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

[jhines]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Stonehand]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[N3WBI3]

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).

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Doom Ihl' Varia]

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?

Re:Separation of Church and State

[scott1853]

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.

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

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

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

Re:Separation of Church and State

[gorgon]

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

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

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Tassach]

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.

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[cpeterso]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[prismatic]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[JabberWokky]

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

Re:Separation of Church and State

[prismatic]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[macdaddy357]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[bitchx]

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

Hope that helps.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[bitchx]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[FCAdcock]

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...

Re:Separation of Church and State

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[JabberWokky]

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

False?

[The Turd Report]

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

Re:False?

[Chainsaw76]

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

Re:False?

[delcielo]

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

Re:False?

[SirSlud]

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

Re:False?

[Tablizer]

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?

Re:False?

[geekoid]

"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...

Re:False?

[sysadmn]

An artificial hand, and a superficial Han.

Re:False?

[sysadmn]

... and some bad news about Daddy.

Re:False?

[ArcadeNut]

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

That's easy!

if (!relgion)
{

//TODO: Add your code here

}

Australia has no freedom of religion?

[jsimon12]

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.

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[jat850]

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? :)

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[CommieLib]

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

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[perrin5]

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.

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[pi radians]

More like kiwi hole everyone.

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...

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[sporty]

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.

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[ethereal]

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

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[JimPooley]

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.

Re:Australia has no freedom of religion?

[vidarh]

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.

I can't blame him

[unicron]

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!

Re:I can't blame him

[geekoid]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[SN74S181]

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.'

Re:I can't blame him

[unicron]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[RevAaron]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[Sc00ter]

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"

Re:I can't blame him

[RevAaron]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[RevAaron]

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

Re:I can't blame him

[antirename]

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...

Re:I can't blame him

[RevAaron]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[Yunzil]

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. :)

Re:I can't blame him

[T.E.D.]

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?

Re:I can't blame him

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

"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.

Re:I can't blame him

[ShavenYak]

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!

Re:I can't blame him

[ShavenYak]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[RevAaron]

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.

Re:I can't blame him

[meringuoid]

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...

aussie construction projects

[Anonymous Coward]

"certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be"

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

Re:aussie construction projects

[Guppy]

"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.

Derrr..

[Anonvmous Coward]

"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.

Re:Derrr..

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Derrr..

[Anonvmous Coward]

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!!!

Re:Derrr..

[Anonvmous Coward]

"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.

Re:Derrr..

[NanoGator]

"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.

70,000 Jedi's can't be wrong...

[da3dAlus]

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.

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?

[elefantstn]

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?

Re:False information?

[paladin_tom]

Why not have a little fun?

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

Re:False information?

[Dr Caleb]

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

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

Re:False information?

[jbolden]

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.

Re:False information?

[vidarh]

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.

Re:False information?

[cheese_wallet]

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.

Re:False information?

[bmetzler]

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

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?

[RevAaron]

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.

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:False information?

[Dr Caleb]

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.

Re:False information?

[ShavenYak]

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!

Re:False information?

[plumby]

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

Re:False information?

[E-prospero]

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 %-)

Re:False information?

[vidarh]

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.

Quite SImple

[tunabomber]

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.

Re:Quite SImple

[geekoid]

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?

Re:Quite SImple

[geekoid]

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

Re:Quite SImple

[Wakko Warner]

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.

The DARK FORCE

[tanveer1979]

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 ;-)

How is it fraud?

[jsimon12]

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.

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.

Re:How is it fraud?

[gorilla]

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.

Re:How is it fraud?

[hyphz]

> 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...

Re:How is it fraud?

[shd99004]

Someone can not be a Jedi because it is FICTION.

And other religions are not? :-)

Re:How is it fraud?

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

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.

Re:How is it fraud?

[SubtleNuance]

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

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:How is it fraud?

[JimPooley]

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...

Re:How is it fraud?

[Planesdragon]

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.)

Re:How is it fraud?

[Planesdragon]

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.

They will certify the Jedi religion

[dr_dank]

when followers bring in doctors notes testifying to their "midichlorian count".

Re:They will certify the Jedi religion

[JahToasted]

"midichlorian count"

Hey that's from the New Testament. Orthodox Jedis don't believe in that shit...

Proving Intent?

[jsimon12]

(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.

Re:Question for the Aussies here...

[Xaoswolf]

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.

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).

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[RadioactivePorpoise]

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.

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[Stonehand]

...and the great theological question would be:

"Did Balrogs have wings?" ;)

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[krow]

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).

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[operagost]

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.

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[hey!]

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.

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[jbolden]

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

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[JimPooley]

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.

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[hey!]

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.

Re:Uh, what about Scientology?

[jbolden]

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

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.)

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.

Re:Read what you wrote....

[Stonehand]

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.

Re:Read what you wrote....

[John Harrison]

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.

jedi is very similar to hinduism

[cpex]

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

Re:jedi is very similar to hinduism

[imr]

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).

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

[TFloore]

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.

Re:Byebye organized religion

[efuseekay]

>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.

Re:Byebye organized religion

[at_18]

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.

Re:Byebye organized religion

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

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:Byebye organized religion

[danro]

Why turn it off?
Let him have his Darwin award ;-)

Re:Byebye organized religion

[Tom]

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.

Re:Byebye organized religion

[TFloore]

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. :)

Which flavour?

[ArcSecond]

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?

A Real Jedi Response

[Steve B]

"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.

Urban Legend

[gosand]

Snopes has listed this for almost a year.

Geek Orthodox

[Tablizer]

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.....?

Re:Geek Orthodox

[Dirtside]

Personally, I'm PresBYTErian.

Urban Legend

[rubinson]

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.

False information, real results

[Kragg]

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.

Since when were you

[Archfeld]

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 :)

False info?

[Debillitatus]

"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.

Re:Mockery of Christ

[Oajhala]

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?

How About a Jedi Temple?

[bluethundr]

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!

YUMMMM!!!!!

[Quixadhal]

Troll say, "Religion be best food!"

illegal in Austria

[quigonn]

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.

The census is irritating

[lpontiac]

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.

The fools!

[deadhammer]

If the Australian Government strikes the Jedi down, they will become more powerful than they could possibly imagine!

Exclusivity

[???]

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?

Re:Exclusivity

[karlm]

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.)

Its at least as good as anything else.....

[haplo21112]

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!

Re:Mockery of Christ

[feldsteins]

...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.

I can

[why-is-it]

"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.

Faith?

[_ph1ux_]

"Personally I find their lack of force disturbing"

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!"

Re:Mockery of Christ

[shd99004]

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.

Gonna start a Klingon Cult

[NoWhere Man]

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...

Re:Gonna start a Klingon Cult

[VikingBerserker]

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!

Re:Gonna start a Klingon Cult

[NoWhere Man]

Actually since Klingons see all humans as weak, this would include everyone.

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?

Re:Is the question even meaningful?

[GregWebb]

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.

Re:Is the question even meaningful?

[Kintanon]

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

Re:Is the question even meaningful?

[GospelHead821]

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.

Re:Is the question even meaningful?

[GospelHead821]

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.

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).

Re:Definition of a religion under US law

[IIH]

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

Re:Definition of a religion under US law

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Definition of a religion under US law

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Definition of a religion under US law

[Teancum]

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.

Re:Definition of a religion under US law

[bakes]

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?

Re:Definition of a religion under US law

[jbolden]

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 :-)

Obligatory Python quote

[carambola5]

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.

Molestation in the Jedi Church

[GuyMannDude]

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

The correct answer is...

[Rand Race]

... who gives a shit!?

Re:Funny. But I can see why they are upset.

[jbolden]

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...

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).

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

[ShavenYak]

(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?

The bastards! I do believe in the force...(nt)

[Quazion]

...no text

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.

Re:$1000

[sunking2]

The real problem is when you try to pay the fine and they throw you in jail because all you have is Republic money.

United Linux?

[Interrobang]

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

Religion?

[jfedor]

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

All religions are basically fictions

[wytcld]

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.

Re:All religions are basically fictions

[Danse]

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.

Jesus's Two Nature: Fully God, Fully Man.

[Jayson]

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.

If Hubbard can do it ...

[johnlcallaway]

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.

Re:Link no work?

[jbolden]

Interesting slashdot reformated the URL: OK I'll make it a link.

Maybe if the link gave more information.

[Jayson]

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.

polygamous mind control

[paiute]

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.

Be careful how you word that.

[Jayson]

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.

Re:Be careful how you word that.

[bovinewasteproduct]

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

Huh?

[Arandir]

"...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.

Re:Redundancy uber alles!

[Sj0]

Hail Messiah!

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.

Re:If Hubbard can do it ...

[SIGFPE]

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.

70,000?

[Daetrin]

Wow, the planet earth apparently has more Jedi by several orders of magnitude than the entire galaxy did in Attack of the Clones :)

Australian Officials

[Ironpoint]

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

Aboriginal religions, languages

[billstewart]

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.

Data Retention Rules for .au census

[billstewart]

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?

Same story as for New Zealand

[Lenbok]

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.

What were the other choices?

[HiThere]

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?).

Re:What were the other choices?

[HiThere]

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.)

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.

Not illegal in the UK

[robstah]

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

Re:Don't shoot the messenger....

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists

[JabberWokky]

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)

Making an Official Religion

[nanojath]

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?

Re:Sure Galilleo will sure agree.

[geekoid]

they did not arrest Galilleo to supress information, they arrested him for not following proper 'procedure'

Re:The U.K. recognizes Jedi

[meringuoid]

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.

Forget The Force for a minute

[phriedom]

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.

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

[uncoveror]

"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.

What about Han?

[Fred Ferrigno]

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.

Religious groups mostly not funded by gov.

[Goonie]

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.

Re:Separation of church and state unpopular?

[j_w_d]

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?

For all the people bitching about it

[hayden]

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.

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

[geekguy]

"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.

Censi suck

[psicE]

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?

Re:Real Jedis

[JohnG]

Scary thing is, that is much more believable than what Scientologists teach! :)

Sorry, I got here late...

[handsomepete]

Did somebody already make the, "This is not the census taker you are looking for. You will fine someone else" joke?

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

[tshak]

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.

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

[junkgrep]

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.

I am guilty: Where to I pay the fine?

[gnarly]

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!

Re:Sure, take my money and give it to the baptists

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Hey, Idiot

[junkgrep]

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.

Here is a list of Oz religions

[gnarly]

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)

Jedi recognised in UK

[Martin S.]

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.

Some Legends are true.

[Martin S.]

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.

closer to Taoism

[peter303]

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.

Re:Hey, Idiot

[uncoveror]

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."

Close But No Cigar

[virg_mattes]

> 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

Re:Close But No Cigar

[ShavenYak]

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.

The Case Where the Sequel *is* Better

[Proquar]

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)

Re:Truth and provability

[bovinewasteproduct]

Nevermind. I should never have taken the bait.

Just because a troll is a beliver does not make it any more a troll.

BWP

Re:Get your facts strait

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Get your facts strait

[junkgrep]

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?

Re:Get your facts strait

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Get your facts strait

[junkgrep]

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.

Re:Get your facts strait

[junkgrep]

---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.