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."

98 of 1,165 comments (clear)

  1. The Force is *retarded* with this one... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    This whole Jedi religion dreck has now officially gone too far. To those misguided simpletons out there who insist on calling themselves 'Jedi knights', I offer you this chance to prove yourselves:
    • Just build a lightsaber. A real one. That's all.

    What's that...you can't? Don't have suitable raw materials, you say?
    OK...that's fair...how about this, then:
    • Force choke me. From where you are right now. Go ahead...it's OK.

    Are you doing it? I'm not feeling anything...
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did you misplace your sense of humor today? Did a jedi hit you as a kid?

    2. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by eggz128 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did a jedi hit you as a kid?


      I think you mean "Youngling". :)
    3. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's more a rejection of conventional religion. See the review of the UKs 2000 census - according to the stats the UK has more Jedis than Jews.

    4. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Aggrazel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

    6. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by homerules · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most Christians, if not all, do not believe they are Christ. On the other hand most Jedi think they are Luke Skywalker.

    7. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by mbrewthx · · Score: 5, Funny

      I find your lack of Faith disturbing!!!

      --
      __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    8. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 3, Informative

      What Jedi ever built their own light sabre?

      All of them. It's part of their training.

    9. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A certain famous one claims to have produced fish out of thin air, and also cured paralysis and blindness amongst other unprovable, highly dubious things.

      By the way, I can't help noticing that verified religious crooks of recent centuries past have claimed to be able to perform those very things, only they were exposed as fraud.

      So for me, claiming to believe in a Jedi creed is no more ludicrous than being a Christian. Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    10. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Funny


      Riddle me this, Batman: What church claims to "transubstantiate" wine into blood and a wafer into flesh?

      (Which, by the way, make these morons cannibals.)

      Now take it down the road, moron.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    11. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jceaser · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe he failed the admission exam.

    12. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have bad logic. You say that since false prophets exist, you can't believe there were true ones.

      No, I say that there has been so many certified false prophets, and so few reasons to believe accounts of events that took place 2000 years ago (formally chronicled in writing 300 years after the facts, on top of that) that there are precious few reasons to believe the few great prophets of the past have any more credibility.

      It's like in a court of law, you can condemn someone solely on indirect evidences, if they overwhelmingly converge towards accusing the defendent. You don't necessarily have to have real evidences to form a judgement.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    13. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful
      more likely he smelled the emission exam...

      no, I actually completely agree with him. There's no such thing as the force, and there never will be :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    14. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Phillup · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    15. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know. Scientology is extremely well written. Long long time ago, space ships, nukes, zombie souls.

    16. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by maotx · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was eventually found along with Luke's arm which was then used to clone an evil Luke.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    17. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by niew · · Score: 5, Funny
      Also, watch this post be modded down promptly as a troll, which should tell you something of the power of long entrenched religions.

      ...Mod me down and I shall become more powerfull than you could ever imagine...

    18. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Guys with a talent for oration, performing magic tricks on a scene, with accomplices in wheelchairs suddenly rising up when the guy touches their foreheads and shouting "miracle", subjugating their audiences and usually asking for money at the end, are called crooks. They are called prophets by the followers, yet they're crooks. History is rife with them.

      There were also numerous madmen starting cults and preaching this and that, sometimes asking followers to commit mass suicide, or dress in plain white robes to go beg in airport terminals. Those are usually not considered prophets either, apart by their followers. They're madmen. There has been plenty of them too.

      Crooks and madmen don't go to crook-and-madmen school. They just are.

      Now, ignoring whatever faith you may have in him, based solely on a neutral reading of the scriptures, even considering most accounts of his life are paraboles and not actual fact, what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman? honestly? I can't see much difference myself, try as I might (and believe me, I tried)...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    19. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Winkhorst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."
    20. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 3, Funny

      No the real Force is with you if you are accelerating, or decelerating.

      My the second derivative of your momentum with respect to time be with you.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    21. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by jdbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      And WTF is inherently moronic (let along immoral) with cannibalism, so long as its conducted between mutually consenting adults?

      Nothing, says I!

      And my army of the undead agree with me, too!

      So don't be a bigot about something that's so clearly a matter of taste.... tasty... human... flesh... mmmmm....

    22. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 3, Funny
      Well, as long as they're not claiming to be Yoda, there's hope

      Correct you are. Yoda, there only one of is. And here among you appeared he has. Strong am I with the Force.

      (Better would it work, if more like Kermit the Frog sounded I.)

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    23. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 3, Funny
      >> The jedi religion is just as real as any other, IMO, except perhaps better written.

      >As well written as the romantic dialogue in Episodes 1,2,3? :)


      Better written than the romance in the book of Genesis...

      2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
      3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
      4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
      5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
      6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
      ...

      30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
      31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
      32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


      All that begatting and not one scene of what causes the begatting!
    24. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And if the Star Wars movies are true, then so is the Jedi Religion.

    25. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by FCAdcock · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you took them yourself, you'd know it was not some mystical "force" creating the power of those styles. Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days. The entire chi meridian system has been explained through the nervous system. Bruce Lee explained his one-inch punch's power as comming from his body's fluid motion and rapid muscle expansion rather than "chi".

      His teachings are great example of modern masters who truely understand not only THAT martial arts work, but WHY martial arts works.

      Forest C. Adcock
      3rd degree Tae Kwon Do
      4th degree Shinjukki-Jin Jitsu

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    26. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by MenTaLguY · · Score: 3, Informative

      The importance of Joseph's geneology is that it made Jesus a patrilineal descendant of David by adoption -- note that the culture of the time placed equal weight on adoptive and biological fatherhood.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    27. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      And when you think it's old and dried out, someone will start burning things with it.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    28. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by ex-geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      The texts of Paul, which are the earliest of the NT, don't contain any references to what Jesus supposedly did. Paul saw Christ only in a vision, as he claimed himself. And this was after the time-frame Jesus supposedly died. Theologians say that he wasn't interested in his earthly life.

      The numbers on the site you were refering to are way optimistic for some kind of christianity. There is evidence that one of todays gospels existed 110AD, but that's it. Even the catholic church would disagree with the figures you gave. In fact, the catholic church is much more open to historically acurate research about the NT, since they don't depend on it to be the direct and historical word of god anyway. The NT was put together by the catholic church, so it's basically their book. Since they basically claim to be god's one and only branch office on earth, the book is automatically godly, since the church produced it and everything done by the church is guided by the holy ghost.

      There used to be numerous alternative gospels which disagreed in major points. They were destroyed but some were rediscovered, or at least quoted or outlined in secondary literature.

      Alternative Gospels can be found here

      An article about the formation of the NT, based on current scholarship, by Richard Carrier (an eval atheist)

    29. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Bun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he Big Bang, quantum physics, embryology, string theory... I'd argue that they all meet the criteria for mystical phenomena.

      And you would argue out of ignorance. All of those theories are based on observation and founded in mathematics. The concept of 'chi' has no such foundation, and has not stood up to observation.

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    30. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days. The entire chi meridian system has been explained through the nervous system.

      There are several physiological theories about the meridians and points of acupressure. Nervous reflexes are one; there are others involving the electrical properties of fascia, and another involving a network of less-differentiated cells throughout the body. It's possible that different points work by different mechanisms. The explanation is far from complete.

      Most pracitioners of Chinese Medicine don't care much about trying to find a Western Medicine explanation for why acupuncture, Asian bodywork therapy, and Chinese herbs, are effective; any more than most musicians are deeply interested in the physics of sound, or the physiology of hearing.

      As for "believing" in qi, qi is not something one has to "believe" in. Qi is something that is experienced. If you get up in the morning as say "I feel full of energy today!" - you just made an observation about qi.

      "O genki desu ka?" - "How is your ki (qi)?"- is the Japanese version of "How are you?" (Specifically, "genki" is what the Chinese call "yuan" or "original" qi, a specific type.) It doesn't require a voltmeter or any objective observation to answer. :-)

      It's unfortunate that many practitioners of CM and of Asian martial arts have latched on to the idea that qi is some sort of electromagnetic like energy field. This is a misinterpretation, attempting to fit Taoist concepts of the Universe into a Platonic/Aristotelian grid.

      Like other aspects of Chinese Medicine's model of the human being, qi is best understood not by what it is but by what is does. The CM model is very much a functional, not a structural, one.

      I recommend Tad Kaptchuk's The Web That Has No Weaver to those interested in learning more.

      Bruce Lee explained his one-inch punch's power as comming from his body's fluid motion and rapid muscle expansion rather than "chi".

      The two are no more incompatible than the description of a certain sound in terms of a time-varying frequency spectrum, versus "that's an A chord played on a steel-string guitar". The former description may tell you why, when you play it through your amp, it makes your speaker buzz because of some resonance; the latter tells you how it works in the music. They're both correct.

      Forest C. Adcock 3rd degree Tae Kwon Do 4th degree Shinjukki-Jin Jitsu

      (Tom Swiss, NCCAOM Diplomate in Asian Body Therapy; Sandan, World Seido Karate Organization)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    31. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by NoMoreBS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    32. Re:The Force is *retarded* with this one... by qigong · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And you would argue out of ignorance. All of those theories are based on observation and founded in mathematics. The concept of 'chi' has no such foundation, and has not stood up to observation.

      Chinese Medicine is no less strigent of a science and based on thousands of years of observation, and trial and error, with a quarter of the world's population! It's creation was dependent on careful observation.

      But to refute your position that it has "not stood up to observation", I'll point you to 127 scientific medical publications on the topic, most of which would seem to support these theories:

      References

      I'm amused that you think a foundation of mathematics is a magic bullet; that somehow math magically makes hypotheses true. String theory is indeed based heavily on math, but it is far from achieving a conscensus in the scientific community on its "truth". In fact, there's plenty of debate on whether or not it even qualifies as science!

  2. Yeah, but what kind of Jedi is he? by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
  3. Scared by islandrain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only person who doesn't see the Jedi belief system flawed? I could only imagine the devestation to the republic if this became popular.

    --
    Peace out, homies.
  4. There is nothing to see here. by dstewart · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is not the article you are looking for.

    --
    Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
    1. Re:There is nothing to see here. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


      This isn't offtopic; it's an obscure reference to Star Wars ep. IV

      It's hardly obscure...it's probably the most heavily quoted/referenced line from episode IV.

      Don't blame the mods...they're on crack...they really can't help themselves.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:There is nothing to see here. by kisielk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hopefully she doesn't read slashdot as much as you, otherwise it will no longer be much of a surprise ;)

  5. Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by Silverlancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is not the congressman you're looking for.

    1. Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. by s20451 · · Score: 4, Funny

      At first I thought it was ridiculous to openly espouse a hokey religion invented by a science fiction hack. But then I realized, it sure helped this guy ...

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  6. Answer by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?

    Oh, but we have. Problem is... they're all Siths. And the greedy kind.

    1. Re:Answer by shut_up_man · · Score: 4, Funny

      So... the greedy kind of Sith, eh? As opposed to the kind, gentle, happy Sith who does charity work on the weekends and pats kittens?

  7. They get Jedi by MECC · · Score: 5, Funny

    "How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"

    They get Jedi, we get Sith...

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:They get Jedi by BiloxiGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please use a spell checker next time. I think what you meant to post was:

      They get Jedi, we get Shit...

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
    2. Re:They get Jedi by IcyNeko · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the Sith are there to confuse and mislead people, sometimes appearing as Jedi... So maybe our Jedi friend in parliament is really a Sith, and bush is... the master? Darth Stupidious?

    3. Re:They get Jedi by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      If we have sith, then why is our president JarJar binks?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Oy vey by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 4, Funny

    As if there wasn't enough lunacy in Parliament.

    1. Re:Oy vey by mbrewthx · · Score: 5, Funny

      A strange green man lying in a swamp handing out Lightsabers is no basis for a system of Government.
      Help!!Help!!! I'm being opressed..

      --
      __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
  9. Good for him by Richie1984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Good for him by ettlz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spot on. For those posters who don't understand, this MP isn't making a mockery of Parliament or taking the mick. He's pointing out stupidity in currently proposed legislation that would make a crime of "incitement to religious hatred". A lot of people here in the UK are quite rightly worried that this will put religions (which, let us not forget are lifestyle choices and private members' clubs) beyond questionability, and allow New Labour to cry "yoink" on yet another freedom.

    2. Re:Good for him by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
      In part, yes. The other statements by the Conservatives was that religion was ill-defined and therefore open to malicious interpretation (see virtually everything said about Scientology), and also that there were many who are pre-disposed to violence who may be antagonized by so much as a "good morning" in the wrong accent. If such people are incited to violence, who is to "blame" under this legislation?


      The thrust of John "feed my daughter BSE burgers" Selwin Gummer was that there seemed to be a lack of context. If only he'd thought of that when he was a Minister of the British Government. He, and others, also talked about how it was the actions that people often hated, not other people. The final point given was that existing laws protected Jews (because they are a culture as well as a religion) but exempted Muslims (because there is no recognized, unified concept of Muslim culture in British law).


      British politicians frequently hit on some excellent points, but just as frequently pick themselves up and carry on regardless. The new law could be modified to become workable, by tightening up on the definition of incitement to only include direct and deliberate instructions to attack (eg: the fatwah against S. Rusdie) or the direct and deliberate attempt to cause irreperable harm to another group of people, for the explicit purpose of creating hostilities.


      You notice that this is extremely specific and narrow. And so it should be. Laws should cover situations that cannot be resolved in a civilized manner by tolerence, acceptance and discussion. They should never be a substitute - which is what this law seems to be. But where things would otherwise get out of hand, there needs to be some mechanism for the authorities to step in and keep the sides apart.


      Ideally, I would throw away this bill, all blasphemy laws and all race hate laws, and simply make a generic law that protects people's rights to protest, assemble, hold a faith, do whatever they damn well feel like, with the sole limit that they cannot deliberately seek to have others come to harm in the process.


      I don't see the need to have a billion special-interest laws that cover this case or that case, when there's a single, common, underlying issue that can equally well be put in check.


      I also don't see the benefit in vagary, when the purported aim is to prevent abuse. Vague laws are one reason why the US has get-rich-quick lawsuits and only minimal order. The aim of the US legal system has been to make lawyers rich and lobbyists powerful over whoever is the selected victim group of the day.


      I absolutely hate the way that all laws in all countries define what is "wrong", but never define what is "ok". Well, that should be everything that's not prohibited, right? Well, the problem is that just about everything is prohibited by some law or other and those doing the interpreting are often the least-qualified to do so.


      (And if laws need interpreting by experts, how are average people supposed to follow them?? Remember, ignorance isn't an excuse.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Good for him by gsfprez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait a second - thats total bullshit.

      "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom."

      Hold the phone... how can it be "manifestly irrational" to criticize someone's race (and what he REALLY means is culture, not race, and we all know it) and yet NOT the same to do so when its their religion.

      I reserve the right to mock Mormons, Hindus, hip-hop artists, those who woof, wear bling-bling, thow down 24" spinners on their Escalades, Bhuddists, and all types of niggas equally. The problem becomes when people ASSUME i'm talking about skin colors. I have absolutely no issue with your race - there's nothing you can do about it...

      but i have also no issue rightfully criticizing the Mexican culture and its lack of educational discipline by bringing the US 10 million uneducated and pregnant illegal entrants...

      i can also criticize white American culture for its inane love of NASCAR as a leitimate sport, belt buckles thge size of satellte dishes, and their insessent need to overfill their homes with crap made by Chinese slave labor.

      Niether one of these makes any derrogatory comment about race... i've seen very pale skinned Mexican nationals bring 5 kids here to be clothed, fed, educated, and medicated by my tax dollars (and the money they save me in the price of lettuce doesn't come close to covering the bill, sorry), and i've met some absolutely humbling African people of tremendous stature, wisdom, and courage.

      as John Cleese said.. Race "doesntenterintoit!"

      I judge by the content of character, not on the content of skin...

      but what Rowan says means that i wouldn't get the chance to call him the pasty simpleton cracker limey that he is... and that's just not fair.

      --
      guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  10. Does Darth Hillary count? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or maybe Count Obama?

    Somehow "Master Kennedy" just doesn't have the same ring to it. And "Darth Delay" is only slightly better than "General Grievous"

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Does Darth Hillary count? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Funny


      I think Darth Frist and Lord Cheney sound good. Grand Moff Rumsfeld has a nice ring to it, too.

      -B

  11. Jamie Reed MP on theyworkforyou.com by InsomniaCity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is Jamie Reed's MP page on My Society's excellent TheyWorkForYou project.

    And here is the screen scraped debate, that you can comment on like a blog.

    --
    You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
  12. Insult! by t'mbert · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is an absolute insult to those of us who hold religious beliefs. Now the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are on par with something made up in a movie!

    1. Re:Insult! by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

      +1 Funny, use of word "Muslimism"

      Also: there's been a religion based on sci-fi books for decades.

    2. Re:Insult! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That wouldn't make it an insult to be on par with something made up for a movie. That would be something of an elevation.

      But as far as I'm concerned, ALL religion is made up and it's merely a matter of how long ago and how many people actually believe it presently that marks it as valid or invalid. As early as the age of 10, I realized that all of these other "dead religions" (AKA mythologies) were just as important to those who followed them 'back then' as contemporary religion is today.

      I amaze myself even now to wonder if a 10 year old can realize this, then surely anyone should be able to. And from that I moved on to query that since all the others are "invalid" then what makes the "valid" ones different? "Nothing" I concluded.

      In short, anyone who is religious is a fool.

      That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

    3. Re:Insult! by failure-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, a 10 year old can realize this, assuming they've not already been indoctrinated by then. When you were ten you hadn't been brainwashed by religion. If you had been you'd probably still be.

    4. Re:Insult! by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Funny

      All of which qualified for Darwin Awards.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  13. Too Much Competition Here... by OmniGeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly, the Congresscritters in the US will never go Jedi, as they're already devotees of the Book of Bokonon. This can be seen by their tendency to speak in foma, or as the rest of us call them, "reassuring lies." ;-)

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
  14. Congressional equivalent by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have to realise that the British don't take anything too seriously, especially politics and religion.

    In the US, I suspect a politician making light of religion in this way would upset a lot of people in The Bible Belt.

  15. A far more readable link... by david.given · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...is available at the TheyWorkForYou.com page.

    If you read some of the rest of the debate --- surprisingly good stuff, provided you skim it and don't get bogged down in the interminable speeches --- you'll realise that the statement was in the context of a debate on the Racial And Religious Hatred Bill, now undergoing reading for the second time. I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...

  16. Wrong Claim by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wrong Claim by geeber · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      For what it is worth, Catholics believe that the priest turns the sacramental host and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ during mass. which is not too far removed from your example.

    2. Re:Wrong Claim by phpWebber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok fine.
      Than as a Christian, prove you are _like_ Christ.

      - Treat all people no matter what their sickness or sexual conduct as God's children.
      - Suspend your criticism of other's sins unless you are without
      - Put other's well-being before your own
      - Live a life of spirituality, not wealth
      - Openly critize the leaders of your religion and texts
      - Refrain from any anger at any time except in the case when someone is profiting from your religion
      - Be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in

      Lots of people claim to be Christians. How many really are?

    3. Re:Wrong Claim by 3nd32 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is substantially more evidence for the existence of Jesus than you appear to believe. For example, the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus refer to "...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...". This is from a book written around 94 as a history of the Jews. Tacitus, a Roman historian, also supports the existence of Jesus. Neither of these people would have any incentive to introduce a fictitious character into their histories. These, among other writings, have provided scholars with convincing evidence that there was a Jewish teacher named Jesus who was executed under Pontius Pilate, and whose followers claimed he was the Messiah.

    4. Re:Wrong Claim by kasparov · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, you are wrong. Jesus himself commanded in Mathew 5:48
      "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
      And, if the Bible is to be believed, Jesus required more than "some level of niceness" to those you happen to come into contact with: Mathew 22:36-40
      36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

      This brings up something else that can be irritating about some Christians (and people of other Religious faiths)--many of them don't know anything about the religion that they claim to believe. I can respect almost anyone who is at least consistant and knowledgeable of their own beliefs. Otherwise, I am afraid I must consider them and indoctrinated fool.

      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    5. Re:Wrong Claim by pianophile · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is substantially more evidence for the existence of Jesus than you appear to believe. [...]Neither of these people would have any incentive to introduce a fictitious character into their histories.

      Yeah, but there's no scholarly consensus that the Jospehus and Tacitus texts on Jesus are authentic. Some think they are interpolations by Christians generations later, some don't. So, the texts have to accepted on faith and therefore don't settle anything. Links:

      Tacitus on Jesus
      Josephus on Jesus

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    6. Re:Wrong Claim by uberdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is also the possibility, of course, Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and not literally.

  17. Re:They Voted Him In by Angostura · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. May the Force be with nobody by pickapeppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We'll have a Jedi Senator years before we'll have an atheist one.

    1. Re:May the Force be with nobody by Gondola · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean *publicly* atheist. There are lots of intelligent people out there in Washington. I mean, who would turn down a job where you can vote in your own salary increases, and be above the laws of the plebs?

      They lie about everything else, why not lie about their religion, too?

    2. Re:May the Force be with nobody by EnglishTim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please don't confuse 'intelligent' with 'atheist'. There are many intelligent theists just as there are many stupid atheists.

      I'm an atheist.

  19. That wasn't a Christian by brownpau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fish-out-of-thin-air guy wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew.

    1. Re:That wasn't a Christian by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but he diverged enough from jewish orthodoxy in his ministry that you could say he had in actuality founded a new religion without a name, without even really knowing it. The jewish authorities rejected and opposed him for exactly that reason. The apostles took care of formalizing the split from the jewish religion, that's all.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  20. Re:They Voted Him In by D-Cypell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps he was voted in by an electorate who believes he would do a good job of representing the people regardless of his peronal beliefs (no matter how unconventional).

    Perhaps he was voted in by an electorate who are concerned about the bill outlawing 'incitement to relgious hatred' that is about to pass through the commons and runs a risk of making various forms of satire and free speech (including your post) potentially illegal.

    In any case, we now how cllr's from the BNP, I would rather see a self-proclaimed 'Jedi' in parliment than a nazi-wannabe.

  21. A little context by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, this one isn't quite as simple or as amusing as the summary makes out, I'm afraid.

    One of the live issues here in the UK at the moment is the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill that Blair is currently pushing through Parliament. This is broadly similar to the existing laws on "Incitement to Racial Hatred". The difference is that, under current laws, only Jews and Sikhs are protected, according to some interpretations. Christianity is protected separately, under some rarely (read "not in my lifetime") enforced blasphemy laws. Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway, so all the situation really needs is for existing laws to be enforced...

    Now, the reason why this is being pushed through is that the Labour party has taken a lot of flak over Iraq from the UK's Islamic community, which is normally a staunch supporter of Labour. Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat at the last general election, standing on an extremist anti-war, anti-establishment platform (which is a little ironic considering his own lifestyle). Therefore, Labour introduces this bill in an effort to get the UK Islamic community behind them again.

    Now, this leads to two problems. First of all, a lot of people, particularly commedians, notice that this has serious implications for freedom of speech. One can no longer ridicule a religion or its texts and be sure of being on safe legal ground. Now, Blair's response to this was to say that the letter of the law would not be enforced. This is obviously a pretty pathetic argument and kind of missing the whole point of "the law" (that it lets people know whether they are behaving legally or not). It also leaves the door open to all kinds of future abuses.

    The other problem is that if Blair honestly doesn't intend to see the law enforced, then he's creating a lot of false expectations among the UK Islamic community and other particularly devout religious groups. A lot of these people are expecting that, come the enactment of this, it will be illegal to say anything critical of their religion or to call any aspect of it into question. If this doesn't happen, there could be a lot of disappointment, some of it violent.

    So all in all, this story is a little more serious than it first seems.

    1. Re:A little context by Reverend528 · · Score: 3, Funny
      This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway

      What about white muslims? I can still make fun of Cat Stevens, right?

    2. Re:A little context by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, no problem.

      Biggest party in the UK at the moment is Labour. Until the 1990s, Labour was basically a socialist party. They believed in strong trade unions, nationalised industries, tax-and-spend economics and, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, nuclear disarmament. Labour was responsible for a serious crisis in the UK economy in the late 70s, with strike action bringing the UK to a virtual stand-still. On the basis of this, they were swept from Office and spent the better part of 2 decades in the political wilderness. In the 1990s, they got new leaders, first John Smith (who died after a couple of years) and then Tony Blair, who swept the old hard-left away and replaced them with a centrist, maybe centre-right "broad church" coalition. This won resounding election victories in 1997 and 2001 and a narrower, but still decisive, victory in 2005. Labour's majority in the Commons from 1997 until the 2005 election was so massive that other parties were effectively shut out of the picture altogether, with the real opposition to the government essentially being provided by dissidents within the party. This will probably change now that their majority is reduced.

      The Conservatives (often called the Tories) are the other big party in the UK political system. They're effectively the "small government" party, although this part of the message tends to get lost. Unlike US conservatives, the UK conservative party doesn't have any real religious base; they're essentially more economic than social conservatives these days. The Conservatives are basically credited with/blamed for (depending on who you ask) reversing the UK's post-Imperial economic decline/destoying the UK's working class. Margaret Thatcher, their leader throughout the 80s, basically shattered the power of the trade unions, most notably the National Union of Miners, which had previously been vastly powerful. While this was a good thing for the country economically in broad terms, and laid the foundations for the UK's current prosperity relative to the rest of Europe, it had some pretty grim social effects, particularly on the working class in the North of the country. Opinion is still *sharply* divided over whether Thatcher was a good thing or not, largely along social lines. The wheels fell off the Conservative machine in the 90s, with a series of embarrassing economic and foreign policy blunders and a damaging split in the party over their line on the European Union. This led to a shattering defeat in 1997. It's taken the Conservatives a long time to get back on their feet from this; they went through two useless leaders (William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith), then found a relatively good one in Michael Howard. Sadly, he then went and quit after losing what was effectively an unwinnable election and the current leadership contest is proving pretty damaging to the party. The party still has a strong base of support in England (where it is more popular than Labour, whose strongholds tend to be in Scotland and Wales), but the Parliamentary party haven't been able to energise this for over a decade. They'll probably manage to do better in the next elections (probably 2009), if they can pull themselves together a bit. Their fortunes are being helped in the long run by a growing frustration with the higher taxes that have crept in under Labour. Broadly speaking, the Conservatives today are low-tax and Euro-sceptic.

      The third party in the UK are the Liberal Democrats. Prior to the First World War, the Liberals were (along with the Tories) one of the two main parties. However, a series of miscalculations saw them losing this space to the newer, more aggressive Labour party. Historically, the Liberal Democrats have been "Liberal" in the classic sense of the word; low tax, small government, relaxed social policies. However, following Labour's swing to the right, the Lib Dems have essentially out-flanked them on the left. They picked up some seats on the basis of anti-war sentiment in the previous election, as they were the only major party to oppose

  22. Waddayathink.... by howardcohen · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you're doing waving your hand around like that?

    I'm a Congressman. Mind tricks don't work on me. Only money.

  23. Seriously: by Armadni+General · · Score: 4, Informative

    More people need to RTFA. No, I'm not new here, but still. Usually, people manage to get it somewhere on topic. This discussion is just completely out there.

    This member of Parliament isn't really proclaiming himself as a Jedi or anything of the sort. He's trying to make the consequences of potential legislation easier to understand.

    Basically, they're working on a bill which would make stirring up hated against members of a religion, illegal. But the bill is total crap, so much so to the point where it would make any and all religions virtually immune to criticism.

    Those of us who live in America, and are into the topic of religion, namely online discussion on forums and the like (so that's why this is on Slashdot!), often enjoy a high amount of freedom in questioning the legitimacy of Jesus, or the Muslim world's seemingly-manic obsession with demonizing Christianity, or anything else which might brand you as a heretic in that religion's home-base.

    If this bill were passed, any who enjoy that right and excercise it in public would potentially be committing an illegal act.

    Of course, in the Western world the Internet is still largely a frontier for government monitoring and regulation. It's too dynamic. In public, however, there's little doubt that any statement or action which might even remotely irritate a member of a certain religion (double points if it's a minority) would be regarded as hate-inciting and therefore illegal.

    The bottom line is, there goes another freedom! Unless this bill is stopped.

  24. But what of Middle earth?? by IcyNeko · · Score: 3, Funny

    With all these people going Jedi on us, I'm wondering how many people check their roots and realize that it is not the Jedi that they are, but Numenorians??! Why do people give up on teh Valar so easily?

  25. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative
    I don't believe you. I think Monty Python sums up such a claim quite nicely:

    "She turned me into a newt!" heads turn "I got better."

    If you can actually prove that your hand was miracuously healed, then I'm pretty sure James Randi has a million bucks waiting for you.

    But it raises a pretty big question. If Jesus did heal your wounded hand, why doesn't he heal other believers' hands? I'll wager that most burn wards in the Americas and Western Europe are populated largely by Christians, so what makes you so damn special, or is there some sort of miracle lottery?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  26. Jedi is another way to say Virgin. by infonography · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lucky for him, there are no active volcanos in the British Isles.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  27. Oh and another thing by geeber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  28. What about Scientology? by PixelSlut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:What about Scientology? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 4, Funny

      L Ron Hubbard didn't wait thousands of

      What kind of parent names her child 'L'. No wonder he came up with all those whacky ideas later in life.

      Actually, I always thought his name was "Elron"

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    2. Re:What about Scientology? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think his name was "LaFayette", which explains why he went by "Ron".

      Ah. I see. For a second, I thought his mom gave him a weird name.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    3. Re:What about Scientology? by duplo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it quite amusing that the man who dismisses all western psychology as uselss was probably a schizophrenic

  29. How long until a Congressional equivalent? by PMuse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Answer: Never. Or when the U.S. changes over to proportional representation, whichever comes first.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  30. A Jedi once bit his sister... by zrk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Jedi
    with the business end of a double-bladed lightsaber given to
    her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo Sith Lord and
    star of many ILM møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
    Sith Lord", "Gungans of Passion", "The Mani Mitichlorians of Horst Nordfink"...

  31. Re:This Moron Is My MP! by epa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope you will next time. We need people like this to stand up against any trend towards religiousity becoming part of government (as distinct from part of state) in the UK. For the many people who consider religion to be no more than fiction or, at best, mythology, those who will mock its place in parliament are to be encouraged and voted for. A

    --
    Time is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright
  32. Creationism has nothing to do with the Bible by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  33. Money Grab by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Money didn't save the Jews from the Germans, or the Russians, or the Spanish, or the French... Or any of the other peoples who turned on the Jews in order to steal their money. The real "Force" is going with the tao of the universe to survive the downturns. There the Jews have claim to some power: staying power.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  34. Re:Jesus Heals by wolfemi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't ultimately know why, but not knowing the answer does not mean that there is no answer...

    I have not been clearly miraculously healed myself...

    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?

  35. Re:Jesus Heals by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm certainly not trying to trample on anybody's particular beliefs, but if one is going to announce a miracle did occur, then I'm afraid whether they intend it or not, they are inviting people to question them.

    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.
  36. Re:Studying the Jedi. . . by boots@work · · Score: 3, Funny

    5. Do not allow attachments into your life.

    That can be fairly easily done with a Postfix header check (see other story) or MimeDefang.