes you a bad parent/person.

      --
    57. Re:Separation of Church and State by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      but it is my duty to share with them

      if that is how you think then you can quit whining about your "5 years at liberal schools" bullshit, you were merely getting a taste of your own medicine.

      this is probably the biggest irritation in the majority of current religions ... the inability to leave ppl to their own opinions on a subject, and simply have a discussion, and the brainwashed need to try and force their flawed worldview based on a single work of fiction onto ppl that have the misfortune to cross paths with them.

      and i say "current religions" because all religions thru out history have had finite life spans, and dont bother thinking that yours will be any different, the world will eventually be rid of it, i guess the biggest shame is that it tends to be replaced in favour of more bullshit religions.

      congratulations on being in the '95th percentile' ... i hope thats working out well for you, being smart and all. could i perhaps suggest that you spend a bit of time away from engineering to spend some time reading a few of the books that have looked into the 'history' of your religion and have pretty much showed it up to be the fake that it is. well, maybe fake is a bit strong, im sure there are elements of truth to it, more like 'not all that you believe it to be'. that fits a bit better.

      ill tell you what else is getting tired, people spouting their resumes upon hearing the 'mental midget' line, as if believing in bullshit is somehow justified because they are studying for longer than 3 years at uni/college.

      oh yeah, and fuck that 'gutless wonders afraid of conflict' stuff. bring it on. just in case you couldnt already tell :) (and dont get too excited. i dont really hate you or anything, i just like a good argument)

    58. Re:Separation of Church and State by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Well the gutless wonders was pointed at 'im ok youre ok' which you are boviously not. The fact you think I am a delusional twit because I have different beliefs than you show that. It also shows you are just as closed minded as any xtian 'nut'.

      I was not resume dropping with the 95% in Math and Analysis its a fact, and I point that out because alot of xtian bashers assume thay are all so dumb to understand the way things 'really' are.

      By the tone of your reply you dont want to have a discussion so Ill let you to your own devices I am not here to fight with anyone. Any time you actually feel like talking about it instead of dropping insults.

      BTW sharing is not ramming down the throats, no more than someone telling me cigerretts are bad for me is. I share you tell me where I can put my beliefs and its done, I want no law of special protection but none for special persecution either.

      Regrads..

      --
  2. False? by The+Turd+Report · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can you tell if a religion is 'false'?

    1. Re:False? by Chainsaw76 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apparently they will haev to prove they are, or at least were members of the Jedi Relegion. Perhaps a questionare Would be appropriate..

      1. Have you ever tried to convince someone that the driods in your possession were NOT in fact the driods they were looking for?

      2. Did you ever have a crush on Princess Leah but had a strange feeling the cosmos would never let it happen.. Not even realizing she was your sister?

      3. While drivign down the street at night have you ever turned off your headlights and driven using only the force? did you live?

      Of course if it were me and they were asking me to proove I was of the Jedi faith, Id insist they make the christians prove they were christians.. Do you love thy neighbor even when they are mowing the lawn at 5am on a sunday.. Etc..

      -Jason

    2. Re:False? by delcielo · · Score: 2

      Perhaps when the lone creator of the religion declared it false?

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    3. Re:False? by aronc · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when the lone creator of the religion declared it false?

      That really is irrelevent to the discussion. Just because the founder "strayed from the path" doesn't change the fact that people believe in the path itself.

      --

      jello.
      aka aron.
    4. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you tell if a religion is 'false'?

      Er, quite frankly, on the basis of whether or not the religion is Christianity (in which case it is true) or something else (in which case it is false.) I don't expect you to understand (or accept) this, but that's the way it is.

    5. Re:False? by tps12 · · Score: 1

      If a religion claims that there is fewer or greater than one God, that his name is not Allah, and/or Mohammed is his prophet, then it is false. I have documentation to support this.

      --

      Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    6. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are smoking butt crack. Why not worship Frosty the Snowman? He too will be back again some day.

    7. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus was a Jew.

    8. Re:False? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      And God is a piece of burnt toast. Its true because I said so.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    9. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A religion is only true if appeals to it are printed on the national currency and the religion's texts displayed in school. Allah bless America.

    10. Re:False? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      How can you tell if a religion is 'false'?

      It would make an interesting court case.

      It would really be a hoot if somebody automated a robotic but realistic Yoda to testify on the stand. Extra credit if you can make the judge float.

      I don't understand why the Aussie gov has a stick up their wompus about this. Is the gov there similarly stupid about other affairs?

    11. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How can you tell if a religion is 'false'

      yeah, imagine if the Romans had said `Christianity? Thats false! Its the lions for you!`.

      Uh..wait...they did!

    12. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Lucas did create most of it, he did have a lot of help in different areas. He almost nothing to with the actual Jedi fighting for example. Sure he had some input but he didn't really design the styles.

    13. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      3. While drivign down the street at night have you ever turned off your headlights and driven using only the force? did you live?

      Yes, and yes; crumple zones and seatbelts complement the Force quite nicely.

    14. Re:False? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "2. Did you ever have a crush on Princess Leah but had a strange feeling the cosmos would never let it happen.. Not even realizing she was your sister?"
      I wish the cosmos would have said something before we had children...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy,

      My religion is true.

      Your religion, if it differs from mine, is false.

    16. Re:False? by Rip!ey · · Score: 1

      1. Have you ever tried to convince someone that the driods in your possession were NOT in fact the driods they were looking for?

      Why yes in fact ... oh, sorry, I thought you said "drugs in my possesion".

      2. Did you ever have a crush on Princess Leah but had a strange feeling the cosmos would never let it happen.. Not even realizing she was your sister?

      I'm Tasmanian. It really doesn't matter that she's my sister. (Aussie joke :-)

      3. While drivign down the street at night have you ever turned off your headlights and driven using only the force? did you live?

      I did many stupid things when I was younger. This is one of them.

    17. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that no one here gives a fuck about your documentation.....

    18. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My answers are: yes, yes, yes, and no.

      What do I win?

    19. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it involves L. Ron Hubbard in any way, shape, or form.

    20. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cthulu > Allah

    21. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god is bigger than your god.

    22. Re:False? by mark_space2001 · · Score: 1
      3. While drivign down the street at night have you ever turned off your headlights and driven using only the force?

      Obviously a trick question, designed to get an early start on those people who might become eligible for the Darwin awards in the near future.

    23. Re:False? by sysadmn · · Score: 2

      An artificial hand, and a superficial Han.

      --
      Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
    24. Re:False? by sysadmn · · Score: 2

      ... and some bad news about Daddy.

      --
      Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
    25. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How can you tell if a religion is 'false'?

      If it's called "Catholicism".

      Oh! Oh! I kid. Don't unleash your Pope-spells on me, good heathans of the Catholical faith! Let your demi-God stay perched on the VatiThrone, not hurling fireballs at yours truly. Huzzah!

      --eSolutions from Adequacy

    26. Re:False? by Nater21 · · Score: 1

      The thing everyone has to understand, is if you believe and have faith in a religion, then your religion is true and everyone elses is false. To say otherwise, is to say you don't really have faith. You can respect the fact that others will have different beliefs and faiths, but you will always see them as false where they differ from your faith.

    27. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless, I can afirm that Rabbits, atleast local rabbits, do not exhibit any traits related to 'the Force'.

      Otherwise I would have expected the rabbit to stay out of the way of the large looming object also refered to as 'car'.

      c'est la vi

    28. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, you're just a little hater, aren't you?

    29. Re:False? by ArcadeNut · · Score: 2

      How can you tell if a religion is 'false'?

      That's easy!

      if (!relgion)
      {

      //TODO: Add your code here

      }

      --
      Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
    30. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you see all faiths as different aspects of the truth, like Baha'is or perhaps Unitarian Universalists. Or even Hindus for that matter.

    31. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or

      for religion .....
      repeat until false.

    32. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Jesus never existed.

    33. Re:False? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1
      Perhaps when the lone creator of the religion declared it false?

      We knew he had been swayed by the dark side once he created Jar Jar Binks.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    34. Re:False? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's false if it's not my mommy's.

    35. Re:False? by hplasm · · Score: 1
      3. While drivign down the street at night have you ever turned off your headlights and driven using only the force? did you live?

      Yes, the blue flashing lights and floodlamps of the force chasing me made it quite simple...if only I had not attracted attention by driving with my lights off......

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  3. Australia has no freedom of religion? by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    Whats up? Do the Aussies not have freedom of religion? I can claim to be a Jedi here in the US and I won't get fined for it (or will I?). Damn weird that the Aussie government wants to pigeon hole everyone.

    1. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by jat850 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they would be getting fines (but they're not) for falsifying census information. They're not REALLY Jedi, it was just part of a ploy to get the government to recognize Jedi as an official religion, so technically they did "lie" about their religion. But who cares? :)

      --
      the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
      the me that you know is now made up of wires
    2. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by DougJohnson · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Dingo hole everyone?

    3. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by cyborch · · Score: 1

      This is not about freedom of religion but about whether or not the government should recognise Jediism as a religion and fund the building of jedi temples.

      70.000 people is a lot though, is there somewhere one can petition for this to become recognised as a religion?

    4. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by CommieLib · · Score: 2

      It's not the religion for which you're being fined, it's the fraud of the claim.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    5. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by paladin_tom · · Score: 1

      I can claim to be a Jedi here in the US and I won't get fined for it (or will I?).

      The problem isn't with saying you're a Jedi, the problem is with lying on your census. According to the article, an email circulated, saying that if enough people claim to be Jedis, then Australia must recognize Jedism as a religion. So, many people who said they were Jedis were just playing an (illegal) prank on their government.

      I don't know what the law is in the US, but in Canada, lying on your census is illegal. Australia seems to have similar laws, so that's what's happening here.

      --
      #define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
    6. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by perrin5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I _think_ the aussie's issue is not whether or not you CAN be a Jedi, but rather whether or not you actually ARE a Jedi. The wording of the "warning" implies (to me) that they don't believe that everyone claiming to be a Jedi actually are. After all, even I think it'd be funny to say "I'm a Jedi Knight" in a stupid religous orientation box in a stupid survey.

      They don't want to spend resources on people who are essentially purpetrating a hoax by giving them legal status as a religion.

      --
      hmmmm?
    7. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      More like kiwi hole everyone.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    8. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by vidarh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Who are you to say that those people don't really define themselves as Jedi? I can think of a large number of more ridiculous religions that have followers that take it really seriously (enough so to account for quite a few mass suicides, for instance).

      Ultimately I doubt the census bureau will try to do anything, as it is next to impossible to prove anything about a religion - after all a religion is based on faith and beliefs, not proofs, and any attempt to push people on it might lead to uncomfortable decisions affecting "real" religions...

    9. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      There are already Jedi temples all over the world: digital theatres :-P

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    10. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      More like corn hole. huh huh, huh huh.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    11. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by jat850 · · Score: 1

      Well, as I understand the article, the original source of the idea was a "prank" that was circulated via an email around the internet in Australia. (There's a snopes2 link somewhere about it but I don't have it handy, sorry.) So no, I cannot judge that each of those 70,000 Australian citizens is explicitly NOT a Jedi, but from the context of the article, I would say a large majority of them were simply participating in the prank.

      --
      the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
      the me that you know is now made up of wires
    12. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by sporty · · Score: 2

      Then wouldnt' the process be...

      - get recognition as a religion
      - use it everywhere

      Trademarks, patents and copyrights work best that way, if you make sure people know they are just that.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    13. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by ethereal · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you know if someone's really a Jedi? Easy - no one expects the Australian Inquisition!

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    14. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want to spend resources on people who are essentially purpetrating a hoax by giving them legal status as a religion.

      They don't have to, never planned to, and won't. They just reminded everyone of the appropriate penalties for giving misleading information, basically as a threat to warn off fools or pranksters from wasting their time.

      70,000 people didn't take the hint and either thought it was still a good joke, or seriously expected to see Jedi get official recognition.

      The government no doubt finds the whole thing a hilarious study into group mentality/gullibility/statistical manipulation, and has decided to publish these results despite not counting them as any official record. It's unlikely they'll fine many people, but nor will any government money be going into funding midichlorian research.

    15. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      I cannot judge that each of those 70,000 Australian citizens is explicitly NOT a Jedi, but from the context of the article, I would say a large majority of them were simply participating in the prank.

      That's my idea. I find it hard to believe that that many people were so sad to put down 'Jedi' because they were hard core Star Wars fans. I do find it very easy to believe that a lot of people heard of the joke email and thought it would be a bloody funny thing to do! Stick it to the man by taking the piss out of stupid questions.

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    16. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by vidarh · · Score: 2
      But the possibility that some of them are authentic believers means that it is meaningless to even talk about punishing anyone for it, as thinking that most people who put it down were pranksters does not prove that a specific person that put it down is a prankster.

      Officials of the government passing any judgement about what is a legitimate religion is opening the door for decisions that will deprive people believing in "fringe" religions of rights, simply because most religions out there are considered ridiculous fiction by some group or other.

    17. Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      In answer to your question, Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:

      The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

  4. they have to give out their religous info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what i find disturbing is that they have to give out their religious affiliation or else...what buisness does the government have knowning how they worship, and why are they keeping records of that...

    1. Re:they have to give out their religous info? by forevermore · · Score: 1
      You missed the "to an optional faith question" in the post. The government isn't really concerned about people who don't fill out the form, but that people filled out a religion which is entirely based on the [imho] fictional writings and producings of George Lucas, Joseph Cambell and whoever else helped write the original storylines.

      And my guess is that they are more concerned that people will also fill out false information about other things (the US does give grants to many religious-based nonprofits, so maybe AU does, too). Those census things drive a LOT of funding, in many different areas.

      --
      Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
    2. Re:they have to give out their religous info? by Memetic · · Score: 1

      They did not have to, they chose to. Try reading the article.

  5. Linux is my religion by dattaway · · Score: 1, Troll

    Mod me down.

    1. Re:Linux is my religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Linux is the primary religion of slashdot.

      Linux weenies gotta congregate somewhere, I guess...

  6. Use the farce... by Winnipenguin · · Score: 1

    Someone forgot to pull the old Jedi mind trick. Are Jedi inSIGnificant? If you don't get, read it again.

  7. Next time... by paladin_tom · · Score: 1

    Everyone should list their religion as "Free Software!"

    --
    #define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
  8. Question for the Aussies here... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

    What exactly does the Australian government /do/ with this information? From the "certain buildings may not be built" line, one might infer that it provides subsidies to religious groups -- but it's also conceivable that religious demographics are involved in determining which historical sites are to be preserved or what monuments get built or so forth.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    1. Re:Question for the Aussies here... by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2

      What do they do, well, if according to the census, 85 percent of the population of an area is catholic, and the local catholic church is asking for some money to build a new facility. Then they would probably recieve a chunk of money proportinal to the size of the populace that would be using it. Like wise if a small (5% of the pop.) group were to ask for money to build a large elaborate complex, they might recieve enough to purchas a tool shed.

    2. Re:Question for the Aussies here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is, governments do provide churches and other religious organizations with subsidies to fund food pantries and other social programs, especially in urban neighborhoods The reason being that it is more cost effective to give a grant to a church rather than set up a separate agency which would incur other expenses (employees, utilities, etc..)

      With this information, they can presumably determine which churches and groups can reach the most people in need and give them the funding.

    3. Re:Question for the Aussies here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'certain (mobile) buildings' bristling with listening devices outside your home if you say 'islam'?

  9. I can't blame him by unicron · · Score: 4, Funny

    Make them use the force to move some shit around the room. If they can do it, let them have their religion.

    Hell, make the fatter ones do 1 sit up and I'll believe they've mastered the force.

    Nerd(robotic voice): I am a Storm-Trooper!

    Triumph the Wonder Dog(robotic voice, mockingly): You are a huge nerd!

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    1. Re:I can't blame him by MonaXier · · Score: 1
      Make them use the force to move some shit around the room. If they can do it, let them have their religion.
      Sure, provided christians are required to turn water into wine.
    2. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great! While we're at it, let's make the Christians raise from the dead or the Jewish make a little lamp oil last impossibly long time, or any of the other miracles that some religion claims. Just because you can't do it yourself, doesn't mean you can't believe/worship it. And as it happens, there are a LOT of "recognized" religions out there that believe in telekinesis of some sort.

    3. Re:I can't blame him by linzeal · · Score: 0
      Let the christians turn water to wine or ressurect the dead, or let the jews part the red sea for old time sake. Hell, fucking force christians to turn the other cheek, tithe, and not work on sunday. Make dianetics prove their technology "e-meters" work and so and so forth.

      Here, let me paraphrase nietzsche, "metaphysics is dead". Get it? It is all absurd at this point.

    4. Re:I can't blame him by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Make christians rise from the dead, if they can do it, let them have there religeon.

      How do you gage what one person wants to believe?

      "An energy that surronds all things".. that sounds like several religous beliefs right there.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:I can't blame him by SN74S181 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, come on now. Christians don't claim that ordinary laypeople can turn water into wine. That was a miracle, and so unusual it was noted.

      It's the hocus-pocus bunch who claim they can do 'Magick.'

    6. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians never claimed to be able to walk on water dumbass.

    7. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three idiotic responses in a row in the same topic. Christians never claimed to be able to walk on water. Use your brain, please. We beg you.

    8. Re:I can't blame him by unicron · · Score: 2

      Actaully, I don't believe anyone ever rose from the dead. I don't buy into any of the "mythical" aspects of modern religion. Hell, I don't buy into modern religion at all, especially organized religion, which I believe may be the biggest corruption of a beautiful thing in the history of our race.

      Even though I'm fully aware these guys are only half-kidding, I think a perfect way to jest back would be to ask them to prove it in someway. Make em fight a Rancor.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    9. Re:I can't blame him by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      "Which button calls your parents to come pick you up?"

      Man, I was incapacitated for about three minutes when he said that.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    10. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on now. Christians don't claim that ordinary laypeople can turn water into wine. That was a miracle, and so unusual it was noted.

      Wow. Transformation of non-radioactive elements is perfectly OK to incorporate in your belief structure as long as such occurrences are "unusual" and Jesus is the only one allowed to do it. Well, Moses turned his staff into a snake so we'll make an exception for him too. And Lot's wife- she turned into a pillar of salt. But the average ordinary Christian layperson can't do this stuff, so it's OK.

      You don't seriously believe this crap, do you?
      Any religion that can't survive a collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.

      It's the hocus-pocus bunch who claim they can do 'Magick.'

      Christians differ in the details but as far as I can tell they essentially say the same thing. In Georgia they're teaching kids now that the world was created in six days. I guess we've gotten over Sputnik for good.

      Heheheh... I'd better check "anonymous" on this one. Christians don't take it well when you make fun of their hocus pocus.

    11. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dumberass, he never said a damn thing about walking on water.

    12. Re:I can't blame him by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Ha! Indeed, that would be the truest test- make christians actually love their neighbors as themselves. That would be a lot harder for most so-called Christians than it would be for me to do Force levitation. :)

      Here, let me paraphrase nietzsche, "metaphysics is dead". Get it? It is all absurd at this point.

      It's good to see someone else that understands this. I grew up in a Catholic family, now I'm agnostic. For some reason, my girlfriend gets a good kick out of mocking catholics (she's agnostic too), saying they're goofier than other Christian secs. I say, what difference does it make? All Christian secs make claims that are quite far fetched... so if you're going to put your faith into one particular outragous set of claims, you may as well pick one you like. It's not like being less whacky makes it any closer to science.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    13. Re:I can't blame him by Sc00ter · · Score: 3, Informative
      You can believe in the force and not be a Jedi.. Jedi's have some powers, the ability to "move shit around the room" is one of them.

      Saying your religion is "Jedi" is the same as listing your religion is "Cardinal"

    14. Re:I can't blame him by RocketJeff · · Score: 1
      Oh, come on now. Christians don't claim that ordinary laypeople can turn water into wine. That was a miracle, and so unusual it was noted.

      It's the hocus-pocus bunch who claim they can do 'Magick.'

      Well then, prove that the 'host' turns into Jesus' body and the wine turns into his blood. It's supposed to do that during communion you know.
    15. Re:I can't blame him by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Who cares if it that gets classified as a miracle? The Bible is full of other such miracles.

      This "hocus-pocus" bunch also claims to perform the miracles which make up magick. What makes the miracles of the magician Christians (mistakenly) call Jesus Christ more valid? Because he's 2000-years dead?

      I'm willing to settle for seeing lay christians actually practice their religion, rather than using it as an excuse, a cover, and justification. Let's see the bulk of christians turn the other cheek, love their neighbor, truly love their god, and a lot of the other things that are also evidentally miracles, juding by the pitiful performance of those who claim to follow Yeshua ben Yosef.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    16. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Saying your religion is "Jedi" is the same as listing your religion is "Cardinal"

      No its not. A Cardinal is a tangible person in the Catholic church. A Jedi is something made up in the past quarter century to sell movies.

    17. Re:I can't blame him by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Indeed, surely Lucas borrowed what makes up the Jedi religion from many religions, especially Taoism and Buddhism it seems to me. But those aren't valid religions either- if there ain't a white and blond Jesus on the cover, it's from the devil! :P

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    18. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      if you're going to put your faith into one particular outragous set of claims, you may as well pick one you like

      How many parents ask their kids which religion (if any) they want to believe? None; you will fall into whatever they are in.

    19. Re:I can't blame him by elijah_616 · · Score: 1
      It actually depends on the denomination.
      Catholics, and maybe a few others are the only ones who subscribe to the theory that it actually turns into flesh and blood.

      Most take it a rememberance of Christ's attoning sacrifice, a memory of His love for men, and as something believers through out the world share in common (hence the name communion)

    20. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      A Jedi is something made up in the past quarter century to sell movies.

      And the afterlife is something made up in the past 3000 years to sell religion.

      What's your point, caller!?! ;-)

    21. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess people get tired of hearing about all the cool things that God used to do. Christians just can't shut up about all that stuff. But, since God seems to be on vacation for about the last couple millenia, it just comes off as a lot of hot air. If the planet is going to hell in a handbasket, why aren't we getting to chat with a burning bush or something? No hosts of angels. No water to wine (but only if you're over 21). He doens't seem to want to make his presence known anymore. Instead, we're supposed to believe a bunch of crap that other people wrote and passed down from generation to generation. Since when do humans have any credibility whatsoever? He CAN'T expect anyone except the gullible to buy into it. He gave us intelligence and then expects us to set it aside?? I'm not buying it.

    22. Re:I can't blame him by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that we can have "the cerimonial beating with the plastic toys"?

    23. Re:I can't blame him by antirename · · Score: 2

      No, no, no... they only need to dig up ONE christian who can turn water into wine. Let's at least be fair about it. Maybe the Jedi could use Uri Geller as an example...

    24. Re:I can't blame him by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      Not many, but I've known quite a few who did. No, they weren't asked when they were little babies, but if they didn't want to continue with the rites of whatever religion they were born into, 1st communion, confirmation, &c, they were allowed not to go through it, provided it wasn't just because they were lazy. My mom was like that.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    25. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And religion is something made up in the past 4000 years to control people.

      (Religion was a tough sell that first thousand years before they came up with the afterlife.)

    26. Re:I can't blame him by Yunzil · · Score: 2

      Oh, come on now. Christians don't claim that ordinary laypeople can turn water into wine. That was a miracle, and so unusual it was noted.

      Fair enough. How about this then: The Bible says that people who are True Believers can move mountains with their faith.

      We'll be waiting. :)

    27. Re:I can't blame him by T.E.D. · · Score: 2
      Nerd(robotic voice): I am a Storm-Trooper!

      Triumph the Wonder Dog(robotic voice, mockingly): You are a huge nerd!


      I still have that bit saved on my TiVo. Its classic!

      Triumph pointing to buttons on chest device of Darth Vader suit:
      And which ones of these calls your mom to drive you home?

    28. Re:I can't blame him by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2

      "A Jedi is something made up in the past quarter century to sell movies."

      Well, a Cardinal is something that was invented by the Cathoilic church a couple of houndred years ago to sell a religion.

      Does it really matter how long ago it was invented ?

      Neither is more or less true.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    29. Re:I can't blame him by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      The Bible says that people who are True Believers can move mountains with their faith.

      Note that it doesn't say they can't use bulldozers to help out their faith!

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    30. Re:I can't blame him by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      Make them use the force to move some shit around the room. If they can do it, let them have their religion.

      Couldn't they be followers of the Jedi faith without actually being Jedi Knights? After all, Catholicism claims that a priest has the ability to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, but the average Catholic in the street can't do it. Likewise, the Jedi faith could believe that a Jedi Knight has special abilities, but the followers wouldn't have them and shouldn't be expected to prove that they exist.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    31. Re:I can't blame him by luserSPAZ · · Score: 1
      ... a memory of His love for men ...

      Funny, I thought homosexuality was considered immoral by the church.

    32. Re:I can't blame him by Spreetin · · Score: 1

      Actually Jesus was from Israel, so he would have had dark hair.

      --
      8 * 7 = 42
    33. Re:I can't blame him by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      It was sarcastic.

      Now only would he have had dark hair, his skin would have been very dark. A lot darker than present-day Arabs and ethnic Jews.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    34. Re:I can't blame him by meringuoid · · Score: 2
      Make them use the force to move some shit around the room. If they can do it, let them have their religion.

      How about these weird 'Christians' we hear so much about these days, then? Make them use the Mustard Seed of Faith to move a mountain about the place. If they can do it, let them have their religion...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    35. Re:I can't blame him by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Indeed, that would be the truest test- make christians actually love their neighbors as themselves. That would be a lot harder for most so-called Christians than it would be for me to do Force levitation.

      For what it's worth, to me this is the best line from this entire discussion. It's extreamly sad that what to me is the single most significant and reocurring theme from the four gospels of the new testament is also easily the most ignored. Instead what most Christians seem to keep as the core of their religion is that every sunday you get up to hear someone say how much you rock, that Jesus could do magic, that people you don't like are going to burn forever, and that they have a 'get into heaven free' card.

      Instead you get situations like when the mother of a friend of mine got engaged to someone of another demonination, and suddenly found herself totally snubbed from her former so called friends at her church. Which isn't to say that there aren't any Christians who actually do practice what they preach, but they seem to be as much the minority as normal christians are always claiming to be.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    36. Re:I can't blame him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, that's the Catholic church... :)

    37. Re:I can't blame him by Spreetin · · Score: 1

      I realised that. I just like to point out the obvious.

      --
      8 * 7 = 42
  10. aussie construction projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    "certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be"

    They need to know if they should build the Death Star or not!

    1. Re:aussie construction projects by Guppy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "They need to know if they should build the Death Star or not!"

      I'm guessing not -- the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force.

  11. Derrr.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

    "Despite over 70,000 respondents (.37% of the population) replying "Jedi" to an optional faith question on Australia's census, it will not become a recognized religion"

    Well duh. Who would put down 'Jedi' and not be considered sarcastic? What'd they expect?

    Frankly, I'd be insulted if they took me seriously for a stunt like that. "You believe in a force that requires motion control and wires, your idol is a puppet (muppet?), your bible is a piece of inconsistent fiction that isn't even aware of how slow the speed of light is, and you're willing to hang out with a crowd of people are understandably single."

    Yep, I'd be insulted by being accepted as a Jedi.

    1. Re:Derrr.. by Eu4ria · · Score: 1

      your bible is a piece of inconsistent fiction
      Just like the regular bible then :)

    2. Re:Derrr.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      as opposed to most sensible religeons that require people to ask an invisible friend to solve all there problems?

      Religeon is a deep and personal thing, and as such, you can not say one is better or worse then another. This puts people who want to gain statistice on religeon in an inenviable place.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Derrr.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      It's easier to defend the inconsistencies in the bible than it is with the Star Wars hexilogy. Uhh.. hex? Heh. Star Wars is sinful!!!

    4. Re:Derrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You believe in a force that requires motion control and wires, your idol is a puppet (muppet?), your bible is a piece of inconsistent fiction that isn't even aware of how slow the speed of light is, and you're willing to hang out with a crowd of people are understandably single
      But believing that the Universe is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, woman was created from a man's rib, resurrection and all that other ilk is somehow more serious?
    5. Re:Derrr.. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      My favorite is the book of job, wherein God becomes tricked by lucifer. That's right god, not bob of the subgenius or such but the "god" of the jews. Lol.

    6. Re:Derrr.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "But believing that the Universe is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, woman was created from a man's rib, resurrection and all that other ilk is somehow more serious?"

      There's a difference between faith and believing what you see in a movie. I think a lot of religions defy logic, but I can respect them. I have trouble believing in a movie that never made any attempt to accurately portray events around a neighboring galaxy.

    7. Re:Derrr.. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      You're right.

      Religion is a deep and personal thing. Not something based on a crappy movie series, with deities emblazoned on Plastic Cups at fast food joints.

      It's a trivial matter to discern which 'one is better or worse than another' when one is based on novelty marketing and 'based on a movie, cuz the movie sold pretty well so we threw together a mythos' crap.

    8. Re:Derrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, that would be funny except you didn't get any facts right there. No wonder people think the bible is inconsistent when they can't even read straight.

    9. Re:Derrr.. by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "There's a difference between faith and believing what you see in a movie..."

      It's pretty clear here that saying you're a Jedi on a census is sarcastic at best. There was no 'opression' going on. Man I wish I knew the emoticon for rolling my eyes.

      If they really want to set up 'Jedi' as a religion, then they should go through formal channels to devise a religion SIMILAR to the Jedi. However, calling it 'Jedi' is not going to garner them any respect.

      I can understand somebody wanting to study a formal version of Jedi(ism?), and I can respect that. But base it literally off the movies and you're in for non-acceptance.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:Derrr.. by BrotherSeminarian · · Score: 1

      Tricked? Where did that happen? Try reading Job 1:12, where God consciously endows Satan with power over Job. There is no textual witness in the book of Job to imply that God was deceived. God seemed to know what was going on.

      Use the source, Luke. Don't ridicule a holy text based upon a cursory reading of a fraction of its content.

    11. Re:Derrr.. by numatrix · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? Scie---logy pulled a similar trick and had no problems doing it. Maybe the Jedi should take a hint.

    12. Re:Derrr.. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Seriously... that's like saying Satan tricked Jesus into going into the desert by telling him there was a Tastee Freeze over the next hill.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:Derrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between faith and believing what you see in a movie.

      But how do you know it didn't really happen?

      What if George Lucas is a clairvoyant, and His writings are the result of His ability to see the events of a distant galaxy?

      To me, it seems about as far-fetched as the stuff you read in the bible.

    14. Re:Derrr.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's a religion you want to model yourself after... why?

  12. 70,000 Jedi's can't be wrong... by da3dAlus · · Score: 2

    But I'm surprised that we haven't heard of George Lucas trying to sue the pants off of those Ausie's that replied using the trademarked religion.

    --

    Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    1. Re:70,000 Jedi's can't be wrong... by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      No, that's scientology whose religious documents are copyrighted. Have some fun. Follow the link in my sig.

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
    2. Re:70,000 Jedi's can't be wrong... by return+42 · · Score: 1

      He keeps trying to sue them. But whenever a process server finds one, they wave their hand and say "I'm not the Jedi you're looking for" and they go away...

  13. False information? by bmetzler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "If, for example, people of a particular religious affiliation do not provide the correct information, certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be."

    I presume that people who write Jedi on their census form are most agnostics and other non-religious people who would have otherwise not answered at all on the census. So the Australian religious budget would not go to them to begin with. Why not have a little fun? It doesn't hurt anything, except for a few hours for the census department to remove the figures from there total.

    Now if a person from a legitimate religion answered Jedi, and therefore has caused less dollars to go to his religious organization, I say he gets what he deserves.

    -Brent
    1. Re:False information? by elefantstn · · Score: 2
      It doesn't hurt anything, except for a few hours for the census department to remove the figures from there total.


      Which is, I suppose, the point -- do Australians want their tax dollars being spent on having the census bureau go through and remove all the joke answers (not just religion -> Jedi) from census forms?
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    2. Re:False information? by paladin_tom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why not have a little fun?

      Because in most countries, lying on your census is illegal. Hence the hubbub.

      --
      #define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
    3. Re:False information? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 5, Funny
      Because in most countries, lying on your census is illegal. Hence the hubbub.

      They didn't lie on their census forms.*waves hand*

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    4. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do Australians want their tax dollars being spent on having the census bureau go through and remove all the joke answers (not just religion -> Jedi) from census forms?

      But why would they add them to begin with? It's not hard...you see "Jedi" and don't enter it into the database.

      Not that I'm asking you in particular. I don't expect you to be the Austrailian census...just pointing something out.

    5. Re:False information? by jbolden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They shouldn't remove the answers. The data accurately reflects what it should reflect: when asked for their religious Australians answered:

      X1% Religion 1
      X2% Religion 2 .....

      They have no idea what religion people really are. They know what they claimed on the form, and that should be the number reported.

      The American census takes the same position on issues like race, you are what race you claim to be.

    6. Re:False information? by vidarh · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I suppose the cost of someone looking at the summary and saying "70.000 Jedi? Surely that must be a joke. Group those 0.37% in with the 'other' category" would be horrendous when amortized over all the tax payers.

    7. Re:False information? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Why not create a religion that simply is a negation of all other religions? Let them fund an atheist proselytizing center, oh wait that's any decent university. State funding of religion, there should be state funding of schools foremost if not exclusively if the state wishes to enlighten its citizens but all they want is the power gained when you instill ignorance in a populace and call it an unalterable and universal truth.

    8. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume that people who write Jedi on their census form are most agnostics...

      Does agnostic mean that you are piss-silly drunk?

    9. Re:False information? by c13v3rm0nk3y · · Score: 1
      Why not create a religion that simply is a negation of all other religions?

      Because they members of such a religion would tend to explode at church picnics, and when near malls, television stations, and other places of worship.

      --
      -- clvrmnky
    10. Re:False information? by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

      I think you missed the point. It isn't that money wouldn't go to the Jedi, it is that it would. Thereby diverting money from a "real" religion, over to a joke religion.

    11. Re:False information? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Now if a person from a legitimate religion answered Jedi, and therefore has caused less dollars to go to his religious organization, I say he gets what he deserves.

      That presumes that there are "legitimate religions." Who decide the legitimate vs the illegitimate.

      I've seen Yoda fight with lightsabers. I've never seen Budda, Christ, Mohammed, YHWH, or Krishna do that. Which is more real?

    12. Re:False information? by bmetzler · · Score: 2
      It isn't that money wouldn't go to the Jedi, it is that it would.

      No I don't think that the resprentative was saying that. The Australian government wouldn't be duped into giving the "Jedis" money just because they filled in a write in slot on the census form. The representative was that if there were 140,000 in "Religion X" that was recognised, but 70,000 of those people said that they were "Jedi" on a lark, then the "Religion X" would only get ~1/2 of the resources they should have. Since Jedi wasn't a recognised religion, the other 1/2 of the resources would then go to the other legitimate competing religions.

      And I said in reply, that those marking "Jedi" probably weren't part of any organised religion to begin with. So nothing's lost as they would have filled in none, and not changed the resource allocation at all. However, if they did belong the a recognised religion, then all I can say is that the get what they deserve.

      -Brent
    13. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the harm in that would be...?

    14. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, now if your little Jedi mind trick actually worked, then I'd call you a Jedi. It didn't work, so you're not a Jedi.

    15. Re:False information? by Quixadhal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And just who does the government think they are in deciding what is or is not "correct information"?

      As far as I'm concerned, there is no "correct" answer to religion. By definition, it's what YOU (personally) believe, and has nothing to do with any organizations that might think they somehow represent your worldview.

      I, personally, would like to see organized religion stop sucking away all my tax money (by claiming excemption, all the churches force ME to pay higher taxes and carry THEIR part of the burden). I recognize that some few of them do good work for the community, but I also see constant remodelling of perfectly good church buildings, and very nice cars the clergy drive.

      Government is not God, although perhaps the Australian government thinks it is...

    16. Re:False information? by RevAaron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would some other joke of a religion be deserving of the money? The tenants behind the philosophy of the Jedi are very much so based in beliefs found in "real" religions throughout human history.

      How would this money get diverted from "real" religions that abuse the money? There isn't a central Austrialian Jedi Order Church to give the money to, so I imagine it wouldn't be allocated to the first guy that claimed to be the JediPope.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    17. Re:False information? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      You missed the point, dude. Imagine if any and all prank answers on census forms were legal. Either a full-time prank-detection staff would be required, or the census would become meaningless.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    18. Re:False information? by hyphz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that this has a kicker that's been mentioned loads of times here - by the same logic you could ask a Christian to turn water into wine and, if he can't do it, he's not a Christian.

      Belonging to "the Jedi religion" need not be the same as being a Jedi, just as belonging to "the Christian religion" is not the same as being Christ.

    19. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't have a very firm grip on reality. Please see a shrink ASAP.

    20. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joke answers like what, christianity?

    21. Re:False information? by Camel+Racer · · Score: 1
      Now if a person from a legitimate religion answered Jedi, and therefore has caused less dollars to go to his religious organization, I say he gets what he deserves.
      But that's entirely the point; who decides what a legitimate religion is ?
      The currently established legitimate religions, the State, the RIAA, or Larry Elison?
      --
      Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
    22. Re:False information? by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is the government looking to funnel money into various religions, no matter what they believe in? And how exactly does one become a recognized religion in Australia, anyway? Is there a membership number you have to reach?

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    23. Re:False information? by winse · · Score: 1

      What if some people really do believe in the force though...I mean I kind of did when I was younger...

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    24. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as if 70,000 voices cried out in halarity...and were silenced...

    25. Re:False information? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      I wonder what they do with "atheist" then. After all, it's not a religion, not one that actually requires any upkeep really. Therefore, I propose the money just go straight to the atheists, instead of some organisation representing them.

      Hmm...what would I do with my share? Probably buy a penny sweet :)

    26. Re:False information? by budalite · · Score: 1

      "legitimate religion". Now *there's* an oxymoron, for you.

    27. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, it's the agnostics (read as: wishy-washy athiests) who get penny sweets. We would get a dime bag each.

    28. Re:False information? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and everyone that believes that a guy was wandering around turning water into wine and walking on water has a real firm grip on reality :)

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    29. Re:False information? by Dstrct0 · · Score: 1

      He might not be NOW. But if the Australian government would get off their asses and build that Jedi church, he could complete his training and learn how to do the Jedi mind trick properly.

      --
      Build boards not bombs
    30. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... it means you're a rational person.

    31. Re:False information? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Belonging to "the Jedi religion" need not be the same as being a Jedi, just as belonging to "the Christian religion" is not the same as being Christ.

      You're comparing Apples to Hydrogen. Believing you are a Jedi, you try the mind trick. It doesn't work. That doesn't mean you aren't a Jedi, it just means you are bad at the mind trick. If a Christian can't turn water into wine, all that means is that the Christian simply isn't the second coming of Christ. It doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in the Christ.

      And the Christ wasn't a member of the Christian religion ethier. By all accounts, he was a Jewish carpenter, possibly a Rabii. Perhaps the first Jedi will turn out to be a Hindu cab driver.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    32. Re:False information? by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      See, now if your little Jedi mind trick actually worked, then I'd call you a Jedi. It didn't work, so you're not a Jedi.

      If his trick had worked, you would call him whatever he told you to call him, wouldn't you?

      Even if it didn't work, it wouldn't prove he's not a Jedi, it could just mean that you're not weak-minded enough. Perhaps you have a bit of Hutt or Toydarian in you and you don't know it!

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    33. Re:False information? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. Like the real world is anything like an RTS game, where you just need to build a building, and suddenly, you can train troops you couldn't train before.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    34. Re:False information? by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >Like the real world is anything like an RTS
      >game, where you just need to build a building,
      >and suddenly, you can train troops you couldn't
      >train before.

      Nah, Jedi would be pretty sophisticated troops, so you'd need a barracks (basic type) to go along with the church (advanced type).

      But once you had the church, you could build a temple housing the Jedi council, and really kick ass.

      -l

    35. Re:False information? by plumby · · Score: 2

      Have you never seen Jesus's chat show "Jesus and Friends"?

    36. Re:False information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because look at all the damn Jedi charities you see around these days... See, there's one there! ...oh wait, that was a Taco Bell. My faux pas.

    37. Re:False information? by E-prospero · · Score: 2

      There isn't a central Austrialian Jedi Order Church to give the money to, so I imagine it wouldn't be allocated to the first guy that claimed to be the JediPope.

      That would be me. I'm the Right Honourable JediPope.

      I take cash, cheques, direct debit, and most major credit cards.

      Please give generously. :-)

      Russ %-)

      --
      ... and never, ever play leapfrog with a unicorn.
    38. Re:False information? by vidarh · · Score: 2

      The question about religion IS essentially meaningless - asking people what they believe and then trying to judge whether or not they have been truthful is something that is incredibly easy to manipulate.

    39. Re:False information? by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      Fair enough. But that's a separate issue--I was only making a point about the dangers of allowing pranks on census forms.

      If the question is meaningless, the solution is to remove it, not to allow pranks.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  14. The U.K. recognizes Jedi by WinkyN · · Score: 1

    I remember watching the Daily Show several months ago, and they did a segment on how the U.K. recognized Jedi as a religion. It was listed on a census card with about 100 other faiths. Of course, the Daily Show made fun of the Force, which is to be expected.

    1. Re:The U.K. recognizes Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From snopes.com:

      In October 2001, several news outlets erroneously reported that, based on the results of the 2001 census, "Jedi" has now been established as an official religion in the U.K., and "Jedi Knight" will henceforth appear as an option on future census forms. It hasn't, and it won't:

      The Force will not be with you despite many Star Wars fans registering their religion as Jedi Knight in this year's British census. Officials said on Thursday there was "absolutely no possibility" of Jedi appearing as a choice of religion on future census forms after officials created a code for Jedi to help them analyze responses to the 2001 population survey.

      "Because a certain number of people were likely to have put Jedi Knight as a response to that question, it has been included as a code simply to help speed the forms through the machine-readers," a spokesman for the Office of National Statistics told Reuters.

      "All that will happen is that it will be recorded as 'Other'," he said. "It certainly does not mean it is recognized as a religion."


      The Office of National Statistics simply assigned the response "Jedi Knight" a numeric code to simplify the process of tabulating census results, as is typically done when many people answer a question by writing in a response not offered as a choice on the census form. This no more means that Jedi is an "official" religion than the election bureau's assigning a numeric code to "Mickey Mouse" (who usually receives at least several hundred write-in votes in every major election) means that a cartoon rodent is a qualified candidate for political office.

    2. Re:The U.K. recognizes Jedi by meringuoid · · Score: 2
      I remember watching the Daily Show several months ago, and they did a segment on how the U.K. recognized Jedi as a religion.

      It wasn't officially recognised in any sense, but enough people put 'Jedi' for it to get its own category when they published the numbers. This does not mean that people who declare their homes to be Jedi temples get tax breaks, nor can they perform weddings...

      I can't remember whether I put 'None', 'Atheist', 'Other' or 'Kibologist', but I'm fairly sure I didn't go for Jedi.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  15. Quite SImple by tunabomber · · Score: 2

    All you have to do is look at the religion's main tenets and religious texts and use rock solid reasoning and sound science to decide whether they contradict themselves or phenomena that exist in the natural world. So, for example, if a religion holds to be truth a text that specifically states that the earth goes around the sun, when empirical observation has shown otherwise... oh, wait.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    1. Re:Quite SImple by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      bad example.
      That had mpore to do with politics and a pissy pope then it had to do with religeon.

      Did you know the cathlic church built and maintian one of the planets first observatories?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Quite SImple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this before or after the Catholic church threatened to burn alive Copernicus?

    3. Re:Quite SImple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a pissy pope
      You've misspelt "infallible" rather badly.
    4. Re:Quite SImple by shawnseat · · Score: 1

      Did you know the cathlic church built and maintian one of the planets first observatories?

      Oh goodness, you have to be kidding. The Chinese had numerous such locations two millenia earlier. Around the same time, Stonehenge was built for the same reason. The Egyptians may have even earlier than that (certain explanations of the pyramids' relative locations for example). And the Bible itself refers to the Magi that interpret the movement of the planets in the sky.

      --
      Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
    5. Re:Quite SImple by nomadic · · Score: 1

      And Copernicus was a high-ranking churchman who didn't suffer from his beliefs. I'm not blaming Galileo for getting in trouble (and even then he wasn't really punished that bad; for disobeying direct orders of the Church he was under house arrest for a while), but he really did rub people the wrong way.

    6. Re:Quite SImple by geekoid · · Score: 2

      you are, of course, correct. I was, and i thought obviously, refering to the 'modern' observatories. you know, lenses, tube, domed building. . . etc.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Quite SImple by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

      But they may not be doing it in the name of science. They might be doing it because they're trying to prove us wrong...

      Maybe they're hoping they see God up there sweeping up or something, and then they can say "see, I told you so".

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    8. Re:Quite SImple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crazy bastards. Saying the earth goes around the sun like that.

    9. Re:Quite SImple by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      bad example.
      That had mpore to do with politics and a pissy pope then it had to do with religeon.


      Isn't that always the case?

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  16. They need a little structure by ender-iii · · Score: 1

    They need a little structure and maybe they could get a Jedi facility built.

    --
    ender-iii
  17. The DARK FORCE by tanveer1979 · · Score: 2

    My suspisions are correct.The Dark force has taken over earth and is trying to eliminate the JEDI. The JEDI must stand up.
    May the Force be with you ye noble soldiers

    YODa YODa we call thee
    come sooner than my credit card fee
    we will set the world free
    Let the unbelievers be
    Coz the question is to be or not to be

    I m not making any sense, aint I.. well i never ment to ;-)

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:The DARK FORCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a huge nerd.

  18. The problem is the film came before the book... by Memetic · · Score: 1

    This decision must be because they have lots of firm evidence that all the other religions are based on fact, after all how can "Jedi" be a real religion the film came out after the book.

    Everyone knows that you make your sacred text THEN you do the movies. Duh!

  19. They probably won't recognise Elvites either. by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

    So, Australia is oppressing the followers of The Force. I bet they won't recognize Elvites either. Do you have to pick from an approved list of Christian churches to avoid being prosecuted for giving false information?

    --
    That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    1. Re:They probably won't recognise Elvites either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that. Personally, I find any significant number of Catholics to be disturbing in this day and age.

  20. How is it fraud? by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    How is it fraud? Why CAN'T someone be a Jedi? Is it because it is a concept that appears in movies? Doesn't seem to be any differnt then claiming you are a Druid or Witch.

    1. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone can not be a Jedi because it is FICTION.

      There are no Master Jedi.
      Yoda is NOT REAL.

      THERE IS NO SPOON. ...oh wait...

      Fraud is about intentionally deceiving... ...by claiming that you are 'a jedi' you are intentionally deceiving.

    2. Re:How is it fraud? by taliver · · Score: 1

      ... or a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, A Buddhist, A Hindu, a Confusist, a Scientologist, an Athiest...

      Remember, every religion starts off with a wacko according to somebody's definition.

      --

      I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!

    3. Re:How is it fraud? by Stonehand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the Jedi doctrine? Do they even /pretend/ to adhere to it other than when filling out a Census form? Does it otherwise affect their lives in a significant way?

      Their are practices and beliefs associated with Druidism and the Wiccan faith. A person can't reasonably _be_ a Druid just by calling himself one momentarily on a piece of paper, any more than it's reasonable to claim to be a Catholic while taking a page from the feminist movement and worshipping Athena as the goddess of Wisdom.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    4. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. It's not a lot different than claiming you are a Druid or a Witch.

      But people buy cheap neo-Pagan paperbacks all the time and cull out of them all sorts of 'traditions' to follow. There's a booming business in the world these days for contrived 'traditions' based on archaeological presumption.

      Hell, even Eric Raymond claims he's some sort of witch.

    5. Re:How is it fraud? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Why CAN'T someone be a Jedi?

      Because they're made-up, mythical, and there are no--repeat, NO--Jedi churches. If you want to start one, go ahead... but this census spoofing has been in so many news stories the Aussies would have to be illiterate to believe the "Jedi" were serious--hence, fraud.

      There are religious organizations, gatherings, rituals, and publications for people who consider themselves druids or witches. Ancient or not, modern or not, accurate or not, they are real religions in a way that "Jedi" or "worshiper of Mystra" simply aren't.

    6. Re:How is it fraud? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Do christians even pretend to be christians unless it is going to get them laid? I personally have not seen a "real christian" in a long time. Of course I work graveyard and everyone knows we are infidels, satanists, and wiccans, right?

    7. Re:How is it fraud? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ is a fictional charachter invented by Flavius Josephus. The Roman idol Mithra was born December 25. It is all based on fiction. Why not be a Jedi?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    8. Re:How is it fraud? by gorilla · · Score: 2

      The problem is that you can equally say that there are people who claimed to be other religions, who don't adhere to it other or affect their lives in a significant way. Even those who do adhere, may not do so to the level of others. Is a jewish person who doesn't go to synagoge, keep the sabath or keep kosher a jew? Some would say not.

    9. Re:How is it fraud? by hyphz · · Score: 2

      > Because they're made-up, mythical,

      And the essence of the irony here is - you can't prove (legally) that any OTHER religion ISN'T made up or mythical.

      > and there are no--repeat, NO--Jedi churches.

      Well, exactly. The census readers did say that the survey would affect what was going to get built...

    10. Re:How is it fraud? by shd99004 · · Score: 2

      Someone can not be a Jedi because it is FICTION.

      And other religions are not? :-)

      --
      Will work for bandwidth
    11. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism isn't a religion, it's a philosophical view that the concept of God is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist.

    12. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do they even /pretend/ to adhere to it other than when filling out a Census form? Does it otherwise affect their lives in a significant way?
      Nah, I think it's one of those religions you only use to fill out census forms and hospital admissions with, like Anglicanism.
    13. Re:How is it fraud? by ChaosDiscordSimple · · Score: 2
      What is the Jedi doctrine? Do they even /pretend/ to adhere to it other than when filling out a Census form? Does it otherwise affect their lives in a significant way?

      Sadly, many "believers" of more mainstream religions couldn't describe any significant portion of their doctrine, don't really adhere to it, or really allow it to affect their lives in any significant way. If you removed all of the "Sunday Christians" or the "Christmas Christians", I expect you would cut the number of North Americian Christians in half.

    14. Re:How is it fraud? by StillaCoward · · Score: 1

      Riiiiight.

      And there is an Archangel?
      Jesus Christ was real?

      Why is that? Because you read it in a book?
      What is your objection to Jedi's? They saw it in a movie?

    15. Re:How is it fraud? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're crapping all over this discussion like a pigeon in Times Square. What's your point? Are you saying that's there's no evidence for even his existence other than Josephus' writings?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    16. Re:How is it fraud? by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      ha!

      I am a Catholic.
      no wait, I am a Jew.
      no wait, I am a Hindu.
      no wait, I am a Muslim

      In the preceding 4 sentences I *was* as much a Catholic, Jew, Hindu or Muslim as anyone else. Why? Because it is a simple choice. Nothing necessary other than declaring ones 'title'. This is because religions are arbitrary and imagined sets of beliefs, as amorphous and visceral as anything could be.

      Your assertion that "any more than it's reasonable to claim to be a Catholic while taking a page from the feminist movement and worshipping Athena as the goddess of Wisdom" is fucking ridiculous, anyone can *BE* any religion they please. Any religion can be anything.

      In short, Jedi is as much a religion as TeaPoticitius (the religion that I just made up - which I hereby declare myself Leader of the Church of TeaPoticitius.

      Im only 1,000,000* suckers, $1,000,000* and 100* years away from being included in the Checkboxes on Australia's 2102 census.

      I mean really, here you are, asserting that the 'practices' and 'beliefs' associated with a particular religion are a concrete thing. Really, in case you didnt know, *ALL* religions are a collection of fairytales. No more no less. The existence of religion in our modern world is my #1 reason for (slowly and steadily) loosing faith in the rest of humanity... it weakens my belief that people can be responsible for themselves and the (very troubled) world around them. Religion allows people to be irresponsible.

      *or so

    17. Re:How is it fraud? by DarkZero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the Jedi doctrine? Do they even /pretend/ to adhere to it other than when filling out a Census form? Does it otherwise affect their lives in a significant way?

      I really don't see a huge difference between Star Wars geeks going to Star Wars conventions, where they dress up as Jedi Knights, listen to their chosen leaders (Star Wars actors, writers, etc.), and rant and rave about how great Star Wars is, and Christians going to church, where they dress up in "proper clothing" (formal attire), listen to their chosen leaders (priests, deacons, selected speakers, etc.), and rant and rave about how great Jesus is. The only real difference that is see is that one side is adoring a film work and the other side is adoring a written work.

    18. Re:How is it fraud? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      There is no confirmation that Jesus even existed from the time he would have lived outside the New Testament except for Josephus' writings, which have been embellished by monks. A paper putting forth the theory that Josephus made Jesus up, and wrote the gospels was published by a group called the Society of Josephus. It is frequently suppressed. If Jesus really existed, and lived in the time of Herod, than our calendar system should be radically revised, as Herod was dead by 30 BC.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    19. Re:How is it fraud? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      And the essence of the irony here is - you can't prove (legally) that any OTHER religion ISN'T made up or mythical.

      Sure I can. I didn't make up my religion. Maybe soemone several hundred years ago did, but I didn't. And my druid/wiccan friedns didn't make up THEIR religion--maybe some hippie did, but they (my friends) didn't.

      That's the difference. "Jedi" isn't a religion because no one goes to a Jedi place of worship every time they need spiritual advice.

      Well, exactly. The census readers did say that the survey would affect what was going to get built...

      I'd prefer it if, when a government gives money to places of worship, they give it to honest churches with dedicated people, and not the result of some childish prank.

    20. Re:How is it fraud? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ is a fictional charachter

      That may be, but billions of people really do believe in him, and THAT's the important part.

      We could argue for a lifetime over who's religion is really True, but that'd waste time better spent on good works and living life; we'll find out who was right when we die.

      Feel free to be a Jedi. But, just like the early Christians, early Muslims, and early neo-hippies, don't expect any social support until you're well established.

    21. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because it's more about belief than action.

      Many people believe in some kind of supreme being and a way of life defined in some text or other. They don't necessarily follow it exactly, or regularly, or devote their lives to it, but they believe it has some kind of real factual truth to it.

      However most people recognise that Star Wars is a work of fiction presented in a movie, and Jedi is a fictional 'religion' created in that movie. Few (sane) people would base their life, or even take seriously, concepts like midichlorians and a 'force' holding everything together as factual. For those few that seriously believe in this, most everyone else can quickly trace the exact origins of these terms to a popular and relatively recent work of fiction, and declare that person a loony geek.

    22. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (all that said) it would be possible for someone to take the core tenets of the 'Jedi' religion, and considering them to be good, define an actual religion of Jedi. People could then identify themselves as Jedi provided they agreed with those beliefs (as opposed to currently, when they'd have to believe in the fictional Jedi religion as presented in the movie).

    23. Re:How is it fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. And you can go ask the guy who made the movie whether it was based on real historical events. And he'll tell you no.

    24. Re:How is it fraud? by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      Jedis: Invented by George Lucas in the 1970s.

      Druids and Wiccans: Invented by a bunch of drunken English poets in the 1920s

      Hey! They're just as valid! They were all made up wholesale in the last century.

      Christianity, Islam, and Judaism were equally made up, just a longer time ago...

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    25. Re:How is it fraud? by dpt · · Score: 1

      Because they're made-up, mythical, and there are no--repeat, NO--Jedi churches

      So? Christianity is made-up and mythical. So apparently all I have to do is gather enough dissaffected dorks into a "church", cream off 10% of their gross income, and I have to be taken seriously.

      YES, I'm a Christian. Got a problem with that?

      No, since Christianity has been effectively ghetto-ised, and is no longer significant culturally or intellectually, or even taken seriously any longer. Declaring your Christianity almost always gets odd reactions. That just can't be good for that faith as a cultural force.

      Next time you're seriously injured or sick, pray instead of relying on science. I dare you. Bet you don't trust Jesus *that* much!

    26. Re:How is it fraud? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      So? Christianity is made-up and mythical. So apparently all I have to do is gather enough dissaffected dorks into a "church", cream off 10% of their gross income, and I have to be taken seriously.

      *sigh* I'll say it again, because you're obviously too lazy to read the rest of the posts.

      If YOU found a church, on a lark, and you make it up, YOU are committing fraud. But your followers, who sincerely believe you, are not. Given enough time and social adjustment, your new religion could become as significant a social force as Christianity or Islam.

      No, since Christianity has been effectively ghetto-ised, and is no longer significant culturally or intellectually, or even taken seriously any longer. Declaring your Christianity almost always gets odd reactions. That just can't be good for that faith as a cultural force.

      Where the hell do you live? Outside of a few ghettos, Christians are still a majority in the USA. Every president has been (or can be effectively assumed to have been) a Christian. George W. Bush said "Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens" and he still got to be president.

      Christians who declare their religion get strange looks, for the most part, because of the same reason that strange looks would be given to someone on /. who declares themselves a geek, or someone of our mutual species who says "I'm human!"

      We are a majority, and we've been a majority for so long, and we've been shocked by so many recent scandals (in the past 50 years--recent memory culturally speaking) that we just don't have a good way to express the religion in public.

      Next time you're seriously injured or sick, pray instead of relying on science. I dare you. Bet you don't trust Jesus *that* much!

      Why the hell would I turn away from the benefits of the land that God has seen fit to place me in to live, and arrogantly demand that he intercede to miraculously cure me?

      God is and has been for quite some time a creature of subtulty. Anyone who abandons medicine and only prays deserves to die. You let the doctors do what they will and they can, and you pray to supplement them, not replace them.

      'sides which, I have only been seriously injured or sick a handful of times in my life--all times when I was too young to pray. Since maturing, I have not been seriously injured or sick, and I thank Jesus for that.

      (Sorry about the religous rant but, man, you asked for it.)

    27. Re:How is it fraud? by dpt · · Score: 1

      *sigh* I'll say it again, because you're obviously too lazy to read the rest of the posts

      I was replying to your post, not your post-facto apologetics.

      If YOU found a church, on a lark, and you make it up, YOU are committing fraud. But your followers, who sincerely believe you, are not. Given enough time and social adjustment, your new religion could become as significant a social force as Christianity or Islam

      That's not what you said at all.

      Where the hell do you live? Outside of a few ghettos, Christians are still a majority in the USA

      Really? Not been counting actual church attendance lately? And how many of those areas where Christianity is popular are, how shall we say, those areas of the USA not famous for intellectual activity?

      George W. Bush said "Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens" and he still got to be president

      No, he didn't, that was his father. I'll bet you think Dubya is just peachy keen, too.

      We are a majority, and we've been a majority for so long

      No, you're not. Look up the stats.

      and we've been shocked by so many recent scandals (in the past 50 years--recent memory culturally speaking) that we just don't have a good way to express the religion in public

      What scandals? You mean, being a failure, and rapidly becoming irrelevent?

      I'm just speaking from experience. The few Christians I've known were considered, by and large, to be a bit odd to say the least. And they weren't exactly the best or the brightest, either.

      Anyway, the US is the last place in the modern, industrialized world that takes Christianity seriously, but in this case it's just dying more slowly. The only "growth areas" for this fantasy are in the third world, where people are largely uneducated.

      Why the hell would I turn away from the benefits of the land that God has seen fit to place me in to live, and arrogantly demand that he intercede to miraculously cure me?

      So, God's powers are limited? Interesing, for an all-powerful being.

      Besides, Jesus clearly said that Christians would be able to drink poison, and be bitten by venomous snakes and not be harmed. No doctors are mentioned. Done either of those lately, or is Christianity really just total bullshit?

      God is and has been for quite some time a creature of subtulty. Anyone who abandons medicine and only prays deserves to die. You let the doctors do what they will and they can, and you pray to supplement them, not replace them

      So, suddenly we're not allowed to ask for Him to actually do anything, when previously he would divide seas, murder babies, order genocide and so on (subtle, He's not). That's *awfully* convenient. I'll have to remember that trick, when I invent my religion to fleece the gullible. You're clearly no better off than if you were not a Christian (and don't give me that "fires of hell" childishness).

      Science works. Religion doesn't. Never has, never will. Since the enlightment, and the beginning of the ascendency of science and reason, we've had nothing but general improvement in the average standard of living - whereas under Christianity we just had endless plagues, crusades, inquisitions, and so on. Your time is at an end - that's obvious looking at the trends. This is not called the post-Christian era for nothing. You had your time. The future is our time.

      Since maturing, I have not been seriously injured or sick, and I thank Jesus for that

      PRAISE JESUS!! Do you really think the baby Jesus helped you with that?

      So, do you give your church 10% of your gross or after-tax income?

      (Sorry about the religous rant but, man, you asked for it.)

      No, you did. You said, "Got a problem with that?". I do. I'd rather not go back to the time when Christianity ruled, which is widely regards as "the dark ages". Just go back to not understanding maths and science, and trying to prove "creationism", believing in magic fairies, and let the educated, sensible get on with the actual thinking. Go back to your Christian music, Christian books, Christian TV and all that other lame crap i.e. to your Christian ghetto (once the "Christian" prefix was implicit in everything. Not any more).

    28. Re:How is it fraud? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      That's not what you said at all.

      Yes, it was. A religion has churches and a real following. "Jedi" has neither. If they did--have a real following and a somewhat formal organization (like what "wicca" has), then they'd be a real reigion. (They would still be surely made-up, like Scientology, but they'd be a legal religion.)

      What scandals? You mean, being a failure, and rapidly becoming irrelevent?

      Yep. The various Christian churches have been swamped in scandal recently--ever watch the news outside of /.?

      But Christainity is not a "you must go to church or else" religion for a lot of people. Sure, church attendence is down; that doesn't mean that the people who don't go (like me) aren't Christian.

      No, you're not. Look up the stats.

      "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." Find me census data that lists religion. Add up all of the Christian denominations, and if they don't equal or exceed 51%, I'll conceed the point.


      So, God's powers are limited? Interesing, for an all-powerful being.

      Besides, Jesus clearly said that Christians would be able to drink poison, and be bitten by venomous snakes and not be harmed. No doctors are mentioned. Done either of those lately, or is Christianity really just total bullshit?


      I have no doubt that, if necessary, I could do those things--they are, after all, within the range of scientific plausibility. But God doesn't solve man's problems for him; even South Park could tell you that much.

      I have never been bitten by a snake, and neither have I ever been poisoned by anything except a few low-grade substances, like alcohol. Again, something non-miraculous that can be attributed to God.

      So, suddenly we're not allowed to ask for Him to actually do anything, when previously he would divide seas, murder babies, order genocide and so on (subtle, He's not). That's *awfully* convenient. I'll have to remember that trick, when I invent my religion to fleece the gullible. You're clearly no better off than if you were not a Christian (and don't give me that "fires of hell" childishness).

      Ok, then. I am better off than if I was not a Christian, because I have an offer of forgiveness, a calling to do good, and a measurement of what "good" is. Being as good as Jesus told us to be is difficult work, and it doens't get any immediate benefits. But in the long-term, it benefits me personally and us as a whole.

      Yes, Christian churches have pointed the sword of war at many things, more than a few of which were regrettable. But things like that would have happened without Christianity, and probably not have been as long-term producitve.

      No, you did. You said, "Got a problem with that?". I do. I'd rather not go back to the time when Christianity ruled, which is widely regards as "the dark ages". Just go back to not understanding maths and science, and trying to prove "creationism", believing in magic fairies, and let the educated, sensible get on with the actual thinking.

      That's right, the world is so much better when an elitee, snobbish minority controlls the development of everything.

      Christians ruled before the so-called "Dark Ages", and they "ruled" for several centuries afterwhich. In a lot of ways, we still rule; the Cold War probably wouldn't have been quite as important if the Communist agenda wasn't atheist as well. (The "Dark Ages" are a time not when Christianity ruled, but when political and economic progress slipped backwards because of the fall of the Roman Empire. Many forms of advancement still progressed (like farming), and the term favored by most scholars of history is "middle ages", not "dark ages.")

      Go back to your Christian music, Christian books, Christian TV and all that other lame crap i.e. to your Christian ghetto (once the "Christian" prefix was implicit in everything. Not any more).

      Who says it isn't? There's a minority that likes Christian-centered media, but most of us look at it askance, knowing that it's probably bad talent and faulty logic badmouthing our religion's name, all of which makes it more and more difficult for us to speak out in public.

      One notable exception is the Christian Science Monitor. It's worth checking out, and last I checked (a few weeks ago) no bad science, creationist propaganda, or faulty logic at all.

      Now that you've attacked my religion, what are you? An atheist? A neo-pagan? I'm genuinely curious, and would appreciate a response.

    29. Re:How is it fraud? by dpt · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was. A religion has churches and a real following. "Jedi" has neither. If they did--have a real following and a somewhat formal organization (like what "wicca" has), then they'd be a real reigion. (They would still be surely made-up, like Scientology, but they'd be a legal religion.)

      You said I would be committing fraud. Wrong. If I believe it's religion, it is. The end. Where does it say that you must have X churches, have Y members, etc?


      Yep. The various Christian churches have been swamped in scandal recently--ever watch the news outside of /.?


      I assume what you're talking about is the fairly minor localised stuff - my reaction is just, yep, no better than anyone else. I'd be more interested in finding out where that 10% of everyone's income goes ...

      But Christainity is not a "you must go to church or else" religion for a lot of people. Sure, church attendence is down; that doesn't mean that the people who don't go (like me) aren't Christian.


      But that's surely a bad sign as a cultural force? Where's the sense of community? And of course, recruitment, reinforcement, etc ...

      "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."

      Interesting to hear a Christian say that. Got any repeatable tests for any of the claims of Christianity?

      Find me census data that lists religion. Add up all of the Christian denominations, and if they don't equal or exceed 51%, I'll conceed the point

      I think Hindus win that "race". Not to worry, we'll get to them eventually. I'm an equal opportunity anti-religous bigot :)

      I have no doubt that, if necessary, I could do those things

      Then do it. Christianity is clearly testable. So test it. There's nothing in the passages I refer to about accidents. It's a clear, unqualified statement of what should be any Christian's magic powers. I've never met someone who's done it, therefore I've only really seen hypocritical, faithless wannabes.

      Again, something non-miraculous that can be attributed to God

      Why would you attribute that to God? I've never been poisoned or bitten by a snake, and I'm sure Christians have - and *died*.

      Ok, then. I am better off than if I was not a Christian, because I have an offer of forgiveness

      You probably haven't done anything to need forgiveness for, and if you do you're better off seeking it from those you've wronged, not from magic sky pixies.

      a calling to do good, and a measurement of what "good" is

      I seem to have those just fine. I'm awfully confused by where you get your measurement of good from. As far as I recall, the overwhelming message in the bible is that "it's okay to rape, kill and commit genocide, as long as the voice in your head telling you to do that stuff claims to be God".

      Being as good as Jesus told us to be is difficult work, and it doens't get any immediate benefits

      I've never seen any Christians doing it tough. They seem to be middle-class, relatively affluent conservative capitalists i.e. almost the exact opposite of Jesus. They're not exactly giving up their material possessions as ordered. And don't give me any of that "biblical principals for financial success" garbage, these orders come from Jesus himself and you can't weasel out of it.

      But in the long-term, it benefits me personally and us as a whole

      No, it doesn't. Notice a big smoking hole where the WTC used to be? Religion, again. And don't bother with the "my religion's so much better". You've been forced to play nice lately, but you'd all get back to inquisitions and holy wars pretty quick.

      That's right, the world is so much better when an elitee, snobbish minority controlls the development of everything

      No, the world's much better when most people are well educated. A good, broad, scientific education is the only effective innoculation against the meme that is religion.

      The Cold War probably wouldn't have been quite as important if the Communist agenda wasn't atheist as well

      Ah, that old chestnut. But Hitler was clearly religious. And Torquemada. And various Popes. And so on ...

      The trouble is, atheists make no claims about superior morality. Stalin was a bastard. So what?

      And, of course, to paraphrase you I could just try to weasel out of it thusly:
      But things like that would have happened without X, and probably not have been as long-term productive.

      Note here that X is really communism, not atheism ... but I digress ...

      but when political and economic progress slipped backwards because of the fall of the Roman Empire

      And what religion was the Roman Empire when it fell?

      Now that you've attacked my religion, what are you? An atheist? A neo-pagan? I'm genuinely curious, and would appreciate a response

      No religion.

    30. Re:How is it fraud? by dpt · · Score: 0

      In a lot of ways, we *still* rule;

      I forgot this, but it's worth treating separately.

      You clearly don't rule squat. It's been an awfully long time since social, intellectual and artistic progress has been made by Christians.

      Socially: once upon a time, the Christian overlords decided what was right and wrong, and even set the agenda of where the culture was heading. Now they play reactionary catch-up. "Contraception is bad" (need to keep people poor, and need more recruits) "Medical research of type X is bad" (might cure illness, and happy people don't find religion attractive) "That music/movie/writing/media is eeeeeeevil!" "Won't somebody think of the children?". And so on.

      Intellectually: The printing press was invented to help distribute the bible. Fast forward to now - I don't think spreading the good word is the driving force behind innovation at this point. Unless TCP/IP and HTTP were actually designed to put up all those lame Christian sites out there up - but I doubt it.

      And finally artistically: once, Christianity inspired, and funded the greatest art and music in western history. Now we get incredibly lame "Christion rock". Following, again. Not leading. Reacting. Irrelevant.

      As far as I can see, in practical terms, Christians behave no differently than people with no religion. Enlightened self-interest is the order of the day, and I can't see Christianity clawing it's way back to the centre stage to reclaim all that it's lost.

      It's not leading, and it's not ruling. See?

  21. Interesting predicament by shrikel · · Score: 1
    Person A professes to believe in something. Person B doesn't believe that Person A really believes it. Person A's belief is set aside and not considered "real."

    Granted, many of the people who wrote "Jedi" probably don't really believe in jedism (?), but what about the few that probably do? Where does the state think it has the audacity to declare some peoples' beliefs justified and others invalid?

    On the other hand, what about the groups that actually rely on census data to make their decisions? It is a problem if lots of people falsify data. I know that lots of people purposefully lie on exit polls as they leave the voting booths in November just to screw up the prediction system.

    Australia's National Census. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    1. Re:Interesting predicament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, many of the people who wrote "Jedi" probably don't really believe in jedism (?), but what about the few that probably do?

      We have nice padded cells waiting on them...

    2. Re:Interesting predicament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right next to the ones who believe in Xenu (xenu.net)

    3. Re:Interesting predicament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better have some cells for the many other people that beieve that a gaint hairless space monkey created the universe in 6 days, made woman from the rib of a man, flooded the world (being such a benevolent fool that "god" is), had a "son" who could walk on water, turn water to wine, etc.

      If anything, Jedi who seem to be almost bhuddist have a more valid religion than most of the people on this earth.

  22. LOL - Pot/Kettle... by destiney · · Score: 1


    And I find the fact that this is on CNN even more so ;)

    No more surprising than some of the bullshit that appears on this site..

  23. "They're not really Jedi" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What standards or qualifications must a person pass to be a "real" Jedi, "real" Catholic or "real" neo-Druid? Who determines those standards? By what standard are they able to determine who is a "real" whatever, and who is lying?

  24. parent isn't a TROLL? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    If the single doctrine of the religion was to answer Jedi to what is your religion on the census form that that makes is as good a religion as any.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  25. They will certify the Jedi religion by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

    when followers bring in doctors notes testifying to their "midichlorian count".

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:They will certify the Jedi religion by JahToasted · · Score: 4, Funny
      "midichlorian count"

      Hey that's from the New Testament. Orthodox Jedis don't believe in that shit...

  26. Jedi training center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are they going to open a jedi training center. The force is obviously strong in AU. They should be researching light sabers, building temples, and raising the next generation of Jedi Masters, not oppressing the chosen!

  27. give me a break... by i7dude · · Score: 1

    when will people stop with this sill nonesense???

    come to your senses peope...stick to wroshiping sons of virgins and flaming hedges that talk.

    dude.

    1. Re:give me a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "come to your senses peope...stick to wroshiping sons of virgins and flaming hedges that talk."

      GIVE ME A SHRUBBERY OR GIVE ME DEATH!

  28. Mockery of Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally this makes me glad. Let's be honest here people .. JEDI IS NOT A RELIGION and the people who were putting it down on their forms were only doing it as a JOKE. Now I don't expect this to go over well on Slashdot, a site whose readership is about as anti-religion as you can get, but there are those of us who really do take this SERIOUSLY. If you choose not to, then fine, that's your decision.

    But you have to understand when you put things like this down on your form you are mocking people's most cherished beliefs. That might not bother you, but at the very LEAST you might show some respect (or if not respect, try some RESTRAINT.) After all it's not as if my church teaches that Star Wars fans are going to hell, why use Star Wars in an attempt to persecute my church? If you have no religion, write "NO RELIGION", don't make something up to mock other decent people.

    1. Re:Mockery of Christ by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how is this mocking your religion, or any other for that matter? How is this an example of using Star Wars to persecute your church? So far you're the only person in this discussion that even knows to which religion/church you adhere.

      I try to be very mindful and respectful of others, and I don't see why what these people did is harmful or demeaning in any way to any religion or church. It's possible I could have been one of those pranksters. If you can explain why it is so offensive, it might allow me to avoid perpetrating a similar offense myself.

    2. Re:Mockery of Christ by booyaka · · Score: 1

      Not Quite. When people choose a religion other than the one you believe in, it is hardly making a mockery of yours. And, if you believe that, are all the jewish and islamic followers out there also mocking your religion? Why do people choose religions..start with that. with christianity, it is obviously because they believe in the teachings and words of jesus christ, in islam, mohammed, in judaisim, the god of abraham. if the form asks for your preferred religion, and you say 'jedi' because you believe that the virtues espoused by this order appeal to you most directly, how is that different than saying any other religion? Real problems arise when people dont show respect for one another's choices. By saying others are mocking you because they dont agree seems very hypocritical, just imagine the situation if you were not in the majority. Be a real christian, show some love for all, and show some respect for other people's choices.

    3. Re:Mockery of Christ by Oajhala · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would feel strongly about except for one thing. Religion already is an effective parody of itself. Since abandoning religion myself about 4 years ago, I have found it increasingly difficult to tell bona fide comments/statements/doctrines about major religions apart from parodies.

      Mockery of Christ? Sure, but modern Christians are generally better mockeries of Christ than someone claiming to be part of a Lucasfilm copyrighted religion.

      After all it's not as if my church teaches that Star Wars fans are going to hell, why use Star Wars in an attempt to persecute my church?

      Just how exactly is your church being persecuted?

    4. Re:Mockery of Christ by feldsteins · · Score: 2


      ...why use Star Wars in an attempt to persecute my church?

      I can't see where your church is being persecuted. But I can, on the other hand, see where your church (going by the title of your coment) has done quite a bit of persecuting of it's own. Clean your own house first. If you think a few thousand light-hearted pranksters and a few dozen flaky nerds are in any way equivalent to the centuries of murder and genuine persecution your church has inflicted on the world then you need to get up to speed on history and current events.

      In light of these facts I find your whiny indignant tone offensive.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    5. Re:Mockery of Christ by shd99004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything can be a religion. Think about it.
      How did religions come to be in the first place? My guess is that they started off as fictional stories to explain things they didn't know anything about thousands of years ago. That includes celestial phenomenon, weather phenomenon and indeed whether a battle would be won or whether the harvest would be good this year. Very soon, I assume, a few people realized that if people believe in a higher power to which you must suck up to (like pray and sacrifice animals and even humans), then you could easily use peoples beliefs to control the people itself. Religions - whichever religion it may be - are basically nothing but a story with some amazing characters, lots of adventures and some fictional supernatural entities. Religious wars are even more stupid as they are nothing but people fighting over whos imaginary friend is better. But, as much as I don't like the religions, at least I recognize every citizens right to choose exactly what they wish to believe, may it be Jesus, Allah, some space war lord with a name that starts with X, or Yoda.

      --
      Will work for bandwidth
    6. Re:Mockery of Christ by Paracelcus · · Score: 0

      If I say it's a religion, then it's a religion, it does'nt matter if you've heard of it or not, as long as i'm not doing live sacrifice or having sex with minors, you and your right-wing bigots and jingoistic tub-thumpers can go fuck yourselves, if I really want to piss off some nosey gummermint beaurocrat, why not write in Jedi?, or Aztec or Roman or Sumerian Phallus worship? You and your "Christian" buddies have been burning and torturing millions of people for thousands of years, hell, it was you people who burned down the great library at Alexandria, and skinned the staff alive!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    7. Re:Mockery of Christ by IAMAJACKASS · · Score: 1
      "Anything can be a religion."

      Not true, anything can be a cult, but for a full blow religion you need at least a few hundred thousand followers!

    8. Re:Mockery of Christ by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Not true, anything can be a cult, but for a full blow religion you need at least a few hundred thousand followers!

      There is a saying which goes something like, "The difference between a cult and a religion is a couple hundred years."

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    9. Re:Mockery of Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell, it was you people who burned down the great library at Alexandria, and skinned the staff alive!

      I'm sure no one currently posting on Slashdot took part in the burning of the Library of Alexandria. So settle down.

  29. Departmental Workout by fhqwhgads · · Score: 1

    Seems like there's been a bunch coming out of the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept today.

    Of course, sometimes it is possible to make similar things up.

  30. CNN == Enquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone else recently noticed the nosedive in the quality of stories on cnn.com?

    Come on, Russia waiting on Lance's space cash a lead story for three days?

    I'm used to ignoring the drivel from those two yahoo's on the CNN network, Aaron Brown and Paula Zahn, but the cnn.com site at least used to have real news.

  31. They have faith by javatips · · Score: 1
    Personally I find their lack of faith disturbing.


    They have faith in the Jedi counsel! This is not a lack of faith!

  32. blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so old it's not funny.

  33. may the force not be with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah so your a jedi...which one are you? goodie or badie....?if your name begins with Random, your a sith, if your name begins will Linus then your a goodie

  34. time to clean house by corrosiv · · Score: 1


    They should allow the losers to write "Jedi" and then proceed to ship everyone on the list into the outback. They can enjoy calling it Tattooine while the buzzards circle overhead. Feel free to take anyone who writes that Klingon is their first language too.

    1. Re:time to clean house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree, except they should be shipped o Pakistan.

    2. Re:time to clean house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there's no buzzards in Australia

  35. Other Science fiction religions... by dfrick · · Score: 1

    Do they exclude Scientologists too?

    1. Re:Other Science fiction religions... by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they decided to. I know that they wanted to at one time. Can't say I'd blame them.

      SP3 with Clusters, busboy at Xenu's House Of Clams.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  36. Separation of church and state unpopular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    On the contrary, I think the events of 9/11 demonstrated precisely why separation of church and state is a good thing. (Note that this refers to a secular, non-religious government and not necessarily a secular and non-religious society.)

    1. Re:Separation of church and state unpopular? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Nineteen devoutly religios believers thought God had ordered them to kill the infidels, by turning airplanes into weapons of mass destruction. Mao Tse Dong said religion is poison. Maybe he was right.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:Separation of church and state unpopular? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah , this coming from a guy who killed millions.
      bad example bud. try a little harder.

    3. Re:Separation of church and state unpopular? by j_w_d · · Score: 2

      On the contrary ... 9/11 demonstrated precisely why separation of church and state is a good thing. ...

      Why is your acceptance that church state separation is a good thing "on the contrary" to the original poster's assertion of the same?

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  37. Proving Intent? by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

    (IANAL) but I think you would have to prove intent to defraud. Was the point to make a joke like the email claims? But I think quite frankly I think one could claim to support the ideals/precepts of being a Jedi (they are close to Buddism, but a little differnt) and could safely defend ones point that ones religion was actually "Jedi". So unless the government could prove you were part of a larger conspiracry it would be a defendable point.

  38. Funny. But I can see why they are upset. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    People like you and me do not take these statistical surverys very seriously, but if it was your job to collect accurate day. Painstakingly calculing your margin of error, insuring you have proper samplings, you'd be upset too.

    Must be a slow news day for cute pranks to get on CNN. :)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Funny. But I can see why they are upset. by jbolden · · Score: 2

      At least in the US they would consider this accurate data. Take the census department's position on race. They don't see them self as trying to determine your true race but rather what race you claim to be. They define accurate as knowing that exactly:

      xyz people claim to be white
      abc people claim to be black
      def people claim to have poka dotted

      without taking any position what-so-ever as to whether of those def people really have dots or not.

      In other words the accuracy is seen as getting a complete count, cross correlating this information with other variable...

  39. Emacs is my religion by iamwoodyjones · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Mod me down too.

    1. Re:Emacs is my religion by *xpenguin* · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Alt-X-Ctrl-Meta-Escape-Backspace-Q

    2. Re:Emacs is my religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notepad RULES!

    3. Re:Emacs is my religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there ever was a thing that sucked, it would have to be notepad.

  40. in related news. by geekoid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    .37% of Australias population have no life.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:in related news. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Bump that up to 98%, and than apply that to all of western civilization that has access to more than 20 channels of television and you would be correct.

  41. Why should i show respect? by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    When most organized religons make it clear that they dont respect my beliefs. (Note, i said most).

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  42. Uh, what about Scientology? by jsimon12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scientology was fiction, L God Hubbard was actually a decent sci-fi author till he started beliving what he was writing was divine (hence he started his religion).

    As for fiction in modern religion, other then the fact that Jesus was a person, and was killed, we don't have much other proof to support the stories in the bible. Who knows maybe 2000 years from now people will worship Yoda as a person? I think the point is sure Jedi is a fictional concept, but who knows there isn't much proof that other religions are little more (and don't come back with the "Word of God" stuff, cause that is just bringing dogma into a factual argument).

    1. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by RadioactivePorpoise · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree- I've often wondered what would happen if someone were to dig up JRR Tolkien's books 1000 years from now. His world is so in depth and detailed- even down to the grammer of different elvish dialects- that it could very easily be taken for an ancient civilization's written history. His gods would become their gods. Frodo could be Moses.

    2. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      Scientology was fiction, L God Hubbard was actually a decent sci-fi author till he started beliving what he was writing was divine (hence he started his religion).
      Actually he was not believing. Some years before starting the cult, he said in an interview that the only way to really make money was to create a cult (and no, I don't have a link, but check my .sig link it's worth a read).

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
    3. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1
      Scientology was fiction, L God Hubbard was actually a decent sci-fi author till he started beliving what he was writing was divine (hence he started his religion)...

      I thought Scientology had more to do with Hubbard realizing that there are tax advantages to publishing fiction as religious texts, and less to do with him actually believing any of it.

    4. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Stonehand · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and the great theological question would be:

      "Did Balrogs have wings?" ;)

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    5. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      What proof do we have the Jesus was a person or was killed? Virtually all the evidence points in the other direction. I'd recommend

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/09 68 601405/qid=1030469738/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-398926 5-6943105?v=glance&s=books

    6. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was THE reason "Lron the nut" started scientology.
      And since we are on the subject.
      Our list of clams.
      The Masterson brothers. christopher(malcom-in-middle)
      Danny that 70s show
      Lynsey Bartilson grounded for life Her whole family!!
      Lisa Marie Presley- married Nicolas 'dumbass' Cage
      Jenna Elfman - dharma-greg 2nd generation idiot
      Erika Christensen - smimfan, traffic 2nd generation dumbass
      Anne archer -
      Catherine Bell - Jag
      Anne Spielberg -- famous directors sister
      Mimi Rogers brought in Tom Cruise
      John Travolta
      It tends to run in the family. and you marry a clam
      you become a clam.
      boycott these people
      its a cult.

    7. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damnit, YES! ;)

    8. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Jhan · · Score: 1

      Of course they had! What are you implying, you hethen?! Shouted: Women! Bring the rocks!

      --

      I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

    9. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by krow · · Score: 2

      But how seriously did Hubbard take it?
      It was a bet between him and Heinlein and he won (CAW never did have that many members).

      --
      You can't grep a dead tree.
    10. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What proof do we have the Jesus was a person or was killed?

      We only need proof he was a person. It was 2000 years ago, so he couldn't still be alive.

    11. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by operagost · · Score: 2
      Also Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny. Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud as well.

      Also look this page. Sorry, it's a little ugly but the information is accurate.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Scientology was fiction, L God Hubbard was actually a decent sci-fi author till he started beliving what he was writing was divine (hence he started his religion).

      THAT IS A COMPLETE LIE.

      He was a crap sci-fi author, and he started his religion after a ten dollar bet with Arthur C Clark at a sci-fi convention.

    13. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by xyzzy-ladder · · Score: 0

      Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny mentions people who call themselves Christians talking about a person named Jesus, a person who none of those Christians had ever met.

      What does that prove? If you take those works as reliable, they prove that there were people called Christians who believed in a person named Jesus.

      Proof that Jesus existed? None.

      --
      There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
    14. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by karmawarrior · · Score: 1
      My understanding is that Hubbard told at least three different people on three seperate occasions the quote in question that "if you want to make a lot of money, start a religion."

      It seems to have been a throw-away remark, or else something he was fairly obsessed with. (Talk about extremes!)

      No, I don't have a cite either.

      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
    15. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was 2000 years ago, so he couldn't still be alive.

      Actually, if he really was resurrected (and immortal), he'd still be here.

      To me, that pretty much sums up that he's not god. :o)

    16. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Logically, you can't prove the non-existence of something, unless it is by defition. As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

      Really, though, it seems almost peversely skeptical to doubt that there was a Jewish teacher from Nazareth namd Joshua Ben Joseph, who got himself executed by the Romans because he disturbed a stalemate between Jewish parties that was convenient for them. The whole Pilate story is so perfectly plausible to the cynical mind: the Romans got a lot of political mileage out of the split between the elite Saducees and the populist Pharisees, who aside from their theological dispute had a lot of status at stake. Along comes a teacher who advocates reform which is both political poisoning and plain insulting to both parties. The one thing everyone agrees to is that he should be executed. The Roman governor, not being a barbarian, is reluctant to do so, but he has a province full of irascible hayseed religious fanatics to pacify. The Romans weren't reluctant to sanction a little violent entertainment to keep the public mollified.

      Even if you wanted to create a religion out of whole cloth (which is not what I think happened), why invent somebody when there was bound to be some well known martyr or another to work with. It makes sense to admit that there very probably was a historical Jesus, and that Christianity was founded by his followers. You don't have to believe all the stories his followers told about him.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little known fact: Jesus was also a brilliant sci-fi writer, but there just wasn't a market for his ahead-of-its-time work, so he started a religion. Things got a little out of hand and Jesus fled to the Bahamas under cover of darkness.

    18. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by jbolden · · Score: 2

      There very well may have a been a person like you are describing, the question is whether the early Christians had such a person in mind in their writings. All the evidence points to the fact they didn't. Lets go through your post in order looking only at first century sources: 7 authentic Pauline letters, Revelations, Hebrews, Didache, etc...:

      Executed by the Romans: No mention of this. The only major reference to this not being a self induced sacrifice is when Paul states he was executed by demons in Heaven. The others don't specify execution at all.

      Involved in earthly politics -- Not one story of this type

      Pilate -- First datable reference to Pilate is in 107

      advocates reform -- Reform is a constant theme in the 1st century epistles not once is it listed as a teaching of Jesus. Reading the 1st century epistles you would have no idea Jesus every taught anything at all.

      agreed he should be executed -- no mention of the trial or anything of that nature

      I remembered Doherty has a website:

      http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm

    19. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      L God Hubbard was actually a decent sci-fi author...

      No, he was a crap author, and decided there was more money to be made starting a religion.

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    20. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Lets go through your post in order looking only at first century sources: 7 authentic Pauline letters, Revelations, Hebrews, Didache, etc..

      Well, this requires (1) selective choice of work and (2) a creative reading of them. Yes, they don't mention the method of his execution, but they don't mention the method of his death at all, even though his death was clearly an important event in their thinking and it is frequently mentioned. That is because these works do not catechize.

      The works that do catechize are the gospels, although admittedly they are oral traditions and individually unreliable from a historical standpoint. However the crucifiction appears in all of the oral traditions about Jesus, including early non-canonical traditions (e.g. various gnostic traditions on the crucifiction which were meant to illustrate the nature of Jesus).


      advocates reform -- Reform is a constant theme in the 1st century epistles not once is it listed as a teaching of Jesus. Reading the 1st century epistles you would have no idea Jesus every taught anything at all.


      Again, this can only be taken as evidence by willfully misinterpreting the nature of the epistles. They are concrete advice on specific practical and spiritual issues facing early christian communities. If you and I corresponded after the death of your father, and by chance a few of the letters survived us by a few years, would anyone think it curious that while I allude to his death, I never mention that he died from emphesyma, was a New York Yankees fan or ate bacon every day for breakfast?

      The place to look for a view of Jesus as a Jewish reformer is in the Gospels. It's interesting because this view has been completely lost for nearly two thousand years, as the story was transplanted from its Middle Eastern context into the classical world. For example, from Matthew 15:

      1. Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
      2. "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
      3. He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
      4. For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
      5. But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"--
      6. Then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
      7. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
      8. 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
      9. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' "
      10. When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear and understand:
      11. Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."
      12. Then His disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?"
      13. But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
      14. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."

      Now, what is likely to happen to a man who talks this way to the religious authorities in a country and time that was, perhaps compatable to the Taliban for its conservatism? This stuff went completely over the heads of Christians for thousands of years.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:Uh, what about Scientology? by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Crucifiction is a constant theme in the 1st century. I'm not arguing the 1st century doesn't have evidence of that. The problem is the details are missing:
      1 - earthly reasons
      2 - the trial
      3 - any mention of place (other than outside the gates of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is used figuratively throughout 1st century writings to be heaven)

      etc... In other words if you read back I'm questioning "execution" not "crucifiction". Gods get crucified all the time in middle eastern religions; what's unique about Christianity was tying this to an earthly event at a specific place and time and I'm arguing that did not heppen until the 2nd century.

      As for the gospels I'd didn't exclude them accidentally. They are 2nd century works. If you look at the writings between 130 and 160 the gospels are controversial, prior to about 130 you see no evidence of their existence.

      Justin Martyr is a good example of this. He gets converted around 130 without any mention of a gospel story or an eartly life of Jesus. Its not until the late 140's that he encounters the gospels.

      Again, this can only be taken as evidence by willfully misinterpreting the nature of the epistles. They are concrete advice on specific practical and spiritual issues facing early christian communities. If you and I corresponded after the death of your father, and by chance a few of the letters survived us by a few years, would anyone think it curious that while I allude to his death, I never mention that he died from emphesyma, was a New York Yankees fan or ate bacon every day for breakfast?



      Its more than that. Places where the teaching naturally should have turned up they don't. A great example is 1Cor 15. Paul is arguing for the possibility of resurrection from the dead and he develops a long biblical exegesis, which is not terrible convincing. Where is Lazarus?

      In terms of teachings even when these teachings come up they aren't attributed to Jesus
      1Peter 3.9 has his most fameous "turn the other cheek" yet doesn't attribute this to Jesus instead he says "so you may inheret a blessing". Why would the author of Peter use his own authority rather than that of the earthly teachings of Jesus?

      Doherty does an exercise of collection 200 examples like this in every single 1st century book of the bible: http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/siltop20.htm

  43. Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs... by clary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government shouldn't be allocating resources based on folks faith beliefs.

    Of course the US government acts (and allocates resources) based on faith beliefs of citizens. The US is a representative republic, and so the actions of government reflect, to some extent at least, the will of the people. For many people, their faith beliefs affect their wills more than any other single factor.

    The US is also properly a constitutional republic, and to the extent that we pay attention to the US Constitution, governmental action is limited. For example, the Constitution would obviously forbid establishing the Lutheran Church as the official church of the country, even if 90% of the citizens were Lutheran. However, it does not keep Lutherans from lobbying for laws that fit their particular views.

    (Note: I just picked Lutheran out of a hat as an example. Don't read more into it than that.)
    --

    "Rub her feet." -- L.L.

  44. This is not the Religion you are looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smells like a troll, talks like a troll, walks like a troll... But I cant resist.

    Actualy I have heard Christians say, with the backing of their chruch and good book, that beleif in aliens and/or exposure to Sci-Fi will get you sent to hell.

    Jedis dont go around trying to convert all non-jedis to their beleifs.. Nor do they Kill and salughter people just because that have a different religous beleif.

    What you beleive in is your right.. Comfort food for the soul..

    Sure we may mock you.. but we wont kill you..

    1. Re:This is not the Religion you are looking for by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Jedis dont go around trying to convert all non-jedis to their beleifs.. Nor do they Kill and salughter people just because that have a different religous beleif.

      Well, you could say that at least one Jedi has gone around slaughtering everyone with a different religious belief. You'd need to define "Jedi" a bit loosely to include Anakin/Vader, much in the manner you have to define "Muslim" to include Osama bin Laden.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  45. Read what you wrote.... by jsimon12 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their are practices and beliefs associated with Druidism and the Wiccan faith. A person can't reasonably _be_ a Druid just by calling himself one momentarily on a piece of paper, any more than it's reasonable to claim to be a Catholic while taking a page from the feminist movement and worshipping Athena as the goddess of Wisdom.

    People claim to be religions and do things contrary to them all the time. Does that make the Catholic who gets an abortion guilty of commiting fruad on their census by claiming to be a Catholic even though they don't strictly adhere to doctrine? Or the Mormon who drinks? Or the Druid that eats meat and hunts? etc etc etc. That is why we have freedom of religion in the US, so someones concepts for a religion don't have to apply to mine, then again the government doesn't fund/build churchs here either.

    My point is you are singleing out Jedi's becuase it offends you, and not seeing the bigger picture that this "fraud" as you state it goes on ALL the time.

    1. Re:Read what you wrote.... by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      With regards to Catholicism, there's an established institution with its own peculiar habits. Apparently, for instance, sexually molesting altar boys is considered better for the soul than marriage by the Rev. Moon or ordaining women priests -- judging from the Vatican occasionally threatening excommunication in the latter cases, but never AFAIK in the former. But the institution decides how forgiving or perverse it is to be. Ditto for the Mormon church.

      Someone's concept of religion don't have to apply to yours. However, if they're the traditional, titular establishment and you aren't abiding by their precepts to the extent that they don't recognize you as a member, you should probably use a different name for your faith. It wouldn't surprise me if John Paul's written one or more documents on pro-abortion Catholics describing the Vatican's POV on them.

      As for myself, *shrug* I'm an agnostic who prefers an odd blend of vaguely libertarian principles with some utilitarian preferences. Doctrines that say "perform these rituals, regardless of whether or not they have significant real-world effect" normally don't interest me very much.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    2. Re:Read what you wrote.... by John+Harrison · · Score: 2

      In Brazil I often ran into people who when asked what religion they belonged to would say, "I'm not religious, I'm Catholic." or some variation of that.

  46. Christianity's truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christianity has one thing that no other religion, past or present, has: the Resurrected Christ. Islam has Muhammad, who was just a mere man (if he even existed at all.) Judaism is built on a lot of tradition but misses the entire point of redemption. The rest of the world's religions are basically just hateful mockeries of things pure. The Resurrected Christ is the one thing that sets Christianity apart from every other religion on the face of this earth. It is for this reason that I am a Christian and it is for this reason that you should be a Christian.

    That's all I'm going to say.

    1. Re:Christianity's truth by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      You basically described why Christianity cant be The One. You've chosen your religion based on an esotaric distinction between lots of other fairly similar religions. You've basically picked one in a million and proclaimed it to be It. Thats an act of a fool, or at least a lousy shopper.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Christianity's truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The previous poster just stated that it has something the none of the others had. That seems to make it "The One" in my book.

    3. Re:Christianity's truth by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But he conveniently neglects to mention all the other religions have aspects that no other religion shares. Each religion has nothing unique, or it wouldn't be a seperate religion. So theres nothing to stop me from saying religion X, which doesn't have Ressurected Christ (not sure why thats such a showstopper anyhow, but lets ignore that for now), but *does* have aspect Y, which no other religion has, is The One!

      Thats my point. They're all unique, or they wouldn't be seperate reason. He might as well say, "I bought a Ford because it was the only car with the Ford logo on it!"

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:Christianity's truth by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Other religions believed in people rising from the dead, too. Some English are waiting for King Arthur to return. The resurected christ is just another myth. The dead stay dead. Be careful in church. If you take up serpents, they can bite you whether you have faith or not, and poison is still poison, jibber jabber is not speaking in new tongues.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    5. Re:Christianity's truth by rppp01 · · Score: 1

      Um, hello, can you please go to this site and tell me that you still believe you are the 'only one' out there?

      Fertility gods before Judaism and xtianity"

      --
      They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
    6. Re:Christianity's truth by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      Christianity has one thing that no other religion, past or present, has: the Resurrected Christ.

      Christianity isn't the only religion with a resurrection.

      Egyptians had Osiris, who died and rose again on the third day.
      Syrians had Adonis, who died and was found risen by his women followers on the third day.
      Mithrasim had (obviously) Mithra, who died, was buried, and rose again.
      Greco-Romans had Dionysus, who was torn to pieces and resurrected by his mother - to celebrate his resurrection, followers ate bread and drank wine.

      Besides, with similar logic to yours, I could argue that the Church of the Subgenius is the only religion with Slack, and therefore is the One True Religion.

      The rest of the world's religions are basically just hateful mockeries of things pure.

      One could say the same thing about modern Christianity and how the pure teachings of Jesus (love, tolerance, peace) are followed only when they are convenient.

      It is for this reason that I am a Christian and it is for this reason that you should be a Christian.

      And mindless drivel like this from the mouth (or typing fingers) of Christians is the reason I'm almost ashamed to call myself Christian.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    7. Re:Christianity's truth by operagost · · Score: 1
      I've found from my research that anyone that spells Christianity as "xtianity" is just trolling and recycling old, useless, inaccurate, misleading information. I don't call Muslims "Mohammadeans", anyone that calls me an "xtian" is closed-minded and irrelevant.

      Unfortunately, I'd already read your post so I looked at the site in question. Inferring that Christians "borrowed" the nifty idea of a resurrected god-man from pagan religions is amusing, but a direct connection to these religions is lacking.

      One thing that none of them have is the idea of a perfect, sinless man-god acting as surrogate sacrifice. When those pagan idols died, it was meaningless outside of the resurrection itself.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Christianity's truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One could say the same thing about modern Christianity and how the pure teachings of Jesus (love, tolerance, peace) are followed only when they are convenient.


      Amen. It's incredibly hard to stand up anymore and declare you are Christian when the non-believers are filled with this false representations.

    9. Re:Christianity's truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The dead stay dead.


      Prove it. Show me Christ's bones.

    10. Re:Christianity's truth by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      If there even was a Jesus, and I could show you his bones, you would just say they aren't the real thing. You have chosen to believe that someone once rose from the dead even though it is absurd, so I can't use reason to convince you. If someone slipped into a coma on a Friday, and came to on a Sunday 2000 years ago, someone could easily think they died and rose, but that wouldn't make it so. The dead stay dead.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    11. Re:Christianity's truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which doesn't have Ressurected Christ (not sure why thats such a showstopper anyhow, but lets ignore that for now

      The fact that he died and rose again was to take your place. All the world would be lost and going to hell for your sins if he hadn't paid the price for them. The only way to do that is to die(spiritually and physically) and come back to give that authority to anyone who will receive it.

      It doesn't matter what else they claim. If you don't have this then you don't have anything. Everything else is to help you live your life here. God is very fair but some of the people claiming to speak for him aren't. If you study the bible then you will see that God never contradicts himself and is good. There are plenty of cases of people acting on their own and people blame God.

  47. jedi is very similar to hinduism by cpex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually the jedi faith is very similar to hinduism in it beliefs about the force being vreated by all living things. I didnt write the following excerpt but thought I would post it here. ______ It is a very little known fact that George Lucas, the creator of the Star Wars world, has strong Hindu beliefs. Just as Hinduism affects our lives, so has it affected his, which can be shown by the fact that he has incorporated Hindu themes throughout the Star Wars trilogy. This essay will touch, through various examples, the way Lucas has weaved Hinduism into his movies. Of the trilogy, The Empire Strikes Back seems to portray Hinduism in the fullest sense. Specifically, the part when Luke Skywalker goes to find Yoda. When he first arrives, Luke finds himself in a forest, looking for the old, wise Yoda to learn the ways of the Jedi. This is very like Hindu's Janoi (Gujarati), where young males run to the forest in search of the old, wise yogi, who would provide great knowledge. Just as a yogi "tests" potential students on their patience to enter into the arduous task of learning, so does Yoda "test" Luke by not telling him who he is. His purpose, of course, was seeing if Luke had patience or not. As the training progresses, Luke learns to control what is called "the Force." Yoda explains that everything is part of the Force, such as the "...the tree, the rock..." etc. This Force is very similar to the Hindu concept of the One or the Universe (in essence Om). In Hinduism it is said that we are all part of the One, just like what Yoda said about the Force. Simply put, it is concluded that Yoda was referring to "the Force" as the Force of the One. Luke also learns about illusion. In one scene, he tries to pickup his X-wing with the Force, but fails. Yoda explains that one should not judge anything by it's size (in essence, what we see is an illusion). He calls all material items "crude matter" and that these are the not the things to judge with. This scene illustrates the Hindu concept that life is an illusion (or Maya). During the same training scenes, Luke gets a vision of his friends in trouble. Luke then prepares to leave to save his friends. Yoda persuades him not to go by saying that he must finish his training because it is more important. This exemplifies the Hindu concept of duty over family. The duty over family lesson can be seen in stories like the Bhagavad-Gita, where Lord Krishna tells Arjun to fight his cousins, despite his feelings for them, because it is his duty. At then end of the training scenes, as Luke is leaving, Ben Kenobi warns Luke to never "give into anger and hate." This lesson of benevolence is also taught by Mohandas Gandhi, which he derived from Hinduism. Besides the training scenes, there are other areas of Star Wars that portray Hinduism. For example, the concept of destiny. In Star Wars, the word "destiny" is used many times in the context of fulfilling one's destiny. This is very similar to duty. Another example is the father-son relationship between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. This parallels with Krishna and his uncle who are both related and nemesis. Finally, one last example, Luke, being the only son, cremates Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi. Though I have heard of other religions cremating, it is a predominantly Hindu ritual. In the above examples I have suggested a few connections between Hinduism and Star Wars. Of course, these are arguable, but they are a starting point in which to provoke thought. -Rajan Rajbhandari, 1994

    1. Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they give the yogi a pickanic basket?

      Sorry, couldn't resist

    2. Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism by imr · · Score: 2

      yes i noticed all that and it's quite true until you hear of the something-chlori-something in episode 1 and suddendly, whooom, no more hindouism, hello star trekkism an its universal health detector of the force.
      And then, you see the last fight scene of yoda in episode 1 and hello jackychanism. (wich is in a way a return to asia but noy quite as appealing).

    3. Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism by rmckeethen · · Score: 1


      Nope, I'd have to say that the ideas put forth in the Star Wars saga are much closer to Taoism then to Hinduism. The Tao is a much better analogue to the Force then anything in the Hindu pantheon. Where are the references to the caste system, paralells to Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, et. al. in Star Wars? Not there that I recall. But the all-encompassing Force sounds a lot like the Tao to me.

    4. Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Jedis don't worship monkies, dogs, cows, rats... Jedis don't drink piss or eat shit, Although they have been known to use their powers to make others Eat Shit.

    5. Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All religions based on mythologies have similar stories of tiumph over evil, romance, outer worldly powers. Hinduism, Old Greek Religions, Jedi are all based on Mythology although Jedi is based on modern mythology written by a known writer. So Hindu Mythology has nothing special that connects it to star wars and not any other mythologies from the past.

    6. Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism by cpex · · Score: 1

      i would agree with that. thank you for an intellegent response compared to the rest.

  48. Redundancy uber alles! by Ryvar · · Score: 1

    3. While drivign down the street at night have you ever turned off your headlights and driven using only the force? did you live?

    . . . I'm not even sure how to answer that last bit. No?

    1. Re:Redundancy uber alles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did this once, it was actually pretty easy, once you got your night vision.

    2. Re:Redundancy uber alles! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      He drives in the dark! Hail Messiah! :P

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:Redundancy uber alles! by varith · · Score: 1

      No! Renounce the false messiah who drives in the dark. Follow the true savior who drives with his left blinker always on!

    4. Re:Redundancy uber alles! by Sj0 · · Score: 2

      Hail Messiah!

      --
      It's been a long time.
  49. Please check all outside flora and fauna by ohboy-sleep · · Score: 1


    I don't think it's so much religious intolerance as it is their long-standing embargo on midichloreons.

  50. Byebye organized religion by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Make them use the force to move some shit around the room. If they can do it, let them have their religion.

    If you had to prove your religious beliefs existed, say goodbye to all organized religion.

    Not that it would be a bad thing.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Byebye organized religion by TFloore · · Score: 2

      Prove the earth revolves around the sun.

      Prove neutrons exist. Bonus points for doing this without some "magic" machine no one really understands anyway. :)

      Prove NASA *didn't* fake the moon landings.

      Prove computers work by electricity, and not magic.

      Prove these things to someone that starts off thinking you're a flake anyway, and just *knows* you're making this stuff up from some fantasy books you read somewhere. (That's all high-energy physics is, right? Fantasy and magic.)

      Now, tell me again about proving religious beliefs.

      No, I'm not very religous, but I recognize the danger of saying "prove it" for anything you choose not to believe. At the same time, accepting any screwy thing your local psychotic tells you is just plain silly.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    2. Re:Byebye organized religion by Manitcor · · Score: 1

      This is very true in a sence, after all most of these things are based on Physics and mathmatics which when written down are mostly just a bunch of odd symbols and numbers (incantations). Using these sytems we create magick so to speak.

      --
      "Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
    3. Re:Byebye organized religion by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Prove neutrons exist. Bonus points for doing this without some "magic" machine no one really understands anyway. :)

      Easy, bring them on a fly over as a neutron bomb is dropped on a major populated city. Ask them if they want to fly in a plane with lead shielding or not, if not, laugh at them a they wither and agony and die from radiation exposure when the low fly by is done. (I am assuming a remote controlled plane would be applicable here. :-D )

    4. Re:Byebye organized religion by elvum · · Score: 1

      ah, but what if it was evil spirits that happened to kill them just as the bomb went off?

    5. Re:Byebye organized religion by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      >Prove the earth revolves around the sun.

      Take a look at the solar system Family Picture that voyager sent back.

      >Prove NASA *didn't* fake the moon landings.

      Go have a look at the moon rocks in a museum.

      >Prove computers work by electricity, and not magic.

      Put your index and thumb between the little socket that plugs into your computer.

      >Prove these things to someone that starts off thinking you're a flake anyway, and just *knows* you're making this stuff up from some fantasy books you read somewhere. (That's all high-energy physics is, right? Fantasy and magic.)

      You have very little understanding of what constitute science and its methodology. If you want to play around the semantics of the word "proof", then go ahead. You can't prove anything. But you can build up a solid confidence in knowing how things really works.

      Many religions require the use of the Special Pleading argument to "prove" their point (i.e. praying will cure cancer etc.) That is the point of the OP : if your religion (i.e. Jedi) claim you can do mindtricks, then show that it exist by doing just that.

      Unfortunately, most people don't care about believing in believable things. Things that are nice and fuzzy inside is so much more comforting.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    6. Re:Byebye organized religion by at_18 · · Score: 2

      Prove the earth revolves around the sun.

      Look at a star with a good telescope, and note its position with respect to the nearby stars. Now look at the same star 6 months after. If the star you selected is near, it will have moved by a measurable amount (but fairly small). This is because the Earth is now 300 million km away from the previous position. The movement of the star is called its "parallax". Repeat with other stars, and you can literally draw the Earth orbit.

      Prove neutrons exist.

      Neutrons do not exist. They are a good model to predict the behaviour of chemistry and atomic bombs, and a bunch of other things. The "God exists" model has the same theoretical validity, if you can make *predictions* out of it. The model that makes the bigger amount of correct predictions wins.

      Prove NASA *didn't* fake the moon landings.

      I got the photos. A photo is generally accepted in court, unless shown to be a fake. No one ever made a good argument that the moon landing photos are fake. Now have the non-believer prove that NASA faked the moon landing. He won't be able to do that.

      Prove computers work by electricity, and not magic.

      You need first to define electricity. If you agree on a definition like "something that gives you shock", demonstrate how a computer works only when the main switch is on. Now have the non-believer hold the wires in his hands while you turn the switch on and off...

      Now, tell me again about proving religious beliefs.

      Simple, they say all the time that God, Allah, Zeus and Skywalker can make miracles. Show me one and I'm convinced. Heck, show a good scientist an evident, genuine miracle and he will embrace the "god" theory in an instant.

    7. Re:Byebye organized religion by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Well after enough neutron bomb 'testings' it should be possible to convince them that the neutron bomb is that which is summoning the evil spirits, and quite frankly 'evil spirits' is close enough to 'radiation' and lets just call it a done deal. :-D

    8. Re:Byebye organized religion by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      All been done. I'm not going to waste my time digging up links to show it to you, but all these things (with the possable exception of the moon landingd) has been proven to the satisfaction of the doctrine of strong inference, which is what science requires. In a nutshell what strong inference is like this:

      For most things in the world we can't provide deductive proof something is true (math is one of the few exceptions) therefor we have to use induction. Also it certianly is possable to prove something false, all you need is a counter example. So for something to be accept as fact under strong inference the theory you propose must be falsiable (ie you have to be abel to test it's truth), you must have emperical evidence showing it to be true, and there must be no alternate theory that is equal or more likely that also fits that evidence.

      That is what science requires to accept something as fact and things like the sun revolving around the earth have been proved to the satisfaction of that. Things such as the existence of god have not.

    9. Re:Byebye organized religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is typical of someone who uses her left half of the brain, the logical side, almost exclusively. Ie, if something can't be explained to you by logical reasoning, it can't exist. Does art exist to you? How about a beautiful flower? Have you ever appreciated the mysteries of nature? What is the definition of beauty? How do you measure friendship, why would you measure and how will the measurement affect it?

      Contrary to your beliefs in logic and science, there exist other ways of interpreting the world that goes beyond mere logic and reasoning, both around us and inside. It's on the level of appreciation and intuition - direct knowing and seeing. Without it, humans are empty shells that resemble robots, while if you go with the feeling, your life is enriched. Indeed, every time you are excited and happy, you are within it without knowing. It's when we start to dissect and analyse, that we destroy the feeling and the natural happiness that accompanies it.

      Many people today are ateists primarily because of abuse of religions in the past. They are having a massive reaction to the past, thus being victims of karma. If a person frees himself of karma, even temporarily, then that person can ACT instead of REACT, which brings so much more power to the individual. Ateists doing that can start to see the core of truth in various religions, without having to succumb to old dogmas and control-freaks. Btw, if you react to the word "karma": It's simply a word meaning that everything in the world is built up on the action-reaction mechanism, including our consciousness.

      But I'm afraid I'm making no sense to you. You can't measure this or cut it open with a knife.

      So therefore it can't exist.

    10. Re:Byebye organized religion by karlm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I could probably do better than that Nasa photograph with a few hours on GIMP.

      Isn't that moon rock very very similar to rocks on earth?

      The use ofelectricity inside the case of a computer is part of the hoax. It really does use magic.

      The parent's point is that your evidence is still consistant with the hoax theory. Is it simpler to believe that someone used GIMP, or that someone actually built a huge rocket to boost a very heavy camera at such a velocity that it will eventually leave Sol's gravitational influence, just to send back a few photos? Give me a few million dollars for some JPEGs of the solar system, and I know how I'm getting the JPEGs. I might also point out that you cannot prove that the Earth revolves about the Sun. For an earth-bound reference point, Sol orbits Earth and pretty much everything else orbits Sol. Earth has the unique distinction of being the only planet about which Sol orbits.

      Now, as far as evidence for the claims of Christianity, you have more early manuscripts of most of the boks of the Bible than you do for any of Shakespear's works, and you have a pretty good geographic distribution of the manuscripts. You have a corroborating document by the non-Christian Roman historian Justinian. You have the question of why the Roman goverment didn't simple produce the body of Jesus when his cult they tried to squash started spreading rumors that he was up and roaming about.

      Now, I'm not really asserting any of these claims. I'm just saying that the stuff you presented isn't very scientifically or historically convincing. Be careful about pointing your finger at the fool when you may be found even more foolish.

      I agree that people are sheep. However, I tink you fail to realize how much of your "knowledge" you take on blind faith. Oh.. but.. but.. it's not blind faith, it's self-consistant. Most itelligent people in most faiths have come up with an interpretation that is self-consistant. I'm not saying I don't trust the scientific method, I'm saying don't think you're above taking things on "blind faith". I've had some coursework in special relativity. I understand and believe it. As far as anything more complicated in physics goes, I take it on blind faith. Some theories in the past have been shown wrong. Some of the things in physics I take on blind faith will later be shown to be in error. You may be less foolish than I, but I doubt you are much less foolish than I.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    11. Re:Byebye organized religion by bribass · · Score: 1
      Isn't that moon rock very very similar to rocks on earth?
      What were you expecting, a lump of cheese?
    12. Re:Byebye organized religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a corroborating document by the non-Christian Roman historian Justinian

      One!! You would have thought an earthquake, the blotting out of the sun, and "the dead rising from their graves" would have caused more consternation that that! You would expect it to feature largely in every single piece of writing from the time. And what do we have - one offhand reference.

      And the one you mention is a well known post-hoc addition, to boot.

      You have the question of why the Roman goverment didn't simple produce the body of Jesus when his cult they tried to squash started
      spreading rumors that he was up and roaming about


      Because the Roman goverment did not care. Just another small bunch of loonies, so what? The "government" probably never even heard these "claims", even if they weren't just made up 30-50 years later. Does the US government go around verifying the claims of every nutjob in the world?

      Now, as far as evidence for the claims of Christianity, you have more early manuscripts of most of the boks of the Bible than you do for any of Shakespear's works, and you have a pretty good geographic distribution of the manuscripts

      You got this off the back of some religious pamphlet, didn't you? You don't have *any* actual early manuscripts. You don't even know who wrote the gospels in the *first* place. The best evidence suggests the gospels were written quite a few *decades* later, and not by any of the *real* apostles ie not Paul.

    13. Re:Byebye organized religion by danro · · Score: 2



      Why turn it off?
      Let him have his Darwin award ;-)

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    14. Re:Byebye organized religion by Tom · · Score: 2

      You have the question of why the Roman goverment didn't simple produce the body of Jesus when his cult they tried to squash started spreading rumors that he was up and roaming about.

      at the time of those alleged events, they probably couldn't care less for the umpteenth silly cult of one of their hundred fringe provinces.
      later, when the cult people became criminals, that was all there was to it. I doubt the average roman cared for what those idiots believed in, much like your average american doesn't need to know anything about islam in order to bomb a couple thousand afghans into oblivion.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:Byebye organized religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The earth revolves around the sun due to gravity. There are repeatable experiements that demonstrate the behaviour of gravity and reliable methods of estimating the masses, distances and times involved in the earth's orbit. No "god" concept is required for this to work.

      There's no difference between observing something using a complex (but not "magic") machine and with your eyes. If you claim that neutrons don't exist, then I claim that the back of your hand doesn't exist. There is no "magic" or "faith" in the rationale for subatomic particles, just a scientific theory that fits the observed results.

      Only those who put down "NASA" as their religion are obliged to prove their claims.

      Unplug a computer and it turns off. Kill a human and you've no way of telling if he goes to heaven or not. See the differece?

      My watch contains a computer that will keep working until its battery runs out. It has a chamical on its hands that glows in the dark due to molecular processes. And I can use it to predict the dawn partly because of the way the earth orbits the sun. Thus it depends for its usefulness upon the validity of ALL THREE non-spurious proof requests in your article.

      We test scientific and mathematical beliefs all the time in our everyday lives. Disputes about scientific beliefs end when someone figures out an experiment that proves it one way or the other.

      That's a lot different to religious beliefs which are impossible to test, and which people will shoot each other over as a matter of routine.

      Religion demands faith, and claims that a person's faith is as valid as any repeatable result or logical proof. Flattering indeed to the individual concerned. But it then insists that everyone should act as though its claims are true, faith or no! Check how many laws in religious countries are dicated by that country's religion and you'll see what I mean.

      So when religions whose claims can only be validated though faith attempt to manipulate laws that apply to everyone regardless of faith, that's when rational people have to remember that religions can't prove shit, and should NEVER be allowed to oppress others in any way.

    16. Re:Byebye organized religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      at the time of those alleged events, they probably couldn't care less for the umpteenth silly cult of one of their hundred fringe provinces.

      You forget that he was executed in the fringe province and the fringe province was in charge of the body. The fring province cared enough about the silly cult to publically torture and execute its leader on one of its holiest holidays (Passover). Granted, therewere tons of people flocking to Jerusalem for Passover, but

      I'm also under the impression that crucifiction was reserved for sending the message "don't fsck with the Romans." It was a real hastle to flog the guys, mach them up the hill, assemble the cross, nail the guy down, erect the cross, then post a guard detail to prevent anyone from stealing the prisoners before they were dead. (Crucifiction kills by suffocation. If you take someone down before they're dead, it's not too hard to revive them, which is why they speared them in the heart right before taking them down.) My undestading is that Christianity to Herod was "just another cult" like Folon Gong is "justanother cult" to the Chinese government. Sure there were plenty of off-the wall Rabis arround Jerusalem, but this Jesus cult was lucky enough to become a huge fad pretty quickly by appealing to second-class citizens.

    17. Re:Byebye organized religion by TFloore · · Score: 2

      Karlm,

      Thanks, you said that much better than I did, obviously. (Geez, looking back over what I wrote, it looks like I went trolling. Wish I'd done that on purpose, it would have been more fun. This was just sad.)

      Of course, all of this is beside the point... The universe came into existence fully-formed when I was born, and will disappear without even a puff of smoke when I die. Very nice of you all to pretend you don't know this. All this "history" stuff is a really nice fiction. :)

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    18. Re:Byebye organized religion by graikor · · Score: 1

      Yes, Solipsism is the only true religion, but feel obliged to point out that I am, in fact, the person for whom the universe exists.

      I'd feel bad about raining on your parade, but seeing as you (and all of Slashdot, for that matter) are all figments of my imagination, it's pointless.

  51. It is toi make one laugh by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    The problem here is that the Australian government KNOWS that people responding "Jedi" are either joking, or are complete losers. I've met so-called "Jedi"'s and they are among the most pathetic excuses for human beings I've ever met.

    But, I have a very low tolerance for all forms of cosplay.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  52. Which flavour? by ArcSecond · · Score: 2

    Ok, I'll bite: which version of Christianity is the correct one? Or rather, what subset of Christianity is true? Is it a binary thing, or a bell curve (ie: Greek Orthodox = 100% Catholic = 90%, Anglican = 75%, Baptist = 50%, Unitarian = 10%, etc.).

    I am a Gnostic. Where does that put me on the scale of Truth, o wise AC?

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

  53. ooooooh by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

    James Earl Jones is gunna be piiiiiiiisssed

  54. Ok, so what would a REAL "Jedi" religion be like? by Howler · · Score: 0

    I mean, if someone were actually serious about creating a Jedi religion, what would it look like? What would be the set of core beliefs? Would it be Christian based? Jewish? Islamic? What? Would it even have anything in common with those religions?

    I guess the theory would be to take all of the known best attributes that were gleened from the movies and books and try to create a belief system out of them and use that as the basis as your religion.

    Would there be two different Jedi sects? One for followers of the Jedi faith that were good and one for those that were bad? Would members of the faith be called, "Padawans" and the clergy called "Jedi Knights"? Who would hold the rank of "Jedi Master" and would that be the equivlent of say an Arch bishop or some such? Would the governing body of the Jedi church be the "Grand Jedi Council"?

    Could we expect to see a "First Church of the Jedi Order" or a "Church of the Vengful Dark Jedi"?

    I know this may be silliness, but I'm curious. What would everyone else see as being part of a Jedi religion so that it could actually become a real entity?

  55. Just a thought? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am pretty sure people were just kidding around... But for those who weren't:

    IT IS JUST A MOVIE!!!
    who is your god- GEORGE LUCAS?!

    Another Thought:
    Government should not be concern with peoples religion.

  56. A Real Jedi Response by Steve+B · · Score: 5, Funny
    "I don't need to fill out your silly forms."
    You don't need to fill out our silly forms.

    "All you need to do is count how many people live here."
    All we need to do is count how many people live here.

    "Just move along."
    I'll just move along.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    1. Re:A Real Jedi Response by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 1

      the gub'ment wants you to respect the law. We'll set a better example....

      --
      Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
  57. Use the force, Luke... by squarefish · · Score: 1

    to fight religious oppresion

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    1. Re:Use the force, Luke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... to get better PR.

  58. Urban Legend by gosand · · Score: 3, Informative
    Snopes has listed this for almost a year.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Urban Legend by Drakonian · · Score: 1
      I don't think this is an Urban legend at all. Straight from the horses mouth:
      The bureau said that the Jedi response was categorized as "not defined" for census purposes. The criteria for recognizing a religion go "beyond the number of responses a particular answer receives in the census," it said.

      The question of whether it's an urban legend or not is irrelevant. I put Jedi on my Canadian census, and the very best thing I could have hoped for was coverage on CNN and a Slashdot story full of hilarious posts.

      Wasn't humour the point of this, instead of getting recognized as an official religion?

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    2. Re:Urban Legend by Fluid+Truth · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the code have been something like 421? ;-)

      --
      Apparently, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
    3. Re:Urban Legend by abesottedphoenix · · Score: 1

      Uh, that's exactly how Wicca ended up being recognized by the US Army as a distinct religion. Enough Wiccan soldiers put that down on their papers that they had to acknowledge it after a while. It's not much of a stretch to think that Australia and others would eventually recognize Jedi as a religion if enough people continuously responded as such.

  59. Further Jedi questions by burgburgburg · · Score: 1
    1) Have you and/or your padawan ever been set upon by battle droids?

    2) Have you and/or your padawan ever been followed incessantly by a computer-generated, massively insulting, highly annoying, ethnic stereotype disguised as an alien?

    3) When you entered the tree on Dagobah, what did you see?

    4) What specifically is your mitochlorian level? Have you taken any mitochlorian-enhancing drugs lately?

    There is another issue, however: If Jedi is a religion, is Sith also a religion?

    1) Sandpeople: Have you ever slaughtered any in a fit of rage/revenge?

    2) Are you or your Sith apprentice in league with the Trade Federation?

    3) Have you ordered any clone armies lately?

  60. Geek Orthodox by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if you just made something up for the form? What if you put "Linusian", "Openus Sourcinerous", "United Temple of The Perl", "Orthodox Geek", etc.....?

    1. Re:Geek Orthodox by SixDimensionalArray · · Score: 1

      Isn't this what "UnitedLinux" is? At least they want you to adopt it as much as a religion?

    2. Re:Geek Orthodox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always tell the [Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormans, Baptists] who knock on my door that I'm a Theodolite.

      If they continue to bug me I tell them "I swear, that's my angle; I'm on the level about this."

    3. Re:Geek Orthodox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      *groan*

      But seriously, as a Theodolite, aren't you just a tool for Masonry?

      *yuck yuck yuck*

    4. Re:Geek Orthodox by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'm PresBYTErian.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    5. Re:Geek Orthodox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Holy Church of LEMMY!

    6. Re:Geek Orthodox by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      I'm much more of an Unorthodox Geek, thank you.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    7. Re:Geek Orthodox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Myself, i put white nationalist, to see if they'd come looking for me to collect my "fine", and see how polite they'd be when they did :-)

    8. Re:Geek Orthodox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      thanks,
      both the theodolite post
      and the masonry comeback
      were a good laugh

  61. Urban Legend by rubinson · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those not reading the article (and to provide a little background), last year a hoax circulated throughout both the UK and Australia that if enough people marked "Jedi" on their census form, that it would become a nationally recognized religion. This was never true.

    What made some people believe that it was true was that, in Britain, it was eventually revealed that "Jedi" was getting a specific response code assigned to it (e.g., people who wrote in "Jedi" as their response were getting assigned a value such as "746" for their religion). The fact that the "Jedi" responses were being recorded made some people believe that the hoax was true.

    However, in many surveys, responses that pass a certain numerical threshold are often assigned a distinct numerical code. This doesn't actually mean anything; it's simply to aid in the tabulation of the results. For analysis purposes, "Jedi" was always going to be grouped into "N/A" or "Other" or "Refused to Answer" (I'm not realy sure which; depends upon how they want to deal with it).

    All the details can be found here.

  62. Outrageous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a bullshit cult of lies and murder like Islam is acceptable, while a peaceful unification of the heavens like Jedi is "false"? Aussies are fucking stupid.

  63. Vi is my religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heretic Emacs scum !

  64. from the dept-of-redundancy dept by fhqwhgads · · Score: 1

    Even though it seems like slashdot got confused by an e-mail spam, it's good that they haven't posted this before.

  65. False information, real results by Kragg · · Score: 2

    And what exactly are they going to build? Swamps where all the Jedis can get together and learn the ways of the force?

    Personally, if they did build a monument to Jedi-dom I'd be happy, and I'd definitely visit. I think it would serve a real purpose in terms of raising awareness about the modern attitude to religion, and would also be a superb day out with the kids :)

    Let 'em build it, the last thing we need is another bloody Catholic church.

    --
    If you can't see this, click here to enable sigs.
  66. Since when were you by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    mandated to attend services ? Does the Big Eye in the sky keep track of what you claim as religion, Yes, how else do they determine which so-called religions have enough followers to get tax exemptions and such. BTW In god I DO TRUST, everyone ELSE is suspect :)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  67. False info? by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
    "Australian officials say respondents could face a $1,000 fine for supplying false information.

    Is this false information? It seems to me that if you put Jedi as your religion, then it's true. As true as anything other religion, at least.

    --

    Come on, give it up, that's

  68. How About a Jedi Temple? by bluethundr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If one of the Aussie's gov't main points is that "certain facilities will not be built", maybe they should just get over their prejudice against the Jedi and build them a temple! Hell! I'd start attending service if there were a Jedi temple in Jersey! And there is little doubt in my mind that The Way of the Force is a more spiritually enlightening path than that of the Chrurch Scientology!

    --
    Quod scripsi, scripsi.
  69. And your response is.... by nochops · · Score: 1

    "And I find the fact that this is on CNN even more so"

    So you go ahead and put it on Slashdot.

    Way to go, CmdrDorko

    --
    "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
  70. YUMMMM!!!!! by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

    Troll say, "Religion be best food!"

  71. I AGREE WITH THE PARENT POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod up.

  72. illegal in Austria by quigonn · · Score: 2

    This couldn't be done in Austria. Everyone has the right to believe in whatever religion he/she wants to believe whenever he/she wants to. That's freedom of religion, but fining people for being an believer of some "Jedi Knight" cult is not.

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  73. Hinduism by ??? · · Score: 1
    Have you even read the Bhagavad Gita? Have you read any religious texts outside of the Bible? How do you justify the suggestion that Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, are "just hateful mockeries of things pure"?


    Have you even read the Bible? Part of the "mystery" of the story of Jesus was that God so loved us that he sent his only son to become "just a mere man" as you so dismissively refer to Muhammad.

    1. Re:Hinduism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the "mystery" of the story of Jesus was that God so loved us that he sent his only son to become "just a mere man" as you so dismissively refer to Muhammad.

      At least Jesus didn't have sex with 9 year old girls (granted, it was "legal" in the culture since Mohammed married her when she was 6). The media and the population at large was outraged by that Baptist guy that said Mohammed was a demon-possessed pedophile, but the facts suggest that Mohammed was indeed both of these things (if "demon possession" is used in the context of mental illness. Until his wife told him otherwise, he thought that he was possessed).

    2. Re:Hinduism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Jesus didn't have sex with 9 year old girls

      I hate to open this can of worms, but there's a good part of Jesus's life that isn't documented in the Bible. So how do you know he didn't?

    3. Re:Hinduism by rjung2k · · Score: 1

      It's clueless stereotypical dribble like this that remind me why people shouldn't get religious information from Slashdot. Geez, could you possibly be more offensive?

    4. Re:Hinduism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Jesus didn't have sex with 9 year old girls

      I hate to open this can of worms, but there's a good part of Jesus's life that isn't documented in the Bible. So how do you know he didn't?


      The previous poster (probably) didn't, but was making a supposition.

      I know he didn't, because I knew him in a past life.

      He was pretty conceited and arrogant, but he didn't schlep pre-pubescent girls.

  74. Ben was right... by whovian · · Score: 1

    The Jedi will grow stronger than the State can possibly imagine.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  75. I suppose Klingon is also out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beam me the hell out of Australia!

  76. The census is irritating by lpontiac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A lot of people here seem to have a healthy contempt for these 70,000 Australians. I'd like to point out that it's not quite as sad as it seems. We're not talking about something that takes a lot of effort. And in particular, these people weren't trying to make any sort of serious point.

    Simply put, the census is a royal pain in the ass and if your typical Australian knows of a way to poke fun at it without criminal sanction, he'll do so.

  77. The fools! by deadhammer · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the Australian Government strikes the Jedi down, they will become more powerful than they could possibly imagine!

    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
  78. Re:Ok, so what would a REAL "Jedi" religion be lik by cpex · · Score: 1

    in interviews lucas states the the jedi is a wrapper for his hindu beliefs. He just gave it another name and gave them some really cool powers and light sabers. See my earlier post

  79. Easily solved by gowen · · Score: 1

    If they take you to court and you really are a jedi, just give them the old "I'm not these defendant you're looking for. Case dismissed" version of the Jedi mind trick...

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  80. Let Them Have It by Fascist+Christ · · Score: 1

    If someone can formally present some kind of doctrine of faith that all Jedi would follow, thereby defining the religion, then I say let them have it. If 70k people want to follow the basic principles of the Jedi faith, I see no reason to forbid it.

    Wicca is a recognized religion in the US, but the government doesn't require the witches to prove that they can perform magic. Likewise, the ability to use the Force should have no bearing on the establishment of the religion. All that should be required is faith in the Jedi religion, regardless if they are just a bunch of nerds.

    Seriously, you don't see Catholics proving that the wine actually transforms into blood and back to wine again. Likewise, you don't have the government outlawing Catholisism on the grounds that followers of the faith are trying to be cannibalistic vampires.

    FYI: I am not a Star Wars fan, so this viewpoint is less biased than you may have origionally thought.

    --
    TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
  81. I find... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the fact that SEVENTY THOUSAND people chose "Jedi" as their religion. What kind of dorks live in aussie land, anyways? Holy shit.

  82. Exclusivity by ??? · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it that there is an assumption of exclusivity among religions in these survey / census questions? Why do we make the assumption that a person belongs to one, or no religion?

    1. Re:Exclusivity by karlm · · Score: 2

      Religions tend to hybrid so much that they just call the new hybrid a new religion. It's just how most people think about religion. The "new age" religion as far as I know, is a mixture of Wicca, Hinduism, and a few others, with little exclusive content. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just easier to say "I'm a new ager" than to say "I elieve in some Wicca, a little bitof hinduism, and dash of druidism and a pinch of Neo-Paganism". Everyone's religion is different. We comeup with new names to describe new mixes. People also assume excluivity of color. We say "purple" instead of "reand and blue". (Yes, I see the problems. Analogies are like cars. They only go so far.)

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  83. Its at least as good as anything else..... by haplo21112 · · Score: 2

    I might as well be a Jedi(and I have responsed that way in survey's and the census before)...its at least as good as anything else...I might as well believe in the at binding force, its got a better chance of being real than some Super Being...at least after Death as a Jedi, I might get to come back and look in on my loved ones in a glowing presense kinda way.

    I think I'll stick with the force, what has GOD done for me lately. If there really was such a thing, we wouldn't have people blowing eachother(and themselves up) in Isreal!

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  84. I can by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    "An energy that surronds all things".. that sounds like several religous beliefs right there.

    Yes, but then George fsck'd it up with that crap about the mitochlorians.

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  85. Faith? by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

    "Personally I find their lack of force disturbing"

  86. And so I weep... by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

    ...at how far we've fallen.

  87. Religion is a system of beliefs by kubusja · · Score: 1

    So if someone declares Jedi is his religion then one is right.

  88. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up. People like you need smacked... hard.

  89. I'm glad I dont live there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just think of the religious oppression I would have to face butcause of my being a jedi.

  90. This has been done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly enough, they did this same survey on Tatooine, but after only one respondant said "Jedi", they considered it a hoax.

  91. Or vice versa by Mantorp · · Score: 1

    "I can think of a large number of more ridiculous religions that have followers that take it really seriously (enough so to account for quite a few mass suicides, for instance). "

    Or a small number of ridiculous religions with a large number of serious followers killing each other in countless religious wars past, present and future.

  92. Gonna start a Klingon Cult by NoWhere+Man · · Score: 2

    The Jedi religion would actually have some merit because of the ideals that they upholded in the movies.
    But seriously, what stops people from trying to get other religions started? The Klingons from Star Trek could be seen as a quite honorable, but also quite sadistic because it involves killing random people on a daily basis.
    It could never function within society.
    And I think Jedi would have similar problems, though quite honestly they might be ridiculed.
    And if it gets approved, its something to use to get other seemingly weird religions approved aswell.
    "They did it, why can't we..."

    Someone has to draw the line...

    --

    "Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
    1. Re:Gonna start a Klingon Cult by VikingBerserker · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Klingons from Star Trek could be seen as a quite honorable, but also quite sadistic because it involves killing random people on a daily basis.

      RANDOM? You fool! Those who follow the Klingon doctrines only kill the weak! You are fortunate that you are not a Klingon, or I would kill you for your ignorance!

    2. Re:Gonna start a Klingon Cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be a heretic, but somewhere along the line some "people" got all these religions started. Maybe they all were originally part of some script for all we know.

    3. Re:Gonna start a Klingon Cult by NoWhere+Man · · Score: 2

      Actually since Klingons see all humans as weak, this would include everyone.

      --

      "Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
  93. Is the question even meaningful? by verloren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't believe in a deity. I respect people who do because I'm a respectful person, but I think their views are ludicrous. Asking my religion (optionally or not) is like asking me what type of dragons I believe in - it's not that I happen not to believe, I don't believe because there's nothing to believe in. (pauses for response from the Draco-Human Anti-Defamation League)

    So if asked a bizarre question about religion, dragons or anything else, I'd feel perfectly entitled to put a bizarre answer. Cargo cults believed that planes were linked to God, why shouldn't I think a film is?

    1. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by GregWebb · · Score: 2

      Who modded this insightful??!?!

      We ask the question because a very significant percentage of the population profess religious faith and that it influences the way they live their life.

      If you showed me a statistically significant population group who believed in a specific type of dragons and used that as the basis for a value system, I'd happily argue for its inclusion on a census. Until then, let's just leave it at the Religion question.

      --

      Greg

      (Inside a nuclear plant)
      Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!

    2. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Hear that? listen a little closer....

      It's the sound a billion chinese people yelling fuck you.

      Yes, their religion does involve dragons. No that doesn't make it any less or more valid than any other. I have no idea whether it's included in the US census or Australian census as a valid religion.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    3. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by nanojath · · Score: 1
      Balls. Religion can hardly be hardly defined as the belief in a specific deity, or even in the concept of a deity at all. And whether the belief is ludicrous or not has no bearing on whether it is a meaningful question: the fact that statistically significant numbers of people identify themselves as adherents to specific recognized belief systems makes it a meaningful question for a census to ask.


      For example, I don't personally believe that race is a particularly meaningful concept from a scientific perspective. I believe it is little more than tribalistic or nationalistic behavior being exploited for political reasons. But I see why it should appear on a census, because many people identify themselves as members of a particular race.


      (I'd also like to know exactly what it means to "respect" someone when you think what they believe is ludicrous: although many atheists and agnostics believe differently from me, and I do not agree with their beliefs, I understand that the realm of the metaphysical is one where we seek to answer questions that do not necessarily yield to a logical or scientific explanation, and consequently one will encounter a lot of diversity and not much verifiable certainty. I've thought seriously about what they believe, and I feel I have some understanding about where they're coming from. So I would certainly not say that I find what they believe ludicrous. You, on the other hand, say you are a respectful person, but the best I can figure is that you simply choose not to address people's religious beliefs directly with the at all, because to you they are simply delusions without any possibility of a real or reliable basis. That isn't respect, it's condescension. If you choose to reject what I believe as ludicrous without knowing anything about it, I don't really have any use for your respect.)

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    4. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by verloren · · Score: 1

      Let me clarify - I don't mind the question, it's limiting the answers that I object to. They could ask me which colour was the tallest, but if I choose to answer 'aardvark' I shouldn't be punished for it.

    5. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by Gulik · · Score: 1, Funny

      > (pauses for response from the Draco-Human
      > Anti-Defamation League)

      Boy, are you gonna get flamed for that.

    6. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by verloren · · Score: 1

      Two points. First, they don't ask what football team I support. I know as many people who are influenced by football as are influenced by religion, and football is a demonstrably extant phenomenon - I know team X exists, I don't know that deity Y does. So why not tackle sports, TV affiliation (a far greater influence), advertising/product choices, or millions of other things that are based in what governments are presumed to be interested in, demonstrable reality?

      Second, I see no problem with respecting people while thinking some of their beliefs ludicrous. I had a physics teacher who's mother was always careful to switch plug sockets off when not in use, because otherwise the electricity would run out onto the floor. Ludicrous! But he respected her (as well as loving her of course). I have many religions and agnostic/atheistic friends. I've discussed religion with them, studied all manner of religions it at length throughout my time at school (including 3 years at a church-supported school). I respect my friends, and respect their opinions/beliefs. I can see why they would 'choose' to believe in them. I can see the supporting logic for such beliefs. I just think their views are totally wrong-headed.

    7. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 2

      That you do not believe in a deity is, in itself a confession of faith. At the very least, it requires quantification. There are two sorts of atheism, one of which requires a leap of faith. That is:

      Strong Atheism: Firm belief that there is no deity. This requires faith because there is no solid evidence one way or the other. Belief or strict disbelief are both matters of faith.

      Weak Atheism: Choice to disbelieve in the light of no evidence. This admits the inability to prove a negative (There is no God), but exercises that belief in the absence of proof that there is a God.

      And just for kicks: Classical Agnosticism. The word Agnosticism has its roots in the Greek word for 'ignorance' and, in the literal sense of the word, it is just that. Classical agnostics claim no belief whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any sort of deity. All they know is that they do not know.

      Therefore, if you are professing strong atheism, you have a faith and you may wish to indicate it. Asking about your religion is not analogous to asking about which dragon you believe in. Whether God exists or not, there are religions/faiths, of which atheism is one.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
    8. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by OzJimbob · · Score: 1

      I don't believe this, and I think it's a common opinion expressed by Christians / Jews/ Muslims. They're so caught up in worshipping their god that they think people who don't believe in a god have to make some kind of effort of faith. This isn't true. I'm an athiest because I DON'T HAVE a religion. I don't deliberately NOT go to church on a sunday. I don't deliberately NOT pray. I don't deliberately NOT read the bible. I just go about my life unconcerned about god. It's got nothing to do with me seeking evidence or proof, because I'm not even interested - I live my life deviod of religion and it's great fun. You should try it some time :)

      --
      -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
    9. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by earlydaysofsin · · Score: 1

      Forutnately or unfortunately the vast majority of people disagree with you ... just because you personally do not believe that the question is not a useful one does not make it so. Many ancient nomadic people may think that the question of their address is a ridiculous one. Your idea of bizaare is exactly that .. your idea. When designing census questions those deciding on the questions must look at what the MAJORITY would or would not consider bizaare. Now if you could convince 99% of the world's population that the question of religion was nonsensical you would have a point.

    10. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by graikor · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Quantification does not imply faith.

      You seem to be under the impression that the existence of deities is to be assumed. I don't agree - if you want be to believe that any deities exist, you must prove it to me. Your failure to do so satisfactorily is not my problem.

      It does not even require a "choice", as you state. If I claim that there's an invisible purple elf sitting on everyone's head, it doesn't require any kind of faith to say that you don't believe it and require proof. Not believing in the elf doesn't mean that you have "chosen" not to believe, it just means that you haen't been convinced to believe

      You want faith? I'll give you something I believe in without any real proof. There are very few real agnostics. Most of them fall into 2 categories: 1- Atheists who aren't willing to totally own up their total lack of belief, and 2- Theists who have rejected organized religion, but are reluctant to abandon the idea of having importance to the universe.

    11. Re:Is the question even meaningful? by GospelHead821 · · Score: 2

      To the first poster:
      You are describing weak atheism. It was an error of omission on my part that the matter of disbelief by fact of disinterest is also weak atheism. I say this because I assume that if you are rational and were given proof of God's existence or His nonexistence, you would be persuaded (whether you cared or not is insubstantial). A strong atheist asserts that there is no possible proof that God exists because it is a fact that He does not exist, just as a theist, such as myself, asserts that there is no possible proof that God does not exist because it is a fact that He does.

      To the second poster:
      There is evidence that the invisible purple elf does not exist. I can't see it, but I can reach up and feel that it is not there. Furthermore, the concept of deity serves a purpose. It is not unreasonable to say that if the Universe exists, it may have a creator. Questioning the possibility of this creator's existence is natural. I claim that there is no reason to suspect that invisible, untouchable purple elves are sitting on our heads.

      Also, I am not questioning anybody's right believe or disbelieve as they wish. I am not saying that if you wish not to believe in God, you must prove that He does not exist. What I assume you are saying to me is: 'If you want me to believe in your God, prove to me that He exists.' This is another example weak atheism. In light of lack of evidence, which I admit I cannot provide, you opt not to believe. You said the key words yourself: I have failed to convince you and so you do not belief. If you are insisting that I show proof to justify my belief, then this conversation cannot continue. I am not beholden to you and I won't discuss the matter with you further.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  94. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by benjamindees · · Score: 0
    I just picked Lutheran out of a hat as an example. Don't read more into it than that.

    Sorry, but i have to. There is a small group of nitwits in the US who believes that the "establishment" clause merely prevents recognition of one particular Christian sect over another. They go to great lengths to cite the religious convictions of the founding fathers, and posit that such men would obviously not wish to prevent government recognition of the virtues of Christianity, or of religion in general. These people want to frame the "separation of church and state" debate in solely Christian terms, not religious ones.

    I see these same idiots posting things here like "Jedi is not a religion". Well, I have news: Lutheranism is not a religion either, but merely a sect of Christianity. The Constitution not only prohibits establishment of an official "church", but also prohibits an official "religion" as well.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  95. Definition of a religion under US law by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I figured as a point of interest it was worth citing what is required by the IRS to be considered a religion. The IRS was picked because its the only body that would care:

    The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational,
    scientific, or other charitable purposes,

    Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,

    No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,

    The organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and

    No part of the organization's purposes or activities may be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

    And that's it. So under US laws the Jedi church would qualify (if it existed in the US).

    1. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice these criteria, if strictly applied, would leave out Scientology. Is it recognized by the IRS?

    2. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by IIH · · Score: 2
      No part of the organization's purposes or activities may be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

      So one of the requirements to be classed as a religion, is that it has 100% legal activities? Does this mean that if the governement outlaws one of those religious activities, then it might stop being a religion? Or would the government be unable to pass this law due to the constitution?

      In either case, it could create difficulties, you could end up with the ability to outlaw certain religions, or alternatively, be unable to legistate against certain actions because they are part of a currently valid religion

      --
      Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
    3. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by jbolden · · Score: 2

      I don't know the answer; but I do know of a similar situation which might shed some light. Blue Cross of California is a non profit. They have subsiderary corporation called Wellpoint which handles all their forprofit activities. Wellpoint can earn profits pays corporate taxes, can pay executives whatever it wants... This setup is legal since all the for profit stuff is fully taxed.

      I guess that the Church of Scientology might have something like a for profit Church of Scientology education center and that center pays taxes... But again I don't actually know anything specific.

    4. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Well this is the IRS so I'd assume the worst that could happen to them is that they'd be considered a criminal organization and not a charity and thus be taxed on their activities.

    5. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by Teancum · · Score: 2

      This was used in the past to stop the Mormons in Utah, claiming that the support of polygamy was an illegal act and therefore all of the property of the Mormon church was confiscated by the US Army. At gunpoint.

      If you used the church to spread the message of peyote, that would also be considered an illegal activity.

      That was the point of the Religious Liberties Act, that attempted to push the legal recognition into something that would make the test of whether it was a religion as to if it was a compelling interest of the state to ban certain activities, such as ritualistic child sacrifice, legalized prostitution, or dodging a military draft (aka Mohammad Ali).

      It does help if you can prove an outstanding history of a certain belief (such as the American Indian tribal worship with the use of peyote, or the Quakers non-violence stance where they refuse to wield guns, even if drafted into the Army).

      Alternatively, it is common for the tax-except status to be pulled from a church that violates the non-profit status, or promotes political activities.

    6. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by bakes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation

      Such as influencing abortion, stem cell research or homosexual marriage legislation, for example?

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    7. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Yes. To work with the example you are thinking of you can see the Christian Coalition's list of dos and donts for churches:

      http://www.cc.org/becomeinvolved/dosanddonts.htm l

      You can see they are trying to get as close to the line without crossing over. During a democratic administration I imagine they'd move the line a little closer to the don't side :-)

    8. Re:Definition of a religion under US law by doubtme · · Score: 1
      And that's it. So under US laws the Jedi church would qualify (if it existed in the US).

      But you'll notice that a large number of "normal" religions would not... for example:

      The organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and

      Large segments of the Christian world fail this test... c.f. abortion and the whole Religious Right bull.

      No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,

      See above.

      Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,

      And I guess the Catholic church fails this one too... you can't tell me that the officials in the Catholic church haven't become inured to their benefits... all those US20 million mansions the Cardinals live in... the golf courses and convention centres...

      Ahh hell, who am I kidding. Your average American is, and always will be, a religious hypocrite. You'd have more luck reasoning with a rock. (NB: This probably doesn't include the vast majority of /. readers, or geeks in general).

      --

      There's no $$$ in 'team'...
      www..--..net - for incisive, w
  96. Obligatory Python quote by carambola5 · · Score: 2
    Keeping in line with the Humor icon:
    • I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
    • Shut up, will you? Shut up!
    • Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
    • Shut up!
    • Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

    For more of this scene as well as the rest of the movie, visit: http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/. Note the TLD... how pertinent.
    --
    IWARS.
    People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    1. Re:Obligatory Python quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bint? I thought it was bink. Can anyone provide a link to the script text? I'd like to have learned something important today.

  97. Re:I can't blame him - watch it by pteaxwa · · Score: 1

    in case you haven't seen it:

    http://www.corrode.org/media/4me2p00p0n.wmv

    (it's in windows media format unfortunately:/)

  98. a little bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In one of the recent investigations in my area, I heard from a good source that they were testing the communion cup for semen as one of the altar boy's said that the priest forced him to ejaculate in it. Think about that the next time you take a sip.

  99. Molestation in the Jedi Church by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2

    Would members of the faith be called, "Padawans" and the clergy called "Jedi Knights"?

    If that was the case, we'd probably be inundated with late-night (so-called)funnymen making jokes about Jedi Knights using their "light sabres" on young Padawan choir boys every time there was a sex scandal in the Jedi Church. Ewwwww!

    GMD

  100. Facilities? by Salden · · Score: 1

    "If, for example, people of a particular religious affiliation do not provide the correct information, certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be." And since the converse must clearly be true, where's our fucking Jedi temple, bitch?

  101. Discriminatory policies towards Jedi by Syncdata · · Score: 1

    First it was light-saber control legislation, now the AU government is suppressing the faith of the Jedi they depend upon for it's national defense. Have we not learned from the Trilogies? They will take away a Jedi's rights incrementally, until they are able to invoke the "Episode 3" Clause, targeting and eliminating all Jedi. How long do we have until that fateful day?

    --
    "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
  102. in further news: by tux-sucks · · Score: 1

    Despite over 70,000 respondents (.37% of the population) replying "Jedi" to an optional faith question on Australia's census, it will not become a recognized religion According to CNN. This comes after blood samples from subjects surveyed displayed non-sufficient midi-chlorian counts.

  103. Glad I Didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About 10 years ago I had seriously considered emigrating to Australia from the U.S. With all the bad press that comes out of Australia regarding censorship and other attacks on personal freedoms, I'm glad I didn't go. It sounds like there are more freaks and pinheads involved in Australian politics than American politics.

  104. Calling William Shatner by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's about time George goes on SNL and tells the Aussie Jedi to get a life.

  105. Lack of faith vs. Loss of Privacy by Wolfgang · · Score: 1
    ... Personally I find their lack of faith disturbing." And I find the fact that this is on CNN even more so ;)


    I think there is a real big difference between having whatever faith and saving my privacy. Personally I believe in <fill in here>. But whoever askes me, might or might not get an answer. The last time I was asked I simple filled in <refused>. I simple ignored the fact that the government could fine me. This is my absolute private area, there is nothing more private than this question.

    So I totally refuse to say that lack of faith is the reason why I refused the answer, the reason was Loss of Privacy.
    And believe me, next time I will fill in Jedi too!
    1. Re:Lack of faith vs. Loss of Privacy by krim · · Score: 1

      Actually what I'm more interested in is that quote: "Personally I find their lack of faith disturbing". It's a line used by Darth Vader in the original StarWars movie when one of the Empire's generals compares the Force to an old superstitious religion (right before Darth Force-chokes him). Anyway, I don't remember seeing that quote in the CNN article. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky but I don't think that quote is from the CNN article and the original poster just added to make it more funnier.

    2. Re:Lack of faith vs. Loss of Privacy by Wolfgang · · Score: 1

      I agree!

      And my reply was ment to address this quote. That such a theme is on CNN is not so interesting.

      Sorry, my native language is not English, so I have no chance to know the exact words of any actor in whatever movie :-(

      However, when this cite was just ment to make it more interesting, okay! Good idea! It made the story interesting for me!

  106. Don't shoot the messenger.... by jsimon12 · · Score: 1

    Roman historian Flavius Josephus mentions him in his writings about the Jews from 93 AD. Josephus was a respected secular historian, he basically says Jesus was a person, had some followers and he got crucified. And quite frankly without dogma you can't say much more for Christianity (and no I am not a fundie).

    1. Re:Don't shoot the messenger.... by jbolden · · Score: 2

      I'd recommend the Doherty book which discusses this. If you read what it says is Josephus its obvious he didn't write it (it takes a position totally contrary to the bulk of the text); that is Christian authors changed/added a small section. Scholars have guessed at what was there originally and reconstructed the account you are giving. Others disagree strongly. In any case a scholarly reconstruction of material that may have been present in a few paragraphs we no longer have is pretty far away from evidence.

  107. The correct answer is... by Rand+Race · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    ... who gives a shit!?

    --
    Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  108. oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well my 1988 Toyota Camry has the Ford logo, the "Mustang" name, the running horses logos, not to mention the Chevy bowtie, camaro nametag, RS stickers, IROC-Z door print, Dodge truck floormats and mudflaps... Nowhere does it say toyota or camry on it, but if you run the VIN number that's what it is :-)

    1. Re:oh yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I understand why you posted as an AC.

  109. Jedi mind tricks!! by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

    waves hand infront of the members of the "Ausi Jedi Order"

    This is not the religion you are looking for...

  110. Link no work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the title or ISBN of the book, I can't get the url you posted to work.

    1. Re:Link no work? by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Interesting slashdot reformated the URL: OK I'll make it a link.

  111. $1000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it is 1000 Australian dollars, about $552 American dollars by today's exchange rates (by the time of this posting). The fine is semi justified, what is the purpose of getting Jedi considered a religion anyway? I have read here many people complaining about the over reaction of the government, but look these people had the "option" to put in this information and I imagine if it is anything like the American census, they signed that the given information is accurate thereby giving up any rights to not being charged. How would it be any different if i put down that I had 25,000 kids and living with me in my house? Sure its a joke, and any idiot reading it would realize i was kidding, but I signed a government survey and its not the time for jokes.

    1. Re:$1000 by sunking2 · · Score: 2

      The real problem is when you try to pay the fine and they throw you in jail because all you have is Republic money.

    2. Re:$1000 by Memetic · · Score: 1

      Funny - Mod up the parent to this!!

  112. Do they accept Scientology? by Arcturax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, seriously, Scientology is no more or less fiction than Star Wars is.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  113. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by cheezedawg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And there is another small group of nitwits in the US that thinks that the establishment clause in the first amendment means that the Government can't even mention anything remotely religious. Don't you ever get tired of screaming "Separation of Church and State!" (a phrase that never appears in the Constitution, btw).

    --
    "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  114. Geek Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jedi" is not a real religion, and any sad loser who calls himself a Jedi or puts it on an official form should be kicked out of society.

    Everybody talks about "Star Wars" like it's some blessing from a god. Have any of you SEEN the "prequels"? The "Star Wars" concept is the stupidest, most self-satisfied concept ever imagined.

    GET A FUCKING LIFE.

    Oh, and BTW, Australia is NOT America. So all you dumbasses replying "separation of church and state" (which is irrelevant, no church is involved) or "freedom of religion!" need to get a clue.

    1. Re:Geek Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of religion and separation of church and state may not be principles of Australian law, but they still seem like fundamental human rights to me.

  115. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by ShavenYak · · Score: 3, Funny

    (Note: I just picked Lutheran out of a hat as an example. Don't read more into it than that.)

    Oh, I thought it was because you had created them in a petri dish from one of your teeth and some cola.

    Damn it, is there any topic that can't have a Simpsons reference thrown into it?

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  116. eek. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they need to change "Its funny. Laugh." to "It's funny. Laugh. Get on with your life."

  117. God by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

    If they did make Jedi a viable choice of religion, would that make Darth Vader the Christian equivilant of God?

    Obviously Luke Skywalker would play the role of Jesus ....

    So does this mean that God fell to the Dark Side?

    1. Re:God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Vader is more comparable to Lucifer, the fallen angel... really, though, he's neither; he's just a powerful Jedi, a man who is "strong in the force".

      There is no "God", per se, but the Force is the closest concept.

  118. The bastards! I do believe in the force...(nt) by Quazion · · Score: 2

    ...no text

  119. I didnt think Jedi was a faith in the movies.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The faith itself is The Force. Jedi is a religion.

    The Jedi are just an order that protects the light side of the force, as the Sith are an order in favor of the 'dark side' of the force.

    The ongoing struggle between Jedi/Sith is an interreligious struggle. Like Catholics vs Protestants, the common faith is Christianity.

    So basically the news is:

    A bunch of Australian assholes who weren't bright enough to fully understand a main premise of the Star Wars series, wrote in Jedi on their census forms.

    Bravo Slashdot, keep 'em coming.

    What, did noone install linux today?

  120. translation: 70,000 assholes in oz.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thought they were real clever and original.

  121. Slashdot-ism! by dennison_uy · · Score: 1

    What! Jedi-ism!?? Whatever happened to Slashdot-ism? It's time to spread the word, my friends!

    --
    Take off every 'sig'!
    All your 'sig' are belong to us!
  122. Have you noticed... by uncoveror · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you noticed that no subject turns us into hostile camps of "us" and "them," sniping at each other, quite like religion? If we were not separated by cyberspace we would be fighting, and perhaps even killing each other right now. Not exactly love, peace, and brotherhood of man, is it? This story was supposed to give us a laugh! So is this one. Maybe laughter can chase away the anger and hate, and bring us a moment of joy.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  123. Holy Sith, you are all so sad ;-) by GeekDork · · Score: 1

    Article before this one: 178 comments.
    Article after this: 120 comments.
    This atricle: getting close to 400 comments.

    I rest my case.

    --

    Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

  124. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by varith · · Score: 1

    Some one always get upset when the government mentions religion. Think of all the fundies who would be screaming bloody murder if we allowed school prayer - then set a few of those prayers aside for Wiccans and Satanists. Thats the problem, most people who want religion in the gov't only want their *own* religion.

  125. State and Religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a bunch of Bull about the Jedi Religion...
    Come on who cares what they believe in...

    " IF I go to church then that makes me a Christian,
    so does this mean when I go into my garage that makes me a car?"

  126. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by operagost · · Score: 1

    Please don't feed the atheists.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  127. Spelling non-flame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please spell the Lord's name correctly. :) It's Cthulhu (note the second 'h' after the 'l'.) Thanks. :)

    1. Re:Spelling non-flame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please spell the Lord's name correctly. :) It's Cthulhu (note the second 'h' after the 'l'.) Thanks. :)

      Yes, we don't want to piss HIM off, do we?

  128. United Linux? by Interrobang · · Score: 2

    As Robertson Davies said about another United church, would that be the "oatmeal of" Linux?

    He said that the United Church is "the oatmeal of religion." I'm not sure the United church IS a real religion. First of all, its members can't even seem to decide what its credos are. (Go read the editorial page of the United Church Observer if you doubt me.) Secondly, it's a mangling of about three other denominations.

    Hmm, do I see a trend here? Maybe they're run by the same people! :)

    Interrobang, whose parents are (inexplicably) Uniteds, and who is Divided in Linux, and absolutely unchurched

  129. Religion? by jfedor · · Score: 2

    The only time someone uses the word "religion" when referring to Jedi (or the Force, actually) is when Admiral Motti says something about Vader's "sad devotion to that ancient religion" and is nearly choked to death by the latter.

    Jedi are an order, which doesn't necessarily mean they're a religious organization. They do not worship the Force, they study it. True, their place is called the Jedi Temple, but this word also has non-religious meanings (accordgin to Merriam-Webster, at least).

    Of course it still does have many symptoms of a religion (achieving something by simply believing in it, the good vs. evil stuff).

    BTW, I wonder how many Australians said that their religion is Sith. :)

    -jfedor

  130. Religion? by Chexsum · · Score: 0

    More FUD on Slashdot.

    The bible is a boring story.

    Try to make a movie based on the bible and youd need some really good special effects to make it both interesting and believable.

    StarWars on the other hand is interesting and isnt so hard to believe. ;)

    --
    Pixels keep you awake!
  131. All religions are basically fictions by wytcld · · Score: 3, Interesting
    All religions are basically fictions and fictions are good for you, if they're good fictions. Societies need shared myths, and fresh myths are best - thus the shuffling of them over the ages, as new ones supplant old. It's not that the new ones are better - in fact it's much like pop music, where occassionally you get a real advance (Beatles) but more often get trash novelty (fill in current robotic boy group or rapper).

    Now, nation states themselves are in large part fictions. So which other fictions should they associate with and invest in? Should a state appropriate, even nationalize, a good fiction when one comes along? Should George II wear his Mickey Mouse hat on state occassions? Should he carry a cross? Should Saddam be let to live a few more years if he'll just play along and dress like Darth?

    Even the most "realistic" views of the world are largely fictions. It's time to take conscious control of our choices here; and more than anything it's time for some new religions which are compatible with, but broader than, science. The precise place to find these is the field known as science fiction - duh.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:All religions are basically fictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You state that all religions are fictions as if you know that to be fact. Care to share the results of your intensive study that proved that?

    2. Re:All religions are basically fictions by Danse · · Score: 2

      For all we know, wookies really exist in a galaxy far far away. But until it's proven, it's fiction. Prove your god exists and your religion will cease to be fiction.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:All religions are basically fictions by graikor · · Score: 1

      What's funny, Anonymous Coward, is that most people who believe in religion do believe that all religions are fictions... except their own, of course.

      The day I see the Pope acknowledge the divinity of the Norse pantheon, I will gladly eat my words.

  132. aussie jerks by sstory · · Score: 1
    This is really good evidence for the need for separation. in a situation like this government ends up exerting pressure in favor of or against religious beliefs. Neutrality is the absense of such pressure.

    But Steve, you're an atheist, what do you care?

    Because lack of belief could just as easily be invalidated under such a situation. If you like your freedoms, you have to guard your neighbor's.

    1. Re:aussie jerks by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      This is really good evidence for the need for separation. in a situation like this government ends up exerting pressure in favor of or against religious beliefs.

      Since when has Jedi become a religion? You seem to believe that it is, as the "aussie jerks" obviously don't know not to "pressure" an obviously well recognised "religion", unlike the good ol' US of A, where I'm sure there are plenty of card-carrying Jedi Knights proselytising their "religion" without any fear of being harassed by the government.

      You need to get a handle on reality. The Australian Constitution, Section 116 states:

      The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    2. Re:aussie jerks by sstory · · Score: 1

      A) In terms of general human rights, nobody should have the right to determine that your religion is invalid. A system which does so is discriminatory by definition.
      B) What the aussie constitution says has no relevance to my argument. I did not accuse the aussies of violating their law. I said their actions show the problems of insufficient separation.
      But that's just my argument. Perhaps I don't have as fine a 'handle on reality' as someone whose name is a misspelling of moron.

  133. The Force vs. The Dark Side by pondermon · · Score: 1

    A great disturbance in the Force I feel. Hhrmmmm. Doubt the Jedi you must not. Succeed without the Jedi to hinder it, the Dark Side would.

    No money deserves the Dark Side. Census, what matters this? Success, Jedi have found.

    BOTTOM LINE: I cannot say better what Carlin says best:

    "I gotta tell ya, when it comes to bull****, truly major league bull**** you have to stand back in awe of the all time heavy weight champion of false promises and exaggerated claims... Religion. Organized religion. It's no contest. Religion easily has the best bull**** story of all time. Think about it... Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky... Who watches every thing you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of 10 specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you, and he needs money." - George Carlin

    Enter for me you must: "Jedi."

    Hot grits Natalie Portman does eat.

    --
    p.mon
  134. Jesus's Two Nature: Fully God, Fully Man. by Jayson · · Score: 2
    Taken from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

    Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

    The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

    God
    1. He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).
    2. He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
    3. He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
    4. He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).
    5. He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).
    6. He knows all things (John 21:17).
    7. He gives eternal life (John 10:28).
    8. All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).
    Man
    1. He worshiped the Father (John 17).
    2. He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
    3. He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
    4. He prayed to the Father (John 17).
    5. He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
    6. He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
    7. He died (Rom. 5:8).
    8. He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
    One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The Christian Scientists, on the other hand, focus on the divine nature and ignore the human.

    For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.

    The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6).

    Other verses to consider when examining His deity are, John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1.

    1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.

    1. Re:Jesus's Two Nature: Fully God, Fully Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to quote anything other than your precious "holy book of propoganda"?

      ...and don't start with any Max Lucado shit either.

    2. Re:Jesus's Two Nature: Fully God, Fully Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus was supposed to have walked on water, thrown out the money changers, healed the sick, raised the dead, conjured food out of nowhere to feed hundreds of hungry people, etc. etc. etc. and in short, was reputed to have performed countless miracles. With that being the case, don't you find it a little bit odd that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible? I mean, certainly a man who performed acts such as this would warrant a mention elsewhere in numerous contemporary works of art or history, wouldn't you think?

      And isn't it just a slight bit disconcerting to realize that the first of the Gospels (the *first*) wasn't even written until forty or fifty years after the supposed crucifiction? It's amazing how many Christians seem to think that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts (they're not.)

      All of this, IMHO, pretty much dooms Christianity to the same sort of mythology that you've mocked in other similar religions with similar themes.

    3. Re:Jesus's Two Nature: Fully God, Fully Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why would other groups mention these acts? They were doing everything within their power to ruin Christ's works. They were doing everything they could to cover up the miracles he performed.

      Think.

    4. Re:Jesus's Two Nature: Fully God, Fully Man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't possibly be serious. This is a guy who is supposed to have taken five loaves of bread and two fish and used to feed five thousand men, along with their women and children (Matthew 14:13-21). You are claiming, with a straight face, that none of these tens of thousands of people said or wrote anything about this alleged "miracle" until it suddenly showed up in the book of Matthew sixty or seventy years later?

      And you're telling me to think?

      Unbelievable.

  135. jedi what!? by ronaldcromwell · · Score: 1

    maybe i'm confused on the jedi 'faith.' but to be a jedi, don't you need to know how to use the force? maybe i'm confused here, but the force IS made up, right?

    1. Re:jedi what!? by Hi_2k · · Score: 1

      To be a Jedi knight, you do have to be able to use the force, but to be a beliver in the jedi faith all you need is to say you do. Have you ever seen a christian heal people of terminal diseases by just touching them?

      --
      When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
      Sluggy Freelance.
  136. If Hubbard can do it ... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2

    OK .. let's create a religion that meets their criteria. Something that is organized and has a belief system. I'm tired of telling people I'm an athiest anyway. Maybe I can pretend to believe in a 'life force' that binds everything together in the universe as long as I don't have to worship it.

    But let's do it right this time. No heaven or hell, no eternal damnation, no confessions, no martyrs, no bleeding icons (bleeding as in blood, not as in the bloody British vernacular). No one in charge for life, no special group that gets to make the rules because they wear silly clothes or funny hats, no vague guidebook that contradicts itself. No 'special' days or times. Let's let other people make fun of our religeon as long as we can make fun of theirs. No admission fees either.

    What does that leave for the basis of a religeon? I guess a religeon isn't really a religeon without all the accessories.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  137. This is a matter of principle by Yanthor · · Score: 1

    I completely agree with you. So many people say they are of one religion and yet don't live it.

    Also, think of the principle of this. You and I both know the law of averages states that at least 5 people in Australia saw Star Wars, had a spiritual epiphany, and actually decided to believe in the Jedi Religion for real. If the state assumes this ALL is a joke and throws all the responses out, or worse: fines them, it is wronging those poor souls who truly believe in it.

    --
    ---=+=---
    "Now if I were a landing thruster, which one of these would I be?"
    -- Londo in Babylon 5
  138. Jedi IS a religion (madscott.org!) by apropos · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if it's sad or just funny that some people DO consider Jedi to be a religion. It's based on something called "Qi Gong" (chee gung) which is very similar to prana yoga, and Jedi itself could easily be considered to be a branch of Taoism.

    Qi Gong, in the form of Falun Gong (an offshoot), is currently being severly repressed in China right now. Practitioners are jailed, some people say for standing on street corners and performing miracles. But I haven't seen that...

    Should we add Australia to the list of nations opressing this religion? They don't have to worry about it affecting their status as a member of the WTO apparently.

    For a serious website on this, see madscott.org

  139. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saying that is is unconstitutional to say "under God" and endorsment of atheism over theism? Where do you draw the line?

  140. faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faith in the force is enough for it to exist.

  141. Maybe if the link gave more information. by Jayson · · Score: 2

    I have a few resources about the uniqueness of Christ's virgin birth versus the virgin births of other gods (like Zeus, the Egyptian gods, and other pagan gods). However, the link doesn't really give any information. A few times it says "Product of a virgin birth," but that doesn't really give any information to go on for analysis. Often it comes down to the mother. A god coming to earth and impregnating some random woman is a far different from the prophecy and lineage of Mary.

  142. doctrine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the begining there was the cencus and it was lacking in the religion of the Jedi.

    Then the Jedi came and spoke out for there religion by scribing there faith.

    This is the doctrine of the Jedi.

  143. polygamous mind control by paiute · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is being a Jedi any more of a fantasy than being, say, a Mormon? Angels bringing golden tablets in "Egyptian" to some loser in upstate New York? They might as well have been packing light sabers too.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  144. Be careful how you word that. by Jayson · · Score: 2

    Christianity does not have a monopoly on the truth. Other religions have parts of the truth or may even have a large amount of the truth. Christianity has the complete truth, though.

    1. Re:Be careful how you word that. by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 2

      Christianity has the complete truth, though.

      One question.

      Prove it.

      Thats all. Present this complete truth in such manner that it is completly self consistent and does not require faith to prove or understand.

      If you have to put down other religions for it to work, it ain't the truth.

      BWP

  145. Huh? by Arandir · · Score: 2

    "...people of a particular religious affiliation do not provide the correct information, certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be."

    Not being an Aussie, I seems to me that this quote implies that the Australian government is in the business of funding religious facilities. At the minimum is seems to imply that you will be either taxed or granted taxes depending on your religious affiliation.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    1. Re:Huh? by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      How did you arrive at this conclusion?

      In Australia, just like in the US, religious bodies provide health care services, educational institutions, and community support facilities. As such, they are eligible to apply for government grants, just as charities are eligible for them. These grants may or may not be successful, and the statistics for the proportion of a particular religious affiliation in the area concerned may be a good indicator of whether it is fair to supply the grant based on how many people in the community may be provided for.

      You seem to imply that the Australian govt is in the business of building churches. Your second sentence is a non-sequitur: how, for example, does providing funding to a hospital run by a convent of Catholic nuns imply that taxation is based on religious beliefs. The funding is for a hospital, not because it's Catholic.

      By your "reasoning", are we to assume that because a government provides grants to universities, that the citizens are taxed according to their educational attainments?

  146. gramma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HIM this is correct just like police man,
    a 12 man team (even if there all women).

    HER should be used for the definate neutor yada yada yada .... america and HER army, there she goes (the ship), isn't she a beauty.

    I can't spell for shit but i hate those politically incorrect people.

  147. They Did Not Lie On Their Forms by guttentag · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
    Religion \Re*li"gion\, n.

    Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct.

    Many people colloquially think of religion as a very narrowly-defined book, clergy and place of worship -- usually their own religion and those of their friends. They go to church, they listen, they recite whatever they're supposed to say and for the next several days they can tell everyone they're a good _____.

    They scoff at anything outside their narrowly-defined concept of a "genuine" religion. "That's not a real relgion, it's just an excuse to _____." "They're just thumbing their noses at us devout _____s, they're not religious." "I've never heard of anyone belonging to _____; it must be a fake."

    Religion is much broader than that. Religion is about closely-held beliefs. In the United States we have what's known as "Freedom of Religion." Many people interpret this to simply mean that the government cannot prevent you from going to church/praying/etc. The Constitutional amendment which provides "Freedom of Religion" is also focused on "Freedom of Speech." The whole idea is "Freedom of Ideas." The government cannot tell you your your beliefs are wrong without solid proof

    "Your belief that God is dead is wrong because God lives in every man," doesn't fly. "Your belief that you have a mandate from God to murder people of other religions is wrong, because you are harming another person," is valid.

    This distinction is very important. When a government can condemn ideas or mandate ideas without the burden of proof, its leaders attain totalitarian power. The power to define valid religions/beliefs translates into the power to define facts and reality, and the government will evolve into a self-serving dictatorship.

    I don't care for Star Wars, and I don't think any one of these people can levitate rocks. But I do believe there are many people who are religiously fanatical about Star Wars. I'm not going to ridicule people for claiming Jedi as their religion or accuse them of lying about their beliefs, because their beliefs are just as valid as yours and mine.

    I don't pity these "Jedi" for their beliefs. I pity them for living in Australia. In the U.S., the government doesn't have the right to suppress beliefs by calling them lies.

    1. Re:They Did Not Lie On Their Forms by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      For the completely uninformed, Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:

      The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

      Oh, so they have laws in Australia too, as well as those cute little koalas? Gee whiz, who'da thought it!

      I pity you living in the US and having such parochial views that you believe other countries do not enjoy the same freedoms as you have. But then again, I think I pity you most because you believe that these people put down "Jedi" on the form because they actually believe in a religion rather than simply as a joke.

  148. Re:If Hubbard can do it ... by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

    Well you've already got a good name for it. Religeon. You could put the stress on the 'ge' so as to differentiate it from 'religion' which everyone else practices.

    --
    -- SIGFPE
  149. Census this by Bunjo · · Score: 1

    Why can't they take a hint and realize people really don't want to answer their invasive questions? It's just people's way of expressing their disapproval of the census.

    1. Re:Census this by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      The question is clearly marked "Optional"...

  150. 70,000? by Daetrin · · Score: 2

    Wow, the planet earth apparently has more Jedi by several orders of magnitude than the entire galaxy did in Attack of the Clones :)

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  151. Easy as ... QED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Plant grape vines
    2) Add water to plants
    3) Wait until ripe
    4) Harvest grapes
    5) Stop grapes
    6) Bottle juice
    7) Wait
    Water into wine QED

  152. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by SeanWithoutPants · · Score: 1

    Nope.

    In my opinion, removing the phrase would make it neutral. If it had said something like "there is no God," then it would be endorsing atheism. (For what it's worth, as an atheist I'm against adding "there is no god" or some variation of that as much as I'm against the "under God" phrase.)

    Regards,
    Sean

  153. THAT'S NICE, DIPSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I AGREE WITH THE PARENT POST
    Mod up.

    Well, perhaps if mod points were supposed to be a statement of agreement, that would make sense. But they aren't, so it doesn't, and you are a dipshit.

    1. Re:THAT'S NICE, DIPSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, perhaps if mod points were supposed to be a statement of agreement, that would make sense. But they aren't, so it doesn't, and you are a dipshit.

      And you are a naive fucktard if you think the morons they let mod around here are mature enough to mod up a post containing a correct comment they don't agree with.

      So, fuck off.

  154. Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists. by Sacrifice · · Score: 1

    The alternative to funding religious charities is not your bogus government-dictated-atheism strawman, but simply the status quo: a society with real religious (and secular) freedom.

    "Helping others help themselves" by taking money from everyone's paycheck and giving it to the local church to do feel-good charity? Come on. Where do you get from "religions exist; acknowledge their existence" to "give religious charities government funding"?

    While there are some actual real world benefits to most religious charitable organizations, these charitable arms do in fact serve in part to promote their religion.

    And, it is actually very common, when enough charitable money is flowing in, for the charitable workers to take more and more for their own purposes, perhaps without realizing it.

    Therefore, I oppose government funding (even with oversight) of religious charities because:

    1) it is in fact monetary support of the religious organization behind the charity (money is fungible, and the charitable activities do serve to promote the religion).

    2) I should be able to choose where to allocate my charitable dollars. Government bureaucracy for assigning grants for charitable work will result in less care being given to the actual charitable use of the money than when the donors take a personal interest in who they give their money to and what it is used for.

    3) If we simply must have "mandatory charity" I would prefer it be performed directly by government bureaucracy (that at least is subject to central oversight and control, and could in theory develop some degree of professionalism and fairness), rather than indirectly through government and then through church bureaucracy.

  155. Australian Officials by Ironpoint · · Score: 3, Insightful



    If Australian officials don't like the answer they shouldn't ask the queston in the first place.

  156. This is not a problem! by Greedo · · Score: 1

    If they strike them down, they will only become more powerful than you could possibly imagine ...

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
  157. Aboriginal religions, languages by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative
    The 1996 .AU census specified 7 Christian groups, plus an "Other" fill-in-the-blank. The 2001 version adds Islam and Buddhism. I couldn't find any 2001 religion results on the site - I assume they're not done yet, though they've hit high-priority topics such as population and attendance at sporting events.... There weren't any reported Jedi in 1996 :-)


    Neither the religion nor the language sections explicitly mention Aboriginal religions or languages, though about 7000 people wrote that in on the 1996 form, and a number of other people wrote in "Nature Religions", which may include some aboriginals as well as neo-pagans. The Ancestry section does include "Australian", and there is also an explicit question asking if you're an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and there are some specific instructions for Australian South Sea Islanders as well.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Aboriginal religions, languages by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find any 2001 religion results on the site - I assume they're not done yet, though they've hit high-priority topics such as population and attendance at sporting events.

      Think about it...this topic is in response to a post about over 70,000 people putting "Jedi" on the census form. Therefore, the information has been finished and published: I'd classify this as being "done". If you want the results, you can buy them at the ABS site.

      Neither the religion nor the language sections explicitly mention Aboriginal religions or languages, though about 7000 people wrote that in on the 1996 form.

      Gee, 7000 responses out of c.20 million; obvious cause for adding another option to an already long form. There are over 200 Aboriginal languages, listing them all would require a page by itself. It's hardly worth adding to the national census considering that 0.3% of Australians speak any one of them and that statistics on them are separately collected.

      Oh, and BTW the code for the Aboriginal religions that "aren't explicitly mentioned" is 6011
      Australian Aboriginal Traditional Religions.

  158. Clams! Clams everywhere! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Visit xenu.net, I'm sure they have an in-depth explanation of the stunts the Co$ pulled to get tax-exempt status.

  159. Data Retention Rules for .au census by billstewart · · Score: 2
    The census does have some good intentions about privacy, unlike the US census, though I doubt they'll actually do much good. The official procedure is that any name-identifiable material gets shredded after they're done counting, unless you give them permission, in which case they'll keep the name private for 99 years and then release it. However, if they've got your address, employer, ethnic group, etc., it's hard to retain that in a way that doesn't make it easy to tell who you are from correlation. Australia may not do anything bad with the data, but I'd still be wary about trusting them. Does your employer know that two people living at your address is Jewish? How many families on your block in two-bedroom apartments with three children are recent Hong Kong immigrants? Are your papers in order?

    The US rules say that the data must be kept private for 75 years, but that rule was blatantly violated during World War 2, when the Army used census data to find people of Japanese ancestry and arrest them all. The current census asks lots of detailed data, especially about national origins of Spanish-speaking people. It's theoretically only kept on a census-tract basis, not an individual address basis, but that can be as small as a block or two. How many Guatemalan couples with three kids aged 2, 4, and 7 live on your block?

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Data Retention Rules for .au census by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      However, if they've got your address, employer, ethnic group, etc., it's hard to retain that in a way that doesn't make it easy to tell who you are from correlation.

      No, they do not have your address on the form, there is nothing on the form itself to personally identify you (it's on a completely separate envelope). They do not have your employer's name or address, simply a question about your employment (that is the industry you work in and your employment status). The aim is to get information about you for statistical purposes only -- what census bureau is going to collate data about who works for what company?

  160. slashdot still quoting CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot still quoting CNN... a new low...

  161. If you build it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aw, geeze...

    I guess that lets out building a Jedi Council Chambers building in Perth, huh?

  162. *sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't you a kuro5hin crapflooder? I can make my own arguments based on my own sincere beliefs; I don't need your "help", thank you very much. There's enough religious trolling here as it is. Way too much, in fact.

  163. Go ahead, prosecute me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If my government (USA) prosecuted me for filing misleading personal information on a census form, I'd see them in court. And in court, the census bureau would have to demonstrate that they tracked personally identifying information to me. Yes, I would pay $1000 to get that into a court record.

    I would expect the EFF, the ACLU, and the New York Times to take a great interest in that court record, and I expect a few more Americans to wake up about the surveillance state.

  164. Same story as for New Zealand by Lenbok · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is some information from Statistics NZ about the NZ equivalent. Two obvious conclusions from this: with 1.5% of the population, the Jedi faith is much stronger in New Zealand; and statisticians have no sense of humour.

    --
    Thanks for your enquiry. There were 53,715 people who identified
    themselves as Jedi in response to the question on religious affiliation.
    This was 1.5 % of the people who responded to the question.

    For your information, most people realise the importance of the Census
    and therefore provide meaningful and accurate answers. The religion
    question, which has been asked in the Census since 1851, asks people
    to identify what religion, if any, they affiliate with. They may elect
    not to answer this question. If people's belief system was genuinely
    Jedi, they could mark the "other" box and write Jedi in the space
    provided. These data were captured during the processing phase but have
    been coded as "Response outside Scope". Jedi is not part of the
    agreed list of religious affiliations noted in the New Zealand Standard
    classification. Hence it will not appear in the official results from
    the Census.

    1. Re:Same story as for New Zealand by Malacca · · Score: 1

      Ironically, 'Yoga' is recognized as a religion by the NZ Census Bureau. The list is clearly arbitrary.

    2. Re:Same story as for New Zealand by EuroChild · · Score: 1

      They had jedi's in 1851?

      --
      Does this make my brain look big?
  165. Re:Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn straight, and quit giving minorities welfare. Waste of money anyway.

  166. What were the other choices? by HiThere · · Score: 3

    I suspect that Jedi might be closer to my choice than any of the other options. I doubt that they would have liked "Reformed Druids of North America", either, but that's been my religion for the last 30 years. I'm not very dedicated, despite being ordained, but it matches my views better than any of the competition that I've run into.

    Why do people assume that it is a joke when people claim Jedi as their religion? I'm not at all sure that it is. Religions can probably start in many ways, I have know devout members of "The Church of All Worlds". I didn't think that they understood the revealed doctrine (see Stranger in a Strange Land) very well, but they were sincerely misguided. And devout. Some of them did jail time over it.

    I'm sure that many entered the term Jedi as a joke, but I see no reason to believe that all did, and even so I would bet that many who entered it as a joke were as devout as many of those who entered Anglican (Episcopal?).

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:What were the other choices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Druid priests, as part of their ordination, self-castrated themselves.

      Was it a harrowing experience?

    2. Re:What were the other choices? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You are thinking of the priests of Cybele. Sorry, wrong sect.

      And doesn't apply anyway. Note the Reformed part of the name. We only picked those elements that appealed to us. (You might as well point out that they didn't have a branch in North America while you were at it. At least that would have been accurate.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  167. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by spongebobsquarepants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, and I get just as tired of the hearing ill-informed religious zealots crying over the threat of the phrase, "under god," being removed from the pledge, when that phrase was added after the fact by President Eisenhauer. Try saying the pledge without those two words. I think that the phrase, "one nation indivisible," sounds more meainingful anyway, and doesn't alienate any portion of the public whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, or otherwise.

  168. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the Lake Woebegonians might prefer if the nation went Lutheran... ;)

  169. "None of the above" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listing "Jedi" as you relegion is like picking "none of the above" in the voting booth.

    None the less see related story on BBC news site.
    http://bbcnews.com

  170. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    The government doesn't act based on the beliefs of "the citizens." The government acts based on the beliefs of whoever can throw the most money at it...Ergo, the good old white military industrial crew. ;-)

    Also, there are those of us who don't necessarily think secularisation of education is such a bad thing. In my own ideal society, you'd have private schools of various religious orientations, with the state's offering being secular. The references by ageing Pentecostal fundamentalists to America as "God's country," and insisting that the country have Christianity as the state religion are emotive, irrational, and not based on anything logically sound, be it theological or otherwise.

  171. separation in Israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the government of Israel attempt to separate church and state? This seems tangentially related.

  172. Not illegal in the UK by robstah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although supplying misleading information on a census form in the UK is a criminal offence, interestingly there is an exemption for religion. Enough people put Jedi on the 2001 and census to have it added to the list according to the BBC. However the information on how many will not be made publically available. However its presence on the list does not mean it is officially recognized. This article points out that it is all a hoax and that it wont be added to the list. Hhh, conflicting ideas from the same media source, i dont believe it =) Cheers Rob

    --
    Rob 'robster' Bradford
    Debian Planet Guy
    We are the apt. You will be packaged. Resistance is futile.
    1. Re:Not illegal in the UK by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      The first link you provide says that the Office of National Statistics has created a code so that it was easier to count the fsckwits that wrote "Jedi" or "Jedi Knight" on the census form.

      This is simply an internal code for grouping reponses, not a recognition of its status as a religion.

  173. Sure Galilleo will sure agree. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    They were maybe the first to build some nice stuff (observatories, equivalent of hospital) but thery were also the first to ACTIVELY repress knowledge. Galilleo comes to mind. Epure si mueve.

    But the worst isn't even that they made him recant, the worst is that we had to wait 1980 so that the church admit that "maybe they did something wrong in pushing Galilleo to recant". Maybe *snicker*. Most of the stuff the church did, was to actively research the deep meaning of God and the teaching of christianism It wasn't a search for knowledge itself. Only a sort of furthering the propaganda arm of the church.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Sure Galilleo will sure agree. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      they did not arrest Galilleo to supress information, they arrested him for not following proper 'procedure'

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Sure Galilleo will sure agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The procedure being what? "Don't say stuff we don't like?"

  174. This is such a typical slash dot article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Useless information, tongue-in-cheek ending, editor's superfluous tongue-in-check opinionating. Someone should hang the DJ. Oh crap, not me too.

  175. Someone should do a "The Onion" parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Slash dot should parody itself

  176. Re:Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
    I should be able to choose where to allocate my charitable dollars.

    You are. Your electoral process voted in Bush. (Don't get me started on the popular vote question - I lived in Palm Beach County during the election). Bush and the Republican party are openly supportive of using religious resources and volunteers to suppliment (or even replace) the welfare and socialistic assistance system that is endorsed by the Democratic Party.

    I am of the opinion that a government agency that functions as a connection between religious groups and government is not a bad thing at all. Ideally government turns a blind eye to race, and there are many government agencies devoted to minorities. The fact is, religious groups have a part in society, and government should address that, they should not endorse them above any other group, just as race plays a part in society, and government should address that, just not take a position other than an quality of rights.

    I do not advocate tax funds being turned over to religious organizations. I do not advocate secular public mandated charity, for that matter. It's that mandated part I don't agree with. I don't, however, have a problem with government taking an active role in maintaining a relationship with such voluntary charities, both secular and religious, and extending them tax breaks and access to a government provided forum for cooperation and inter-group orginization, especially for quick and precise action in times of catastrophe, such as hurricanes or flooding.

    --
    Evan (no reference)

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  177. Re:Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists by prismatic · · Score: 1

    You've got a good point about fallable people abusing money, if even inadvertantly. However, I'm sure there are quite a few people being taxed who might offer the opposite viewpoint of yours: "If they're going to take my money, they had best not be putting it into an organization that conflicts with my religious beliefs."

    And so, in order to acheive your idea of "the status quo: a society with real religious (and secular) freedom", the government should be funding neither sectarian nor secular organizations if they're in the same trade. In example, the government should either fund none of the alcoholism recovery programs, or it should fund all of them equally if there's even one in there with a different set of religious beliefs (or non belief) from any other one.

    --
    Brian Voils
    "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
  178. Making an Official Religion by nanojath · · Score: 2

    The thing about this that baffles me... Well, maybe it's different in Australia, but if you want something to be an Official religion, here in the 'States you just need to file some papers, basically. I would imagine that the reason they won't recognize these responses is that there is no legally recognized "Church of Jedi." Honestly, shouldn't someone start one? Clear this question up for once and for all?

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  179. No, actually I don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get tired of it at all... and I won't until there actually is an effective separation between the two.

    Then again, I guess that would mean that most of the people in the U.S. would have to disappear since it's usually the more dim-witted that are so strongly clinging to fairytales and fantasy.

    Philosophically the concepts are good but I don't need to be frightened into following by some all-powerful concept of deity.

    1. Re:No, actually I don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is plenty of separation between them right now. The government has not established any statewide religion of any kind- people are free to worship who/what/when/how/if they want to without any recourse from the government. Even in rare cases like David Koresh, the government only reacts when laws were broken.

      There are already plenty of constitutional protections in place for the minority that doesn't believe in a God. Any more would needlessly restrict the majority that does believe.

  180. Why should they care? by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 1

    People's religion is their own business. So what if they want to call themselves Jedi? I'd personally rather be a Jedi than Christian, Jew or Muslim. The concept of the Force and the Jedi is a very elegant and spiritual system, and if that is what anyone chooses as their belief no one should say it is false simply because it is taken from a movie.

  181. Jehovah is a murderer by linzeal · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wait, so if god knew what was going on than he willingly slaughtered job's children? Well that makes him a pretty sick bastard (like a murderer), doesn't it? God has murdered humans. Well that would make him a hypocrit, now wouldn't it?

    1. Re:Jehovah is a murderer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You idiot. You're saying that if you know the murderer's character then you're to blame because of your position in society? That is pretty lame thinking. Something that the devil would like to agree with. After all why would he want to be blamed for murdering Job's children?

    2. Re:Jehovah is a murderer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theology ain't your strong suit, is it, son?

      Consider this- The God of the old testament is arguably a different God of the new. The God of the old is wrathful, crafty, fickle, and insecure. The Yaweh that the Jews know as God has to make no oppologies as they don't recognize the new testament as valid. Where in the old testament does it say anything about being Yaweh being mild-mannered?

      Now, begin to understand the complexity of the issue? You can't just say "God's a meanie, wahwahwahhhh" without first defining the argument at hand.

  182. Real Jedis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are Real Jedis (JEsus DIsciple) also. Please see http://jahtruth.co.uk/starwar.htm Learn The Way of The Force.

    1. Re:Real Jedis by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Scary thing is, that is much more believable than what Scientologists teach! :)

  183. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by varith · · Score: 1

    Right! Plus, as far as the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, they merely restored it to its original version. The "under God" part was added well after the fact.

  184. Think Again by compjma · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered that those people might not have been joking?

  185. endorsing religion by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

    The government is indirectly endorsing religion if it gives money to a charity (say a soup kitchen) that assists those in need but requires them to pray to recieve the assistance. Many church affiliated homeless shelters offer free meals, but hold a prayer before them. This is a violation of the 1st amendment.

    What does this do to the homeless person?
    (hypothetical specifics below)
    If the homeless person is a christian and so is the charity, great, they are full in the stomach and the soul.
    But, if a Jew is in need of assistance, they have to either pray with them, and go against their faith (speaking the word G_D, or pronouncing Jesus as their savior), and be full of stomach, but empty in soul, or eat without praying leaving them full of stomach, but also full of guilt, or not eat, leaving them full in the soul but starving for nutrition.
    The alternative, charities with no religious affiliation, provide food and the opportunity to pray if you see fit, with no pressure to go against your faith.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  186. Some similarities to Christianity, too by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1


    The virgin birth of the one who will bring balance to the force (read: somehow change the human condition) in Episode 1 seemed pretty biblical to me.

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
    1. Re:Some similarities to Christianity, too by cpex · · Score: 1

      yes but can we really call the new star wars movies "Star Wars" more like good girl gone hollywood whore

  187. AntiChristianity and the suprising number of Anon by RadioactivePorpoise · · Score: 1

    Treading through the posts debating the validity of christianity I've noticed a large number of Anonymous Coward posts.

    I agree with many of the posts and it's my personal view that most religion doesn't amount to much more than mythology- though there are some good rules to live by in the bible once you strip out the hooey and flash powder.

    My point is to the power of mass acceptance bringing into reality a tangible force. This force- though the writers claim not to believe they'll be struck dead by their non-belief- seems to instill a superstition towards signing their posts.

    Is this a normal level of anonymous activity following a /. topic? Why is it that people don't wish to sign their opinions?

    Has 'mass acceptance' itself brought into reality an effect of a cause that doesn't exist?

  188. Hey, Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you even bothered to find out what the Nazis were actually all about? The whole notion of the Nazi state was based on Christianity, it was the central crux of Hitlers perscution of the Jews (They deny Christ, see?)

    Oh, and Goodwins law is in effect, but as I'm calling it now, my previous point stands. You're an idiot.

    1. Re:Hey, Idiot by MarkCollette · · Score: 1

      No, the Nazis were definitely not Christian. In fact, they put the leaders of all religions in concentration camps. You are probably confused since they pretended to be Christian at first, before they created their own state religion based on nordic mythology.

      I'm an agnostic, not a Christian, but I find it annoying when people somehow claim that being anti-semetic is equivalent to being Christian.

      I'm sure that the Jewish wealth and control of the banking systems was much more of a reason for their victimization than for Jesus being killed. Technically the Roman soldiers killed him, yet Germany allied with Italy...

    2. Re:Hey, Idiot by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      No, the Nazis were most definately predominantly Christian. But that doesn't mean that all Christians are Nazis, far from it. Some Nazis, most definately Hitler did, indeed, believe that nordic predominance was a part of their Christianity. But that doesn't make them any less Christian than any other sect with strange ideas.

      But it must not be forgotten that the anti-Semtism that the Nazis spouted was very much rooted in Christian ideas: most predominantly those of Martin Luther, who centuries before had himself advocated things like concentration camps and forced explusion for Jews and many other things that the Nazi's later did. One of the first things the Nazi's did when they attained power was to declare a day in Luther's honor.

      It was only the Christian leaders they opposed that they imprisoned: again, this doesn't make them any less Christian than Catholic nations who persecuted Protestants.

    3. Re:Hey, Idiot by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      The fact that you believe in the myths of Jewish wealth and control of the banking system shows that you have anti-semitic attitudes, taught to you by christian society, whether you are christian or not. Nearly 2000 years of christian antisemitism created an environment of hate that made the holocaust possible. In spite of what you may think, Anti-semitism among christians, and all they have influenced, comes straight out of the myth of deicide. It is why Jews were forced to be money lenders by Medieval kings. "Since they are damned anyway for killing christ, make them commit the damnable sin of usury, so we can have commerce." Did you know that because of American anti-semitism, many banks would not hire a jew even as a teller until the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s? Did you know that throughout European history, Jews were put into walled up portions of cities called ghettos? These were the inspiration for concentration camps. Having them all penned up like animals, so they were easy to kill was not an original idea of the nazis. If you think christianity and antisemitism don't go hand in hand anymore, tell peole you don't celebrate christmas, and don't think it should be a national holiday, as it endorses one religion, and see how fast someone accuses you of being a "christ-killer."

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  189. I'd like to see them try to fine someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then explain how, with this completely anonymous and private survery, they managed to pinpoint them.

    The census is designed to recorded statistical information about the population in general, not about indivduals.

    Who's to say Jedi philosophy is followed religiously by some? I don't believe it's up to Johnny to say what is a valid religion/philosophy or not.

    Blah blah, it's not "recognised". Who cares. A religion doesn't need a seal of approval to exist.

  190. And you're surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Lucas ripped off an existing religion?

    All writers/producers/etc. do it. Rip things off, that is.

    It's pretty hard not to do, considering to write something, you have to be alive, and are probably living on Earth. While enjoying a few decades of idiocy planet-side, you're influenced by damned near anything.

    Hence, when you sit down to create, these influences manifest themselves.

    Oh, yes, I know, (insert your favorite author/director/musician here) is totally original and isn't influenced by anything.

    Beware people who try to tell you this, and beware creators who say this themselves, because they're full of shit. Even if you were locked in a box for the entirety of your life, with no outside contact, you'd be influenced by that.

  191. Forget The Force for a minute by phriedom · · Score: 2

    I've seen quite a few people posting in the opionion that Australia's census bureau should lighten up and not take this so seriously, or that the government shouldn't even be asking this question so it is okay to falsify data because its funny. I think we need to step back and get some perspective on this. Lets remove the whole Star Wars connection (even though that is the only reason this is reported) and realize that there was an organized campaign to get people to enter a particular thing on their census sheet. 70,000 people didn't spontaneously decide to enter "jedi", they were coaxed into it. Its pretty easy to see that it is (at least mostly) a false entry. Imagine I started a campaign to get people to say that they are left-handed-lesbian-albino-midget-eskimos on their census forms, because damn thats really funny. With an internet campaign and maybe a few morning dejays on my side, I could have a real impact on the census. Do you see why the census bureau would be upset about that, or any other falsehood? Do you see how that would be a waste of out tax money?

    Census information is actually kinda important to some functions of government, so it isn't a proper forum for humor.

    Plus, the humorous campaign is actually doing a disservice to anyone who is a true diciple of jedi beliefs.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  192. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    "One nation indivisible," as opposed to "A voluntary confederation of sovereign states." The original pledge was a product of the post Civil War reconstruction period, and was then very offensive to southerners, but the winner of a war usually does make the losing side take loyalty oaths. It amazes me that a post Civil War loyalty oath was still around in 1952 for Eisenhower to add "under God" to, making it an anti-Soviet Union Cold War loyalty oath.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  193. gnuism by meridian · · Score: 1

    I decided they would do that anyway so decided to put my religion as gnuism because i thought it most appropriate and ture anyway

    --
    meridian at tha.net
  194. IS WAS A JOKE - you dumb yanks by Ex-Slinker · · Score: 1

    Get over it you self important yanks. It was a big joke. Anyone who put Jedi in their census obviously does not take it very seriously. I know I didn't. Remember, governments don't build churches, the religious community does. America has a very strange view of separation of state and religion, from what I have seen you cannot get elected to any public posision unless you are a "god fearing, good 'ol boy" with billions behind you and a swag of dodgy political supporters. Remember, the only real big brother you need o fear is Uncle Sam.

  195. What about Han? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

    Who says these people actually believe they are Jedi? Maybe they believe that Jedi exist, that "The Force" is real, but they themselves are not Jedi. The Force is not strong in them, or they were not born with quite enough midichlorians, whatever St. George calls them. Han Solo was obviously not a Jedi, but by ROTJ he's been convinced that the force is real. What religion, then, is Han? For lack of a better term, he would mark Jedi on his census form.

    So what if it was written by a Scifi hack who didn't believe it himself, filled with aliens and ancient wars? So was Scientology.

  196. Australian constitution and Australian law by David+Jericho · · Score: 1
    Another classic example of people opening their mouths as authorities on a topic before they have actually found out for themselves.

    Yes, it is illegal to provide false information on the census form.

    It's also unconstitutional for any department or official of the Australian Government to ask you to validate your faith. If questioned as to the accuracy of your claim, so long as you reply with something to the effect of "I believed in what I call the Jedi religion at the time of the census", you're all clear.

    If you're stupid enough to reply "Haha! Great joke huh?", expect a fine coming your way.

    I would cite the relevant sections of the constitution and codes, but I don't have the references handy, and it took me 10 minutes with Google and www.fed.gov.au to find them the first time.

    1. Re:Australian constitution and Australian law by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. There is no Jedi religion. Therefore simply by putting "Jedi" on the census form, you have provided false information.

      The official's validation of faith doesn't need to occur because there is no official recognition of the religion. They could also cite the email that did the rounds after the British census and NZ census and the fact that 70,000 other people "just happened" to write "Jedi" or "Jedi Knight" on their census forms and make a good case for your culpability.

  197. Old news by geggle · · Score: 1

    Yawn. This is old old old. Go look at here to find out the Australian Bureau of Statistics response.

    Every properly designed survey has a defined set of coding rules used to code and therefore analyse the responses. If you want to see trends over time, then you try not to change the coding rules significantly from census to census, so the current definitions might simply reflect historical attitudes about religion in Australia.

  198. Religious groups mostly not funded by gov. by Goonie · · Score: 2
    There's no government funding for religious activities (except some welfare programs run by churches, which receive government funding as providers of welfare services).

    The one major exception is private schooling (often run by religious organisations), which receives government funding here. However, that's based on enrolments to the schools, not census data.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Religious groups mostly not funded by gov. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No pun intended, but my god...
      I've heard about people not reading the article... but not even reading the THREAD that you're POSTING ONTO?!?
      "If, for example, people of a particular religious affiliation do not provide the correct information, certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be."
      It's been quoted about 20 times already, and is in the article itself.

  199. Is the Author a true Jedi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I find their lack of faith disturbing.

    don't you mean:

    Personally I find their lack of force disturbing.

  200. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original pledge was a product of the post Civil War reconstruction period, and was then very offensive to southerners, but the winner of a war usually does make the losing side take loyalty oaths.

    That makes it sound far more palatable than if you spell out that in this case it wasn't their vanquished foas that they made to take loyalty oaths, it was generations of school children. It's sick.

  201. Since when was the USA government representative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact any country that does (perhaps ironicly) NOT have compulsory voting, cannot call itself representative as not all are represented in elections.

    Anonymous Coward (no relation to Noel).

  202. For all the people bitching about it by hayden · · Score: 2
    To put things into perspective, 12ish million of the 19 million people answered some form of Christianity. Now I know quite a few people and nowhere near that proportion of them could call themselves Christian. My parents probably would have answered Christian and they are only religious on Christmas, Easter and when something bad happens.

    The fact is if they start going after people who tell lies on this question on the census form they are going to have to go after quite a few more than the 70,000 or so Jedis out there.

    An interesting fact (pointed out by Will Anderson of the TripleJ morning show and The Glasshouse on ABC for the Australians in the audience) is that every question where no or none is a valid response, the no or none option was first. Every question that is except the religion question where they had half a dozen Christian options first.

    I think what this shows more than anything else is that Australians really don't give a crap about this stuff. It's just something the government makes us do every five years.

    --
    Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
  203. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by geekguy · · Score: 2, Funny
    "I think that the phrase, "one nation indivisible," sounds more meainingful anyway, and doesn't alienate any portion of the public whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, or otherwise."

    Don't be so sure, we of the sith believe that nothing is indivisible, a well aimed blast from the death star can divide just about anything.

    --
    -- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
  204. Australian religious coding by Artline · · Score: 1
    There is a complete list of the religious codes from the 1996 census available at the ABS (I cannot find the codes for the 2001 census). They have an alphabetical listing, here is a brief example of some of the listed religions:
    Code Description
    6999 Divine Light Mission
    2911 Divine Science
    0003 Do not attend church
    0003 Do not profess
    7010 Don't follow any
    0003 Don't know
    0003 Doubtful
    6011 Dreamtime
    6132 Druidism
    6132 Druids
    6071 Druse
    6071 Druze
    0002 Dualist
    2252 Dutch Australian Reformed
    2252 Dutch Christian Church
    2252 Dutch Church
    There is no listing for Jedi for the 1996 census but I guess it has been added for last year's census because they have counted the number who gave it as a response.

    Judging by some of the responses that get assigned a coding number they do not only count recognised religions e.g. Doubtful or Zilch (which means nothing).

    1. Re:Australian religious coding by MrOrn · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that the codes are simply a way of categorising the responses, not a listing of official religions?

  205. Extinction by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

    How long before the Australian Senate declares war and hires bounty hunters to hunt down and destroy the Jedi?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  206. Censi suck by psicE · · Score: 2

    This just goes to prove that the census long-form is fatally flawed.

    There are definitely good reasons why government would want to know how many people live in the country. Assuming that every single person, just by being a US citizen, qualified for a $5,000 yearly check paid for by the US government (this program would take the place of welfare and other means-tested government programs), then it would be very easy to find out how many citizens there are - no one wants to hide, because they won't get their $5,000.

    But what's the government doing finding out all these other factors? Who cares how many 42-year-olds there are in the country, or how many Irish? I can go to the Census online, and find out how many Romanians there are in my town of 8,000 people. There's six. Data of that precision is not the kind of stuff that government should have access to! And that's not even getting into religion.

    Why can't government just use the census like it's supposed to be, a population count? And better yet, why can't the government find out population counts from other means, so that a census of any form is obsolete?

  207. For More Information...... by pagan26 · · Score: 1

    I can't seem to find a metion of this, but here goes.... Over at http://www.jediism.org you can learn the complete Jedi doctorine. Hmmmmm.....

    --
    Open Source: Every now and then, you get what you don't pay for.
  208. Sorry, I got here late... by handsomepete · · Score: 2

    Did somebody already make the, "This is not the census taker you are looking for. You will fine someone else" joke?

  209. To be legit. A religion needs Gods by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1

    To be legit. A religion needs Gods, to be specific, the Gods in which we trust. Almighty Dollars. If The Jedi Just get one of their men on TV saying, "Send me your money, and the Force will be with you." Jedi will be recognized as legit as soon as he raises ten million. I offer to be that guy on TV. Send me your money, and the Force will be with you!

    --
    That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
  210. Your arguments do not hold water by paladin_tom · · Score: 1

    There is no confirmation that Jesus even existed from the time he would have lived

    Have you heard of the "Anti-Stratfordians"? They believe that Shakespeare did not exist. You'll always find doubt about great historical figures. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Most historians believe that both Shakespeare and Jesus were real people.

    outside the New Testament except for Josephus' writings

    There's two independent sources. Furthermore, what you're saying here is completely false. There are documents from outside the Christian Scriptures that talk about Jesus; many of them have been translated into English by the Jesus Seminar. Do a Google search for the "Gospel of Thomas", which wasn't included in the New Testament, and is believed to be independent of the canonical gospels, and contain authentic material (since it tells some of Jesus' parables in slightly different forms).

    which have been embellished by monks.

    That doesn't change the fact that they must have had something to start with. Since Josephus was a Jew, he probably wrote the part about Jesus being a rabble rousing prophet and his brother James being killed, while the Christian monks likely added the part about the miracles (presumably, if Josephus believed that Jesus performed miracles, then he would have been a Christian, not a Jew).

    A paper putting forth the theory that Josephus made Jesus up, and wrote the gospels was published by a group called the Society of Josephus. It is frequently suppressed.

    A paper saying that something is true doesn't make it true. And who are the "Society of Josephus"? Google doesn't offer any information on them. And their name hardly makes them sound reputable. Are they attached to any university?

    Furthermore, this theory seems very unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are many Gospels not in the New Testament. Furthermore, there are also Gospels written by the Jewish Christians; wouldn't it be more likely that Josephus would have written such as Gospel as these?

    If Jesus really existed, and lived in the time of Herod, than our calendar system should be radically revised, as Herod was dead by 30 BC.

    Please check your history. According to this source, Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. (There were many rulers named Herod, however; perhaps you have them mixed up.) And we already know that Jesus wasn't born in 0 B.C., this isn't news. Keep in mind that the Gregorian calendar was created in the middle ages, so we can't expect them to have pin-point accuracy.

    And no, the calendar isn't going to change. The terms "BC" and "AD" are being switched in many places to "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) in order to secularize the Gregorian calendar.

    This site presents the evidence for and against Jesus' existence, without taking sides. If you look at the "against" information, it mostly comes down to lack of documentation by Roman historians of the time. But this should not be a surprise, because Judea (that's what Israel was called at the time) was merely an impoverished occupied territory. Many Judeans were crucified by the Romans. To the Romans, Jesus was just one more rabble-rousing Judean prophet better left forgotten.

    --
    #define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
  211. lets not start a war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but does it look degobah
    where yoda live?

  212. jedi is legally recognized as a religion in .au! by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 1

    This doesn't sound right, before the census the officially announce that jedi is a religion - and it was on the news too. I don't see how one would cop a fine for putting that on, in fact, I believe that because it was on the news that is the sole reason why so many ppl put it down.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  213. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by tshak · · Score: 2

    I agree with your statement, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the parent post. The bottom line is that although the Governement should not govern or support a particular faith or church, that does not mean that the government does not consider the religious values of it's citizens.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  214. So, if Australia supports a US attack on Iraq... by shmee · · Score: 1

    ...an American general will have to play a really serious game of Galactic Battlegrounds.

  215. Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs by junkgrep · · Score: 2

    Uh, no. Not any more than signing your name at the bottom of a driver's liscence is an "atheist" act. The appeals court is not saying that no person can talk about god: it's saying that the government shouldn't be leading its citizens in any endorsement of any particular theology or religious ideas. That right is reserved for the people.

  216. I am guilty: Where to I pay the fine? by gnarly · · Score: 2

    I'm an American, and I happened to be in Oz at the time, so I filled in "JEDI". I have some questions for Australians:

    Does the $1000 fine apply to foreigners?

    Supposing people are really going to be fined (which I doubt) which agency would collect the fine? It would be amusing to turn myself into this agency on my next visit, as "guilty of being a Jedi". (If they are going to talk about fining people they should expect this). Perhaps we should ask Lucas to start a legal fund on our behalf...

    I would love to see them try to collect the fines. Imagine if Aussie Jedi stuck to their guns (er, sabers), refused to pay, and went to jail for being a Jedi!

    --
    :-( is a registered trademark of Despair.com
  217. Re:Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists by junkgrep · · Score: 2

    You're a little confused. The government already DOES give to charities that are run by churches. The catch is that the charities services DON'T involve evangelism: they do actual charity work. They are almost always legally and financially distinct from the direct church leadership. There's nothing wrong with this. What's wrong with Bush's plan is that it wants to give money to programs in which there IS no distinction between the charity and the evangelism services: where money goes not into food or drug treatment, but rather into evangelical materials and worship services.

  218. Here is a list of Oz religions by gnarly · · Score: 2
    Here is a list of religions in Australia for 1991 and 1996.

    Comparing to the 1996 numbers, Jedi's ~70,000 puts it close to "Churches of Christ (75k), "Jehova's Witness" (83k), Salvation Army (74k) and Judaism (80k) and ahead of Hinduism (68k) and the ever popular "No religion" (69k)

    --
    :-( is a registered trademark of Despair.com
  219. I am Jedi by Max+the+Merciless · · Score: 1

    Not only was I a Jedi, but my family background was "OTHER" ____Tatooine_____

    Haven't been arrested yet.

    Actually Jedio are acceptable in Australia, its the Arabs that the government is indoctrinating us to hate...

    --
    * * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
  220. But I am a Jedi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They didn't ask me if I beleive in god, they asked me what religion I was. I thought Jedi is closer than catholic as I don't discriminate against gay folk and I think women are equal to men


    The government here needed to be told fuck off, freedom of speech here - doesn't exist and things like this just prove it


    If the goverment here pushes for fines against the people who wrote Jedi on an optional question then an appropriate response would be to FORCE them to make jedi a registered religion through the existing legal channels


    If it can be recognised in the U.K why not here, just another form of suppression

  221. Certain Facilities? by Bartmoss · · Score: 1

    What would these be? A death star? Some tiny hut in the middle of the Outback? A sky-high tower for the top Jedi masters?

  222. Jedi recognised in UK by Martin+S. · · Score: 3, Informative

    Jedi was recognised in the recent UK census as a statically significant category.
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001 /pdfs/secti on5part3.pdf (Page 18)

    However what I found really interesting was some of the other choices in the ~150 different categories including:

    Scientology
    Nearly 100 different versions of Christianity.
    Heathen, Atheist, Agnostic, Realist, Idealist, Rationalist, Humanist, Secularist.

  223. Some Legends are true. by Martin+S. · · Score: 2

    If something is true it is be definition not a hoax.

    The simple fact is Jedi was recorded as a statically significant sample, it was recognised by the census, it was categorised by the census, and the result will be published in the census results, in due course.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/sec ti on5part3.pdf

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck you may as well call it a duck.

  224. Ooh, I hope they fine them by chegosaurus · · Score: 1

    I hope they fine them *so much*. A bunch of losers trying to be funny using a lame-assed idea they got from an Internet chain letter.

    Not so hilarious when a big fat $1000 fine lands on the doormat are you?

  225. jedi church by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the "jedi" are serious about their faith, they need to form a church!!!

  226. closer to Taoism by peter303 · · Score: 2

    The "Force" is like the Chinese "Chee" (Qi) that permeates everything. Medicine, architecture (geomancy), martial arts, religion, etc seek to balance and maximize the Chee.

  227. Site with the original email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site http://www.geocities.com/lucas_hale/census.html has a copy of the email. Also http://www.theage.com.au/frontpage/2001/04/19/FFX2 AMAEPLC.html is an article that appeared early on in the hoax. This is all really old news. It was a big deal here in Oz of awhile and I think the threats of fines scared alot of people off.

    Lucas

  228. Re:They will certify the Jedi religion by testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    >> midichlorian count
    >
    > Hey that's from the New Testament. Orthodox Jedis don't believe in that shit...

    No - it's from the, as yet incompletely revealed, old testament. Before Saint Luke lost his hand for your sins, he said that those old beliefs (and the prohibition of eating Ewok) does not matter any more.

    The invisible pink unicorns stamp you pagan Jedis into the grassy fields anyway.

  229. 1000 times more Jedis than in AOTC !? by cylcyl · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one shocked that there are 1000 times more jedi in Australia than there were in the entire movie Attack of the Clones (which is supposedly to show the number of jedi that kept peace on an entire galaxy?

    I guess since Star Wars saga took place a long, long time ago, the jedis have since multiplied. :)

  230. What Australian Bureau of Statistics really said by MrOrn · · Score: 1

    For those who want to know the full story, visit http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/24e5 997b9bf2ef35ca2567fb00299c59/86429d11c45d4e73ca256 a400006af80!OpenDocument

    Note particularly the section headed: ABS has not issued warnings or threats to anyone. Can anyone say: "journalistic integrity"?

  231. Re:AntiChristianity and the suprising number of An by graikor · · Score: 1

    My guess?

    Since almost all of the AC posts I've seen in this sub-thread are pro-Christianity, I'' say those ACs are:

    50%- Trolls
    20%- people who want to secretly bolster their own opinions (either through comments or moderation)
    30%- Christians who sort-of believe, but are afraid of being ridiculed for their beliefs - maybe if they hurry, they can get 3 AC comments before the cock crows!

  232. TREKKIES UNITE! by wykkyd · · Score: 1

    Bah, the Jedi are weak! Trekkies UNITE against these insolent fools!

    --
    ... there is no spoon ...
  233. Truth and provability by Jayson · · Score: 1
    There are many things that are true but not provable. It is possible to show that Christianity the belief is consistent. With out logics, it is not possible to prove that God is consistent. Omnipotence to us implies contradiction (Godel's Incompleteness and Turing show this). To see that the system is believable, look towards where the Bible draws its authority, from those that came before it and those that carry on its tradition: the Apostles. The last step does require faith on your part. There is no getting around that at the core, there is a step of faith that must be made by each believer. There is good support for various accounts of Jesus, like the crucifixion, that make this easier, but will never remove it.
    If you have to put down other religions for it to work, it ain't the truth.
    Nobody is putting anybody down by saying that Christianity is the full truth. As much as any religion deviates from the teachings of Jesus is the amount that they deviate from the truth. No matter what you call the truth, you will always be forced to reject something else.
    1. Re:Truth and provability by bovinewasteproduct · · Score: 2

      Nevermind. I should never have taken the bait.

      Just because a troll is a beliver does not make it any more a troll.

      BWP

  234. Close But No Cigar by virg_mattes · · Score: 2

    > You'd need to define "Jedi" a bit loosely to include Anakin/Vader

    Very loosely. Anakin was a Jedi, but when he turned to the dark side, he became Sith, which is opposed to Jedi, not equal to it. To lump them together is equivalent to labelling a murdering Satanist as a Christian.

    Virg

    1. Re:Close But No Cigar by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      To lump them together is equivalent to labelling a murdering Satanist as a Christian.

      Yeah, sort of, except that Jedi and Sith are both dealing with the same Force, just two different sides of it. The Jedi seem to believe that the two sides should be in balance, while the Sith seem to want the Dark Side to prevail. Christians generally believe that God and Satan are two completely separate and diametrically opposed entities. Satanists (at least, members of the official Church of Satan) tend not to believe that either God or Satan actually exist. Satan is more of a mythological icon to be emulated than a being to be worshipped.

      I think the Jedi/Sith comparison is more like two Hindu faithful, one who devotes his life to Vishnu and one who devotes his to Shiva. Both the followers realize that they are worshipping two different aspects of the same divine reality.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  235. Real Druids eat meat :) by abesottedphoenix · · Score: 1

    There's nothing wrong with a Druid that eats meat. It's part of the circle of life. Just like when I die, I want to be able to rot into the earth or sea, as anything else is abomination. You'd have much stronger grounds if the hypothetical were the Druid that serves double duty as a lumberjack. A lot of misperception about Druidism circulated with the terrible book "21 Lessons of Merlyn". For a much better book, try "Tree Wisdom".

  236. Princess LEIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not Princess Leah, it is Princess Leia!

    I mean, I don't care that much, but this bugs me in the same way that writing "it's" instead of "its" bugs me. If you write, try to write properly!

    Grumble, grumble...

  237. The Case Where the Sequel *is* Better by Proquar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's important to note in the examples above that the Old Testament has been superceded by the New Testament... Old Testament is now Obiter Dicta...

    I don't want to tell you what to believe, but Christians shouldn't be dictating the rules from Exodus, (ie Homosexuality is no more 'wrong' than wearing a shirt made of cotton and wool at the same time, or only having one kitchen to cater for milk, meat and others) and atheists shouldn't be pointing out the contradictions between the Old and New Testament - because that was the whole point of Christ, was to 'give a new commandment' that superceded the ten, which had had their run.

    But it makes me think - maybe you should have about 4000 years between any sequel ;p
    (or in this case, at leat 20 years)

    --
    ---- *dog sitting next to a computer, with his beady eyes shifting left to right*
  238. Missing obvious conclusion by abesottedphoenix · · Score: 1

    Jedi were an invention of Lucas and Campbell. Much of the Jedi connection lies with Christian belief. They could be considered a new Christian sept. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

  239. Get your facts strait by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
    Helloooo if the Nazi;s were polytheistic (ie believing in many nordic gods) they were not xtian, the only reason they tolerated any xtians was because of their alliance with italy, and the fact Germany had a large xtian population.

    Just because someone calls themselves a xtian, just because someone goes to church, just because someone owns a Bible does not make them a xtian.

    --
    1. Re:Get your facts strait by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      Helloooo if the Nazi;s were polytheistic (ie believing in many nordic gods)

      No no, they believed in the superiority of nordic RACE: i.e. blond haired, blue-eyed Germans.

      they were not xtian, the only reason they tolerated any xtians was because of their alliance with italy, and the fact Germany had a large xtian population.

      You have no grasp of the related history. The Nazis, being Germans, were, like most Germans, predominantly Christian. The highest Nazi military honor was the Iron Cross. Just because it's inconvient to remember that the Germans were Christian doesn't erase this fact from reality.

      Just because someone calls themselves a xtian, just because someone goes to church, just because someone owns a Bible does not make them a xtian.

      What a dumb arguement. Whatever sect of Christian you are or suggest to me, I bet I could find tons of Christians willing to make the same statement about them. Obviously, everyone thinks they have the true faith.
      But the fact remains: the Germans, who by and large supported the Nazis and many of whom WERE the Nazis, were predominantly Christian, and that didn't magically change their beliefs as soon as Hitler took power. As Hitler went insane, he started to believe that he was god's chosen one and that normal church leaders stood in his way, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole appeal of anti-Semitism was the centuries long Christian inspired hatred of Jews (founded in the Pauline ideas of Martin Luther), a blot on Christianity that has only recently been mostly cured, to the great credit of the religion.

    2. Re:Get your facts strait by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      What a dumb arguement. Whatever sect of Christian you are or suggest to me, I bet I could find tons of Christians willing to make the same statement about them. Obviously, everyone thinks they have the true faith.

      It only seems done becuase you did not understand a word I said. I dont care where in xtianity you come from, people in my own church may not be xtians, many people in others (and other 'secs') are. No one branch has the Gods ear alone. So Ill thank you not to put words into my mouth. And anti-semitism is much more widespread and ancient than xtians. while there are 'xtians' who are anti-semites I think youll find 99% are not and true xtians (again I dont care what branch they are in) have 0% who are anti-semites...

      --
    3. Re:Get your facts strait by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      Truly, you are clueless. If you want to play silly word games about who is and isn't really a " "true" Chirstian, go play Boggle. You are in no position to decide what "true" Christianity is. Don't waste your time trying to think about history. Is Martin Luther, a vicious anti-Semite and the founder of Protestantism, not a "real" Christian, just becuase YOU say so?

    4. Re:Get your facts strait by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      You can personally insult me all you want it does not change the fact that if someone is out there murdering people he is not obeying Jesus. You will know a christian by the fruits they produce, that is the best answer I am capable of giving you.

      I am not the one who will sit in judgemnt over who is and who is not a Xtian but for the sake of argument If I start to call myself a hari chrishna today this moment it does not make me one. If I call myself a buddhist but live in the world tied to physical posestions more than hummanity it does not make me one, if I call myself a daoist and do all the ritual but think its all horse crap it does not make me one. The fact is churches the world over are full of people who live for the world all but one hour a week(and mayby even during that hour), they are not Christ like and are therfore not Christians.

      It is my right to say that, and to call someone on it if the call themselves a xtian because their witness will be what other think of xtians in general. Your view of christianity is a perfect example, because a bunch of evil men called themselves xtians (the Nazi's) you are convinced that all/most Christians ar antisemites. you are the living enbodyment of why a christian must be careful what kind of witness he puts forth for others. -God bless N3WBI3

      --
    5. Re:Get your facts strait by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      You can personally insult me all you want it does not change the fact that if someone is out there murdering people he is not obeying Jesus.

      ...so? Do all Christians obey Jesus? Are Christian's sinless? Even Christians don't claim that.

      You will know a christian by the fruits they produce, that is the best answer I am capable of giving you.

      No, that simply begs the question, because you are simply assuming that YOUR ideas about what is truly Christian are correct. Obviously, the Nazis had different ideas, and thought YOU had it wrong. We can't decide who's interpretation is right without cheating by begging the question.

      Your view of christianity is a perfect example, because a bunch of evil men called themselves xtians (the Nazi's) you are convinced that all/most Christians ar antisemites.

      Is lying about others Christlike? If so, then you're not a Christian. Read my post: where do I say that all Christians are anti-Semites? That's right, nowhere. In fact, you'll find me saying that just because some were, doesn't mean that all are: that that sort of thinking is a mistake. But the fact remains, anti-Semitism was a prevalent Christian position for centuries. That it no longer is, is a real credit to the evolution of Christian thought. But it's nothing but dishonest to try and pretend that the Nazis could not have been Christians just because they did things that are considered evil: that's just playing a True Scotsman game.

    6. Re:Get your facts strait by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      To answer your questions: No Christian is sinless, but we are saved the Christ sacrifice. All fall short of the glory of God, but a christian will acknoledge that he has repent and turn away from that sin. An unrepentant (in his heart not from his mouth) sinner is not a Christian, I am sorry if this seems harsh but it is the truth.

      The Nazi's were unrepentant sinners (Murder, is the easiest to point out). They did not allow Jesus to move them, they moved themselves and were not at all "christ like"

      " but that doesn't change the fact that the whole appeal of anti-Semitism was the centuries long Christian inspired hatred of Jews"

      If I misread this I am sorry, my intent was not to insult you but to show because an evil man calls himself a christian he can effect the view others will have of Christ and thus they must be called on it. Please understand that while I may shout at times no disrespect twords you is intended (and I apologize for the times that I have let the moment get the best of me), I am only sharing with you as I am best able.

      I have done my best to respond to everything you have asked, I would ask that in kind you respond to the following " If I call myself a buddhist but live in the world tied to physical posestions more than hummanity it does not make me one, if I call myself a daoist and do all the ritual but think its all horse crap it does not make me one."

      God bless N3WIB3

      --
    7. Re:Get your facts strait by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      An unrepentant (in his heart not from his mouth) sinner is not a Christian, I am sorry if this seems harsh but it is the truth.

      Again, you're just assuming beforehand what is an is not a sin.

      The Nazi's were unrepentant sinners (Murder, is the easiest to point out). They did not allow Jesus to move them, they moved themselves and were not at all "christ like"

      Whether or not they fit your idea of what "christlike" is, is beside the point. I am not trying to draw conclusions about what all Christians are like, or what the "true" Christian ideas are. I call them Christians because they had a belief system based off of their understanding of the teachings of Christ and the meaning of the religion. I don't know what other possible definition one could have of "Christian" that would not simply beg the question of who's view is right.

      If I call myself a buddhist but live in the world tied to physical posestions more than hummanity it does not make me one, if I call myself a daoist and do all the ritual but think its all horse crap it does not make me one.

      Again: true, but irrelevant. These particular Christians were not violating their beliefs: rather they believed something DIFFERENT than you or I in the first place.

    8. Re:Get your facts strait by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      So what you are syaing is if they compleatly misinterprit the teachings of christ (and I am sorry but nowhere, I mean nowhere can you take mass murder out of his teachings) to call themselves something they are not, we will recognise them by what they are?

      Everyone is free to believe whatever thay want, but it does not make it so.

      Again: true, but irrelevant. These particular Christians were not violating their beliefs: rather they believed something DIFFERENT than you or I in the first place.

      Totally relevant, I believe like buddhist that all posestions are transitory therefore I should call myself a Buddhist and by your definition I am correct.

      The argument you put forth reads as follows: Find a teaching, prevert it to fit your needs. do not obey/understand it, not necissary, so long as you can twist it to your advantage youre now a member.

      Im sorry the thats the biggest pile ive seen in a long time.

      --
    9. Re:Get your facts strait by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      ---Everyone is free to believe whatever thay want, but it does not make it so.---

      Sure: but the problem is: this dictum applies to you and your beliefs too. Therein lies the problem.

      So what you are syaing is if they compleatly misinterprit the teachings of christ (and I am sorry but nowhere, I mean nowhere can you take mass murder out of his teachings) to call themselves something they are not, we will recognise them by what they are?

      Christ doesn't mention lots of things. Reality check here: very few Christians are total pacifists: despite the fact that this is certainly one quite rational interpretation of some of Jesus' teachings. Most Christians believe that violence is quite justified in certain situations, and Christ certain never suggests that killing people is wrong: he even scolds the Pharisees for not stoning to death an unruly child. The OT, further, is filled with instances in which God has the Israelites wipe out entire tribes (killing men, women, and children: though saving some virgins for the soldiers). Given all this to work from, and the danger of "faith" doctrines, it's really not much of a stretch to start believing something (admittedly crazy, but then I find MOST faiths beliefs just as crazy and faith opens the door to almost ANYTHING) along the lines of the idea that the Jews are destroying Germany, and only by killing them can Germany be saved, and even that God has revealed that this is his plan (heck if you feel that God can reveal things to you, who are you to say what other might have felt that God might or might not have revealed to someone else?).
      Again: don't you know who Martin Luther is? He is the founder of modern Protestantism. If he isn't a Christian, then no one is. And yet he advocated pretty much exactly what the Nazis did on a larger scale (primarily because they had better technology). Because of him and the Catholic church, Jews were presecuted and killed all over Europe for centuries in the name of Christ. If this disturbs you, then perhaps you should think more about what doctrines like revealed teachings allow for.

      Find a teaching, prevert it to fit your needs. do not obey/understand it, not necissary, so long as you can twist it to your advantage youre now a member.

      Again, your mistake is in declaring yourself the arbiter of what is and is not a perversion of a teaching. Others might well claim that YOUR beliefs are a perversion. I'm not saying that one is right and one is wrong, or even that both are right or both are wrong: simply pointing out the problem inherent in any contentious definition. You want to simply declare something a "big pile": but the problem is, to do so, you have to beg the question in simply assuming your own interpretation is correct.

  240. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google has a whole directory category related to this:

    http://directory.google.com/Top/Recreation/Humor /P ranks/Jedi_Religion_on_Census_Forms/

    Looks like the idea origionated in New Zealand, where I wrote Jedi on my cencus form. Looks like the 'stralians are typically claiming that one as there own aswell.

  241. Faith: CowboyNeal? by BACbKA · · Score: 1

    I wonder how big was the percentage of the Australians that were found to put "CowboyNealism" or smth in that vein into this "Faith" column on the answer form?

    --

    VKh