Slashdot Mirror
Britain's First Jedi Member of Parliament
earthlingpink writes "In his maiden speech to the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Copeland, Jamie Reed MP, announced that he is a Jedi: "as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill" (the quotation is a fair way down the page; search for 'Jedi,' not surprisingly). How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?" Update: 06/29 23:15 GMT by T : Reader JE_Hoover adds a correction: "Although the previous MP for Copeland was the Hon. Member for Copeland, the current MP for Copeland is not a member of the privy council. Debretts make it all clear."
I'm glad that he's paying attention to this ridiculous bill by showing how daft the implications of it would be. Hopefully, along with Rowan Atkinson's recent attack, the bill will be defeated
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
Well, okay... But first you have to challenge any christian to turn water into wine without any special apparatus.
Most "Jedi" are simply making a statement that belief in the force is no more rational than belief in any other religion.
The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.
Not really.
It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.
The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers. If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Never confuse volume with power.
Sounds to me as if he went straight over your head. He is opposing a bill that would outlaw the the stirring up of hatred against members of a religion. That includes jedi, sith, scientologist, whatever. The bill is very loosely worded as to what could be considered stirring up hatred. "Yoda was an arsehole, it all Jedi should be done away with" might qualify.
So this is a smart guy using satire to ridicule the bill in a fairly subtle way. So yes, I suppose you could say that it does give insight into the type of people who get voted in.
And in case anyone is wondering about the obsequious thanks to Jack Cunningham in the speech, it is traditional to thank your predecessor in your first speech to the commons.
We'll have a Jedi Senator years before we'll have an atheist one.
Fish-out-of-thin-air guy wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew.
There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be
And, this is different from other religions how?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Thomas did ask for proof, yes, and he got his proof. But Jesus castigated also him for it. Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing.
Such a philosophy goes a long way towards explaining the current climate in the US.
Download my free songs!
L Ron Hubbard didn't wait thousands of years to start his psycho religion, and now that religion has half the fucktards in Hollywood dumping their money into it. With such a proven track record, why should the Jedi nerds wait thousands of years to start theirs?
This goes along with my cow manure theory of religion. When it's really fresh, it's not much good for anything. But after sufficient ripening time it does have a certain usefulness as fertilizer. And after a couple of thousand years, it's good for research into the state of the human intellect in the past.
I know, it's still just BS, Mr. Smartypants.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Please show me where it says in the bible that God caused life to appear out of nowhere. Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared. By believing in this man-invented concept of creationism, you are claiming to understand how your god did these things and how long it took him.
Your catagorical disbelief of evolution (as opposed to specific objections, like irregularities in the evidence) is not supported by the world around us, and it is not supported by the very book you claim to follow. It is illogical, irrational, extremely arrogant, and is modded flamebait for very good reason.
As for the "it's just a theory" horseshit, well, if you haven't figured out how worthless that statement is by now, you really are beyond all reason. Things like eletricity and gravity and relativity and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are all theories, and have all field very real, practical results. Evolution, too, has shown itself to be real as best it can, but no one can prove it to be absolutely, unquestionably true any more than they could prove that an electrons are real by picking one up and showing it to me.
But you go ahead and keep believing that electrons aren't real because you can't observe them directly. Just try not to get hit by a bolt of lightning...
Look, I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm really getting tired of the logic here: I don't understand it, so I will attribute it to God.
If you don't know how something happened, why is a common course of action to give credit to a god for something good happening, when it would be far easier and simpler to just admit you don't know.
I mean, really.... you don't hear many cancer victims blaming Satan for their illness, so why the other way around?
There are further problems with claims such as you state can happen. The biggest that comes to mind is that you are very careful to use sufficiently ambiguous language so that any demand for emperical testing of a miracle can be headed off. Whatever the cause of an alleged miracle, there is going to be a physical manifestation, and that manifestation ought to be measurable, but you put so much wiggle room in, and it almost seems the reason is to stave off that sort of analysis.
The second has to do with the notion of faith itself. Christians aren't the only people who claim miracles. Many adherents of other faiths also claim that their deities (or other spirits and the like) can also produce supernatural feats. Is it your view that God gives non-Christians a helping hand to, or are the only legitimate miracles those that occur to Christians?
It isn't so much that some people discount claims, but rather that in analyzing any claim, the measure ought to be how extraordinary from every day physical interactions the claim is. If you have an extraordinary claim, then you ought to be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence. No claim, not even one made by scientists, ought to be immune from this. Now, in some cases, an extraordinary claim does have extraordinary evidence, in which case skepticism must be put aside, even if only on the basis of current evidence (with the realization that further evidence may change the situation substantially).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I don't think you spent very much time thinking about this. Saying you don't believe in Chi is like you saying "I don't believe in love". If you have never experienced it, you won't believe in it, or have any hope of really understanding it. If you have experienced it, you don't need convincing.
Sure, doctors and scientists might be able to describe it in bland chemical and physical terms, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And when you do, you are missing most of the point.