Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination

An anonymous reader writes "Chris Jarvis, 31, is described as a Star Wars fan and member of the International Church of Jediism. Said church's intergalactic hoodie uniform is at odds with the strict doctrine of the Department for Work and Pensions, which may require Jobcentre 'customers' to remove crash helmets or hoods for 'security reasons.' Following his ejection, Jarvis filled out a complaint form and within three days got a written apology from branch boss Wendy Flewers. She said: 'We are committed to provide a customer service which embraces diversity and respects customers' religion.'"

Comments

Re:Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods

[Monkeedude1212]

Yoda has a hood on his robe in most of the Prequel Star Wars movies.

Luke uses one when he first Enters Jaba's palace in Return of the Jedi.

Just about each of them so far, Sith and Jedi Alike have worn hooded robes at one point or another.

Oh - that gives me an Idea. Can I create a Sith Religion and start a legal Crusade against the Jedi?

Theologian here

[Fished]

My first choice for career was theology, and I have a Ph.D. in New Testament. So I've given this a bit of thought.

The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold. That's all very well and good when you happen to agree with the religious and cultural perspectives of the state--for example, from the sound of your posts, you seem to hold to "liberal democracy" (in the technical sense, not the pundit sense.) But what happens when George W. Bush takes over and he and the Republicans from the Bible Belt start defining what's acceptable religious belief?

The problem is that government doesn't have a very good record for being able to pick the side of the angels (anymore than religion does.) However, allowing freedom of religion--allowing religious groups the freedom to have mixed services, or women in the pulpit, or roller-skating as a religious service, or damned near anything so long as you can make some sort of argument that it serves a religious function--becomes the place where unpopular viewpoints can be expressed. It's worth remembering that all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches, at a time when these views were very unpopular.

So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose. Yes, it's good for religious people (although I might argue how good it really is... religions tend to thrive on persecution.) But it's also good for society as a whole. Simply put, kill religious freedom is like eating your seed-corn.

Re:Theologian here

[amplt1337]

all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches

Umm... sorry, no. The Civil Rights Movement in the US was nurtured in churches, because that was the community that existed among African-Americans. But beyond that... the Rights of Man were championed in (fiercely anti-clerical) Revolutionary France. Civil Liberty was at least as much championed by deists/quasi-atheists, or secular liberals like JS Mill. Universal suffrage (do you mean of men? or race-blind universal male suffrage? and in which country?) had both religious and non-religious sides, but churches were certainly not at the forefront of supporting female suffrage in the US. (There was a strong religious abolitionist movement, as well as a non-religious one, and I suppose you might be right about that in terms of colorblind suffrage).

But humanism generally was not a belief endorsed by churches; the Papacy made use of humanist scholars of course, but also subjected some of them to Inquisition, and Luther didn't exactly go around encouraging Germans to learn Ciceronian Latin...

The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.

I... suppose. I would prefer a state that makes minimal rules over arbitrary social practices, but then does not make exceptions to them solely on the grounds of religious belief. Not that there aren't plenty of relics of religious belief in, say, American public life (we wouldn't need an exception for Quakers if we didn't insist that people swear before God for public functions, etc.)

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What defines a religion.

To paraphrase Thomas Wolfe:
"A religion is a cult with political power".

The modern mantra of "separation of church and state" has lead some to the erroneous conclusion that religions exist entirely in the private sphere and have no interaction with the public and especially political one. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Religions are inherently political institutions who will at all times strive to commandeer the powers of the state in enforcing their religious views. I'm not attempting to be controversial here. This kind of church-state interaction goes back to the early days of the Roman empire and before. Separation of church and state only puts limits on the level of official political status a church can have. It doesn't make their political status go away though.

The "Jedi" religion does not attempt to court political influence, and as such is only a cult, not a religion. By contrast, the Sikh religion is very politically influential in many areas of Britian via voting blocks etc, and so are able to obtain exemptions on motorcycle helmets and ceremonial knifes and so forth.

Religions are inherantly political institutions and modern society would be a lot better off it it came to terms with this fact rather than pretending it had somehow gone away.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand

[causality]

Well until the next idiot and the next idiot and so on come along and try to pull the same stunt. Sometimes it's best to just nip it in the bud before it blows up and you have tons of assholes trying to make up excuses for why they should be above a rule that everyone else but them has to follow.

Thank you. For a while there, I was reading the comments thinking, "I can't be the only person here who can recognize a precedent when one is being set." As it is, businesses are already too eager to accommodate melodramatic and otherwise unreasonable people in the hopes that such people will spend money. The effect on society is that being unreasonable, childish, and unable to understand viewpoints other than your own is behavior that has been repeatedly validated. When everyone knows this is the case, everyone feels free to be unreasonable. There should be a difference between "treat them with courtesy, respect, and benefit of doubt" and "kiss their ass no matter what," and everyone benefits from higher-quality interaction when there is.

It's also like the nuisance lawsuits that are without merit, but companies often settle them out-of-court because the cost of the settlement is less than the cost to defend themselves in court. If immediate short-term planning is the only kind of which you are capable, this sounds like the best way to cut your losses. If you can think a little more long-term, you can see that the legions of people who knowingly file lawsuits that have little or no merit are doing it because they are counting on the company to settle just to make them go away. They look at previous cases where this happened and are encouraged.

I am not saying that corporations should start caring about their effects on society more than money, because that's unfortunately unrealistic. I am saying that their shallow, short-term selfishness could be replaced with enlightened self-interest. They'd realize that accommodating pathological behavior is not in their interests, that it only creates more of it, and that discouraging it during its early stages before it takes off and becomes a widespread trend is the most cost-effective approach available. They'd ultimately sustain fewer losses this way, and therefore would make more money.

That's the situation you have here. I have no doubt that other members of other, equally questionable "religions" are watching this, and that what they feel they can or cannot get away with is going to be strongly influenced by what happens here. I also don't doubt that there is a non-zero cost to companies to have their HR staff deal with this and that more incidents means more of this cost. Failing to discourage it early on makes it more likely to wind up in a courtroom with all the extra expenses that entails, not to mention the bad PR of a "religious discrimination" lawsuit.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[inerlogic]

Franklin also invented the glass harmonica which was banned due to it's demonic sounds and he flew kites in lightning storms and was a patron of every whorehouse in France... you can't take one quote out of context and use it as the basis of an entire argument... well.. maybe YOU can because you're a fucking moron... as i'll show next...

Buddhism and Taoism aren't systems of beliefs? really? honestly?

re·li·gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8.
Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

"sects without dogma... blah blah"

Dogma is "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle." (go buy a dictionary, put the iPhone down you sheep)

"we don't believe anything!"

that in itself is a belief....

a great philosopher once said "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

my tax dollars go to wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, public welfare programs, social security and were GREATLY wasted affording YOU a public education which you clearly gained NOTHING from.... what's the difference between my tax dollars going to all of those things i may or may not believe in, and my tax dollars going to support the Church of the FSM? here's a hint, there is none...

now i'm going to crack one of my economics text books... the government doesn't PRODUCE ANYTHING, the government doesn't GENERATE anything.... it is a sink.... and the government will tax us on anything and everything it can... why? because that's how it acquires the capital to keep itself in power.

the question you are TOTALLY MISSING (as the mindless sheep you are)

is WHY WOULD YOU GIVE ANY OF YOUR "tax dollars" TO THE GOVERNMENT?

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American, I spend a lot of time reading posts like yours, and wonder why you people consider yourself so much better than us when you drive your own opinions on stereotypes and extreme cases. Then I remember you aren't any better, you just think you are, and I feel okay.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand

[DrgnDancer]

Ok, let's accept for a moment the premise that Jediism is a valid religion. Let's further accept for the moment that a tenant of this religion requires you to dress like it's Halloween. Why does he have to leave his hood up? Jedi appear in every episode of the Star Wars movies, most if not all of the books, and numerous comics, games and other media. The *most* that has ever been said of them is that they *usually* wear robes. It's not a requirement of the order for them to do so, they often wear practical clothes or uniforms when appropriate, but they *usually* wear robes. Of all the various incarnations of Star Wars I've consumed, I'd estimate that the Jedi are wearing hooded robes with the hoods up less than 5% of the time.

This sounds suspiciously like the post I read on a Wiccan forum once. It was from a non-pagan squad leader in the Army, curious about athames. It seems that a member of his squad was insisting that carrying around a non-regulation knife was a part of his Wiccan religion; and to not permit him to do so would be a violation of his religious freedom. The squad leader was sympathetic to the soldier's religion, but thought this sounded far fetched. We calmly explained that while knives are certainly a part of Wiccan Ceremony, they do not need to be carried at all times, their absence can be worked around, and they certainly do not *need* to be 12 inch long Gothic daggers.

I'm all for Alternative Religions. I'm a member of an Alternative Religion. Alternative Religion does not mean you just get to claim that everything you want to do is part of your religion.