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 ;)

Comments

Separation of Church and State

[nuggz]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[JabberWokky]

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)

Re:Separation of Church and State

[operagost]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Francis Avila]

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?

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Atryn]

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.

False information?

[bmetzler]

"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

Re:False information?

[Quixadhal]

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...

Re:False information?

[hyphz]

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.

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[vidarh]

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...

Uh, what about Scientology?

[jsimon12]

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).

Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs...

[clary]

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.)

Re:How is it fraud?

[Stonehand]

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.

Read what you wrote....

[jsimon12]

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.

Byebye organized religion

[gosand]

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.

Re:Byebye organized religion

[karlm]

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.

Re:Christianity's truth

[SirSlud]

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!"

Is the question even meaningful?

[verloren]

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?

Definition of a religion under US law

[jbolden]

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).

Do they accept Scientology?

[Arcturax]

I mean, seriously, Scientology is no more or less fiction than Star Wars is.

Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs

[cheezedawg]

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).

Have you noticed...

[uncoveror]

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.

They Did Not Lie On Their Forms

[guttentag]

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.

Australian Officials

[Ironpoint]

If Australian officials don't like the answer they shouldn't ask the queston in the first place.

Re:How is it fraud?

[DarkZero]

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.

Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs

[spongebobsquarepants]

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.