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

He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand

[spun]

"These are not the dorks you are looking for."

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

[caffeinemessiah]

"These are not the dorks you are looking for."

Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".

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

[centuren]

I'm by no means even close to being so dedicated a fan, but I'm pretty sure a Jedi would remove his hood when asked to after entering a building, specifically one run by the local government. All the Jedi characters I remember were pretty polite. Also, I don't recall many complaint forms being filled out.

Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

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

[causality]

Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.

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

[Anonymous Monkey]

This strikes me as an HR employee seeing some one being a complete Idiot and deserving to get several books thrown at him, and instead thinking "I'm just going to say I'm sorry and let this whole thing go, it's not worth shouting over, even though I'm right." If more people were this mature the world would have a lot fewer needless arguments in it. Just letting things go, too bad more people don't do it.

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

[JustOK]

I saw a clown car crash once. There were bodies all over the place, laying in funny positions.

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

[pluther]

Most of the time, these things will be singular events.

Do you honestly expect this to lead to a whole bunch of Jedi trying to keep their hoods up in this place?

Sometimes the best response to a one-off like this is to just ignore it and move on. See previous post on letting things go.

Sure, the guy's religion is silly. But no sillier than any other, really.

Of course, she could have simply pointed out that nothing in the Jedi code requires one to keep their hood on at all times, and, in fact, we have counter-examples in every movie...

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

[Colonel Korn]

"These are not the dorks you are looking for."

Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".

That's precisely why it's funny. Of course no one there takes his religion seriously, but our culture forces them to act as though they do.

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

[dan828]

Not everything is a slippery slope. You never know, the HR person might just have thought it was funny.

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

[Brett Buck]

I'm by no means even close to being so dedicated a fan, but I'm pretty sure a Jedi would remove his hood when asked to after entering a building, specifically one run by the local government. All the Jedi characters I remember were pretty polite. Also, I don't recall many complaint forms being filled out.

          Why, it's almost as if they were acting like immature twerps and that Jedi is not actually a real religion.

            Brett

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

[Oyjord]

Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.

Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.

I don't have any mod points, someone give this post some credit. We Americans need to stop letting the loonies think they are on even footing with the rest of society. We're only doing ourselves a disservice. First we let the Scientologists think they are legits, then creationists, then the Tea Baggers, now Jedis? Ugh.

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

[elrous0]

I'm just surprised that a cool guy like that that would be unemployed.

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

[Obfuscant]

That's precisely why it's funny. Of course no one there takes his religion seriously, but our culture forces them to act as though they do.

Hey, if we have to take one religion created by a science fiction writer as serious, we have to take them all as serious. Of course, if Jediism had as visible a spokesman as Tom Cruise, there'd be no question.

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

[DJRumpy]

I dug deeper into the nested links and found this, so I'm updating my previous post:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/09/jedi_knights_achieve_official_recognition/

"Update

An official from the National Statistics office had called us up to complain about the story. Apparently they've been getting a load of phone calls asking if Jedi Knight is officially a religion.

This is the official line: the Census does not provide recognition to any religion in the official statistics nor does it attempt to define religion. The list that you can see by checking out the pdf file above is merely a list of possible answers that people have been known to put in the box marked religion.

As such, Jedi Knight is not officially recognised as a religion."

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

[guyminuslife]

Yes, GP is discriminating against the fantasy authors who wrote Genesis, the Quran, the Vedas...

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.

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

[timmarhy]

things like islam and christianity atleast are based on REAL historical figures and places, regardless if you believe in the religion at the very least you know there's really a place called jerusalem and there really was a john the bapist etc. jediism is abased on a fucking movie, there is no chance that any of it is real.

the only similarity between them i can see is the first chapters often contridict the later chapters.

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

[AthanasiusKircher]

Most religions don't adhere that closely to their sacred texts. They 'interpret' them to mean something quite different, which changes over time. [...] Compare, for example, "On the seventh day, God rested." -> "Everyone has to take a day off once every seven days."

Umm... try Exodus 20:8-11 --

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work--you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

or Exodus 23:12 --

For six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey may have relief, and your home-born slave and the resident alien may be refreshed.

or Exodus 31:14-15 --

You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.

or Deuteronomy 5:13-14 --

For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work--you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.

etc.

I don't think these passages require much "interpretation" to get to the idea that everyone needs to take a day off every seventh day... do you? Sounds pretty darn explicit to me.

ha

[hanabal]

Neeeeerrrrrrrrdddd

We Todd Dead

[Ambiguous Coward]

Unbelievably stupid indeed. I see Jedis take off their hoods all the time in the movies. Why can't he? The only force-user who's adamant about keeping his hood on is the Emperor, in which case you'd best throw this guy down a shaft now and save us all a lot of trouble.

Re:We Todd Dead

[mister_playboy]

It could be worse... they could have been Scientologists rather than Jedi.

Re:We Todd Dead

[delinear]

Not to mention the Emperor already has a job, so he'd be unlikely to be in the job centre in the first place.

Re:We Todd Dead

[elrous0]

Yeah, I bet he really embarrasses his girlfriend at the theater.

Oh, wait.

Wave your hand and say:

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not the unbelievably stupid asshole you are looking for.

This belongs in IDLE.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of having an Idle section if you never use it?

Re:This belongs in IDLE.

[Anonymous Coward]

To allow the Idle section to remain idle?

Re:This belongs in IDLE.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because sampenzus knows that 99.9% of people block idle so he posts his stories in the other sections to get page views.

Re:This belongs in IDLE.

[ShadowRangerRIT]

That explains the Xbox coffin story immediately prior to this one. But Taco posted this story, not samzenpus.

Re:This belongs in IDLE.

[JustOK]

I heard that it was supposed to be a section honouring Eric Idle.

Re:This belongs in IDLE.

[idontgno]

That's just an idle rumor.

Fuck exceptions for religion

[Ma8thew]

For some reason in the UK we have exceptions for certain laws if you are a member of a religion. For instance, if you are a Sikh you are allowed to use a motorbike without a helmet since you have a turban in the way (although to be honest, in that case your violation doesn't harm anyone else). In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them. As the gentleman in the article has demonstrated this is extremely silly. Who defines what a religion is?

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[Kenja]

What defines a religion.

If you do crazy stuff by yourself, its because your insane. If you get another person to do it as well, its because its a religion and is now worthy of respect and special treatment.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[Hatta]

Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[ircmaxell]

Who defines what a religion is?

That's the key point here. Just because something is believed by many doesn't make it absolutely correct (well, in terms of everyone else anyway)... I mean which sounds more absurd, that there's an omnipresent being in the sky that knows all and watches over everyone (not to mention that the being "punishes" wrong doers), or that all life is connected by a inherent quality that connects every living being? You say "Who defines what a religion is"... I say "Who defines what a religion isn't"...

Religion started as a way to explain the unexplainable (Nature, Life, Death, etc), and in doing so implemented a moral backbone. Every major organized religion (I'm assuming major, I've yet to find any one that doesn't) attempts to qualify both aspects. They explain the hereto unexplainable, and they do provide a basis for moral life (typically through consequences in the afterlife, if one exits in said religion)... So what defines a religion then? Does it need to be organized (and a 503c organization) to be considered a religion? Or does it just need to be a set of beliefs that a person follows? I personally don't believe in any organized religion. But I do have my own beliefs about it. Does that mean I shouldn't be exempted from a law that violates my belief (For example, I believe that helmet laws are immoral. If someone wants to take the risk, let them) because it's not organized? Once we as a world can get our heads around that concept (that a religion is a set of ideas, and not something you are a "member" of), the world will be a lot better of a place...

IMHO at least...

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[Ralish]

An excellent point, and one I'd hope others pick up on, especially the media. This isn't stupid because he's a Jedi, because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none). This is stupid because it demonstrates the absurd double standard the law grants religion. The issue is people getting hang-ups over the fact he's a "Jedi" rather than analyzing the broader legal implications of the scenario that was played out.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[jimbobborg]

Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[DriedClexler]

How is that a "more outrageous exception"? Groups formed to promote value system X will prefer people who also like X. An aerospace company will prefer people who are "really into" aviation over people who see it as "just another job". Where's the pity party for people turned down in these cases?

Even accepting that this group should be legally barred from discrimination, what makes it a "more outrageous" case? Oh no -- they're allowed to not hire you where ... um, everyone will hate you anyway. Next, Mosques will be allowed to prohibit Christians from leading services!

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[clone53421]

No non-profit organizations in the United States have to pay taxes.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[MoonBuggy]

I don't think Jedi was even included as an option by the organisers, it was a write in response. That said, it was given an official designation when the census was processed (recognising it as a 'common response' without explicitly stating that it is a valid religious choice).

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but churches are for-prophet organizations...

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:Fuck exceptions for religion

[pluther]

In fact, they don't even have to file to be treated as tax exempt.

Holy crap!

I was about to post to say you were full of shit on this one, so went to the IRS site to get a reference, and it turns out you're right.

"Religious organizations" still have to do all the paperwork that regular non-profits do, but there's a special exemption for "churches" that waive all these requirements. They don't even have to pay the $150 a year that we have to.

The IRS has a handy summary Q&A explaining how it works.

They have to obey certain rules, such as they're not allowed to transfer Church property to private individuals for less than market value (but nothing prohibits the church from owning a private jet that's used solely by Pat Robertson, for example).

Also, the church is prohibited from spending a "substantial part of its activity" in attempting to influence legislation, nor may it interfere in political campaigns. Of course, these rules are blatantly violated by large churches all the time.

There's even special rules for churches limiting the IRS's authority to audit them.

Damn.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[clone53421]

You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it.

You sound bitter...

That is exactly how it was intended to be, and we like it that way. Thanks.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[Hatta]

This country was founded mostly by deists, aka atheists with a philosophical bent.

As for your pithy statement at the end, the 1st amendment states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. A law giving money to faith based organizations is definitely respecting an establishment of religion. It's that simple.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[JustOK]

> So true.

WTF do you think this is, Twitter?

If you can't add to the conversation, just STFU, OK? Don't be polluting the page with "I agree"s and "So tragic"s and shit like that.

You! Over there, with the seven digit ID. Yes you! This means you too.

True, 'dat.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[SanityInAnarchy]

So yeah, you're being an asshole.

this country was FOUNDED, by christians....

Wow, read a history book. (Or maybe not, given the revisionism that's happening in Texas...)

The founding fathers were Deists at best, and a few were likely atheists. Google "Jefferson's Bible" for an education -- or maybe note that Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

And even if it were true, where's the relevance? They had the balls to start a state which was never intended to be a Christian nation, but rather, was intended to keep religion the fuck out of politics. That was a huge part of the great American experiment, and what makes this country so great. You, sir, are an unpatriotic bigot.

we are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.....

Bullshit. That's a slogan concocted by people with a specifically anti-atheistic bent, who are ignorant of the sheer variety of religions that exist. Buddhism and Taoism are "freedom from religion" in every sense that matters to you people -- there are sects without dogma, and there certainly aren't any gods to pray to, that you hope will save you in the afterlife.

Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, or it descends into absurdity like this -- unless you're OK with your tax dollars going to the Church of Scientology, or the Church of the FSM, or just maybe, to a new order of Jedi.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[Toze]

1) I think even Jefferson would object to being called an "atheist with a philosophical bent." Deism != atheism. He professed a belief in a God of some type, though he disagreed with most of the core theologies of Christianity. Washington, whether he was a deist or a Christian, was certainly not an atheist.

2) Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means. The early Americans were eager to avoid a state church, such as Anglicanism, not to avoid churches. The issue was not, for them, that "religious people" might unduly affect the political process, but that the government not require adherence to a particular church. The word "establishment" in "establishment of religion" is a verb, not a noun; they were concerned about not creating (establishing) a state religion, not fighting "the establishment." Also, "respecting" is like "regarding" or "concerning," not "being nice to." They didn't want to ensure that respect was never paid to any religion, but that the government not dictate what people could and could not believe. Point is, it's about not forcing people to adhere to one faith, not about treating any/all faiths or lack thereof execrably.

Apologies if you knew all that, but your post made it seem like you were saying "the government shouldn't make decisions based on a positive attitude toward the established (Christian) religion," which I think is an incorrect reading on all counts.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion

[inerlogic]

no, the whole point of the establishment clause is the government can't say "the official religion of the United States of America is southern baptist and whoever disagrees with southern baptist teachings is going to be put to death"

the government can't pick favorites, you're absolutely correct...

but the government can (and does) support every established religion (tax exempt status)

personally i find evangelical christians distasteful... if i found radical Islamists less distasteful i'd move to Iran... luckily i can deal with those who disagree with me, as long as i have the freedom to believe what i believe... and in THIS country, i do....

name 5 others where that's possible...

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?

Chuch of Highlander

[Mekkah]

Does this mean I can carry a sword too!?

Re:Chuch of Highlander

[Whalou]

The Church of Highlander can only have one member.

What BS!

[Chris Burke]

Since when do Jedi have to wear hoodies with the hood up? There are numerous points in the movies where Jedi do not wear their hoods up, and numerous occasions where they even wearing a garment that has a hood at all. Clearly, mandatory hoodies is not one of the precepts of Jediism as it existed in the Galactic Republic/Empire.

This reminds me of all the rituals and requirements Catholics make up that was never mentioned in the Bible. But at least they can point at a section in the Bible that can be read to say that the church leaders are allowed to make this stuff up.. As far as I know, not only is there no such statement in Star Wars, Lucas is quite serious about restricting who is allowed to expand upon Star Wars. Is there some Expanded Universe novel in which the Hoodie Requirement is created?

So dude, I mean Mr. Jedi, put your hood down. You don't need it up to be a Jedi. Insisting on putting it up isn't holding fast to your religion, it's playing dress-up.

Re:What BS!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if his boss checked the Jedi Church's web site, it would have been clear that this guy was full of BS. Quote, "The Jedi church has no official doctrine or scripture." In other words, the Jedi Church does not require its members to wear hoods. This guy is taking a satirical jab at organized religion a bit too far. Here's a link to the Jedi Church's page about doctrine.

http://www.jedichurch.org/jedi-doctrine.html

Re:What BS!

[Fractal Dice]

And thus began the great jedi schism of 2010, when hoodie fundemenatalists were cast out of the light of the one true force and were forced to found a new order referred to derisively as "the dark side".

In my books, if you can have people this upset over doctrine, you are indeed qualified to call yourself a religion.

He would also have a legitmate complaint in the US

[Locke2005]

Under the ADA, discrimination against retards is unlawful here too!

A little extreme?

[filesiteguy]

I generally hire staff that have an affinity for Star Wars - and at least one replica lightsaber. I also have systems named JEDI (Joint Enterprise Document Ifrastructre) and YODA (Your Online Document Archive) but do not insist on Jedi robes.

As it is, the guy was wearing a hoodie, not a Jedi robe.

Seems a bit extreme.

Might not be PC, but...

[Trip6]

...Jediism carries the same credibility as other religions directly based on science fiction stories. Just ask Tom Cruise.

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?

Which Jedi religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he's Western Reformed Jedi instead of Eastern Orthodox Jedi.

Re:Which Jedi religion?

[natehoy]

Funny, he doesn't look Jediish.

(with apologies to Mel Brooks)

He needs to go back to Jedi school.

[dwiget001]

Had he been a real Jedi, he would have just waved his hand and said "You don't have to remove your hood", to which security would have said "You don't have to remove your hood" and waved him on through.

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

[bigdavex]

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.

Why does a special exception for freedom in the context of religion serve this purpose better than freedom just 'cuz? In other words, if the freedom is good in the religious context why is it not good in another context?

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:Theologian here

[syousef]

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.

...and you're extremely biased.

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.

Nope. Bzzt. Wrong. We are talking about exceptions to the law that everyone else must abide by due to your religion. We are not talking about being told what you may or may not believe.

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.

You certainly don't need religion to express unpopular views or beliefs. I don't think your argument is terribly logical.

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.

Now you're being dishonest. Religion in general and churches in particular are responsible for setting science back centuries or even millennia. If you held an unpopular view as defined by the state religion you could be excommunicated, tortured, killed. The Galileo incident is the standard one brought up but it is tip of the iceberg and had other political components (You don't call those in power simpletons!!!)

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.

No it doesn't. It grants groups special privileges based on irrational views. You haven't demonstrated your point AT ALL.

And This Is What's Wrong With The UK Today....

[pandrijeczko]

... people like me who have to work for a living in order to pay taxes so that shirkers like him can stay on the dole indefinitely without needing to make any effort to make themselves good prospects for employment.

Personally, I'd stop his unemployment benefit there and then because he's quite clearly not using it as stop-gap while he seriously looks for work... and wasting the time of Job Centre staff when there are more deserving people out there who are *DESPERATE* to get a job.

Sometimes I despair at people these days...