"Jedi" Religion Most Popular Alternative Faith In England

Census numbers show that 176,632 people in England and Wales ask themselves, "What would Yoda do?" Although the number of people who list their religion as "Jedi" has dropped by more than 50% in the past 10 years, It remains the most popular "alternative" faith in England. From the article: "The new figures reveal that the lightsabre-wielding disciples are only behind Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in the popularity stakes, excluding non-religious people and people who did not answer."

Comments

Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Artea]

Regardless of your actual faith, why wouldn't you choose this option?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[narcc]

emacs? Really? Why not just go full-tween and call yourself a wiccan?

vi will still be here when you've out-grown that phase.

We'll be praying for you.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Phrogman]

As someone who has been at least nominally Wiccan for the past 30 years, I suspect your only exposure to Wiccans has been the teenage angst-filled dressed like a goth crowd. There are others out there who don't fill the stereotype who are otherwise normal people. We blend in.

Just sayin'

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Spad]

It's an empty text field on the census, to avoid the toss-up between "You didn't list my religion" and "Please turn to page 9,126 for question two".

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Patch86]

There was a write-in option ("other, please specify"), and this was the most popular write-in.

Far more interesting to me is that Christianity declined to less than 60% of the population, while No Religion almost doubled to get around 25%. That's a massive attitude shift for a 10 year period. Really brings into question why we have a state religion- although I suspect the figures will have to sink even lower before we can use census data as an excuse to separate church and state.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Sir_Sri]

because

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.

The sith should not need to hide in the shadows pretending to be jedi any longer.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Sir_Sri]

Because getting rid of the state religion, and the state relationship with the church of england would be problematic. It's not that it can't or won't be done, but there's quite a lot of legal effort involved in the powers of parliament vs the sovereign vs the church as an independent entity.

In some respects it's the same reason why none of the countries have actually settled the legal inheritance issue of if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a daughter and then a son (just a daughter, or multiple daughters doesn't require any rewrite), because it's not that we can't sort this out. But it's a lot of legal paperwork that can be deferred 50 or 60 years if they never have a son after a daughter.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[mr_jrt]

Because getting rid of the state religion, and the state relationship with the church of england would be problematic. It's not that it can't or won't be done, but there's quite a lot of legal effort involved in the powers of parliament vs the sovereign vs the church as an independent entity.

In some respects it's the same reason why none of the countries have actually settled the legal inheritance issue of if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a daughter and then a son (just a daughter, or multiple daughters doesn't require any rewrite), because it's not that we can't sort this out. But it's a lot of legal paperwork that can be deferred 50 or 60 years if they never have a son after a daughter.

I was under the impression that they sorted this out very recently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20600543

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention who don't like to fuck with those irritating poll takers? I had a friend that every time was asked about religion on what of those stupid things would put down "The Church Of The SubGenius" and I have switched back and forth between the FSM and since George Carlin passed I list "The Great Electron" because of that bit he did on religion.

So who wouldn't think it was funny to list themselves as Jedi if that were an option? After all this IS the same country that gave birth to The Ministry of Silly Walks.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[JasterBobaMereel]

Census also showed there were : 56,620 Paganists, 39,061 Spiritualists, 2,418 Scientologists and 20,288 Jainists ...and 4 million who did not put any religion ....

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[tehcyder]

Regardless of your actual faith, why wouldn't you choose this option?

Because you're not a childish twat?

If you want to make a protest about being asked to choose a religion, do it properly. Just write atheist or agnostic, according to your view of things.

Saying "Jedi" is probably funny if you're a backward fourteen year old, but then you wouldn't be doing the census in the first place. I find it hard to believe that adults would do this sober.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Peter Bortas]

People always lie or play around with surveys. Statisticians know about this and know how to model around it.

Why can't the Jedi people have their invisible friend(s)? It's based on a derivation of the Jesus myth which in turn is based on earlier god-myths. I don't see why this particular derivation would be less valid.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Anonymous Coward]

it is an entirely fictional belief system.

So
Like all the other belief systems then.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[icebraining]

Atheist and agnostic are not religions.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Anonymous Coward]

explain to me how other religions are not an "entirely fictional belief system"?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Thiez]

> The census is supposed to be an accurate snapshot of the state of Britain, if people lie on it, they should be prosecuted.

For what crime? Governments have no business demanding to know a persons religion, and people have no obligation to report their religion to their government. Besides, the 'jedi' option is counted as 'no religion' by the ONS, which is probably accurate in the vast majority of cases, so the statistics are not meaningfully affected.

> You cannot be a Jedi as it is an entirely fictional belief system.

As opposed to other religions? Let's not go there (but if you do, please start with scientology).

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rich_hudds]

We drink a lot more than Americans.

A lot of people would have had a few drinks before they got around to filling in the census form.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[narcc]

You cannot be a Jedi as it is an entirely fictional belief system.

I didn't realize there was a way to evaluate a religion to determine its validity as a religion...

I suppose we could use the "from my ass" method for data acquisition and apply an "internet forum consensus" procedure. That's a pretty popular approach.

The alternative, I suppose, is to use the gestapo tactics you'd necessarily need to employ to assess the accuracy of census participants responses (for purposes of identifying the liars so that they may be prosecuted) to see if any of alleged Jedi are practicing. Unfortunately, that's not enough to guarantee that they're lying as they might accept the orthodoxy but not the orthopraxy. On the other hand, once you've tossed out civil liberties, why would you care about a bunch of false convictions?

Maybe you're just out to capture all the Jedi? Is lying on the census treason? Is that still a capital offense?

Wait, are you actually out to inefficiently kill all the Jedi?

Damn, you Sith are tricky bastards!

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[FatLittleMonkey]

If you want to make a protest about being asked to choose a religion, do it properly. Just write atheist or agnostic,

But that's not a protest, if the person is non-religious, then that's merely a statement of fact and/or uncertainty. Writing "Jedi", or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or some other gag faith is a much stronger protest, because it mocks the very idea of religion as something special, something society should make special allowances for (tax exemptions, special schools, fawning faux-respect from public figures). And it always prompts someone complain, "You can't be Jedi/FSM/etc! That's just something someone made up!" so you can smugly reply, "Yes, they're all made up!" (As happened with "tehcyder", above.)

Writing "agnostic" is like shrugging and mumbling "i dunno", writing "Jedi" is shouting "Because fuck you! (also I like Star Wars)"

I find it hard to believe that adults would do this sober

Is there a rule that you can't get high on census night? (170,000 in a population of 50m actually seems pretty mild.)

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[FatLittleMonkey]

Your comment implies that you think you've set some kind of clever rhetorical trap. I'm mildly curious what the punchline is, so...

A-theist: Not religious.
A-gnostic: Lacking knowledge of god(s).

Okay, trap sprung, ow m' leg. Now what?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[inamorty]

An atheist is someone what hates christmas.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Duds]

Because census results are aggregated and by putting ANY region you're increasing government funding for pro-religion programs.

You might think it's a joke but you're basically voting for your taxes to be used for brainwashing kids.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Thiez]

I do not dispute that such statistics can be useful in a variety of situations, I just disagree (a lot) with tehcyder, who suggests failing to provide accurate information should be a crime.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[icebraining]

An atheist is a not(theist); someone who not(believes in deities). The person may or may not be religious, but atheism itself is not a religion, since it contains no belief system.

Agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of deities is unknown and/or unknowable. The person may or may not be atheist and/or religious.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Inda]

And this is the reason why we shouldn't be ticking the box that says "Jedi" or "Church of the FSM", as would have been my choice. I know it's fun, and some people may truely feel it is their faith, but "No religion" should have been ticked. And we were actively told not to write Pastafarian in the box by the FSM himself (honest!).

The Christian church in England gets tax breaks, six unelected members in the House of Lords, and all manner of other allowances. It's about time these allowances were reduced in line with population percentages, with a goal of reducing them to zero as the decline of Christianity increases.

R'amen.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[somersault]

...and 4 million who did not put any religion ....

Thank God for that!

Wait. Well, you know what I mean..

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Vanders]

The census is supposed to be an accurate snapshot of the state of Britain, if people lie on it, they should be prosecuted.

Does that include all the people who insist on putting "Church of England" but haven't been inside a church their entire adult life and don't even know if they were ever baptised?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Yvanhoe]

Really brings into question why we have a state religion

To crown sovereigns and to decide on royal divorces without interference from a foreign power. This is really the only reason. I don't see England getting rid of state religion without getting rid of the monarchy. However, in practice, UK is a secular state. The state religion is not forced to anyone, it is more a mere folklore than a real endorsement by all the government officials.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[smittyoneeach]

(all (hail (the (power (of (emacs (name (let (vi's (prostate (fall)))))))))))

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[smittyoneeach]

viccans can go see ed.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[19061969]

Quoth: "The Christian church in England gets tax breaks, six unelected members in the House of Lords"

Umm, how many elected members are there in the House of Lords? I'm just curious why there's a qualifier?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fremsley471]

Folklore is an exemplary way of looking at it. Also, the bishops in the Lords are usually left-wing intellectuals, rather than taking the role of conservative demagogues. We therefore don't really care/notice them.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fremsley471]

I think this partly accounts for the big drop. These people are dying. Your age, occupation and religion were your credentials. My late mother insisted I filled in her online census as a Christian, having never attended a service in my adult life. Even up to her death bed, God, Christ, saints, whoever, were never mentioned, no prayers undertaken, nor was there felt a need for them. But she was happy to be labelled a Christian, as that was her view of what respectable people were.

These generations are vanishing and the new default is agnostic. Brits have always had problems with the overly religious (see Mayflower).

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[coofercat]

I put myself down as Jedi in the 2000 census. However, I won't do it again, because the pesky Government looks at the stats and says "X% of people in the UK are religious, so we can open more faith schools". The fact that those faith schools cater for a minority of the total population is neither here nor there, they do it anyway.

I'll put "Jedi" on trivial things (ie. not many), but not on the census anymore.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rgbatduke]

The truly enlightened pagen worships jove. Full emacs needs to go on a diet, and vi, well, let's just say that they spell it e-VI-l for a reason...

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rgbatduke]

And therefore celebrates Newtonmas instead. Or possibly Crimbus. Keep your winterbush trimmed and wet, because Winterman cometh!

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[robthebloke]

Because for years we've been trying to remove the influence of the church from parliament, like you know, those 18 unelected male bishops that sit in the house of lords. Putting Jedi down in the census before last was all well and funny, but this time around people were asked to put 'atheist'. The idea being that if the majority of the country were atheist, politicians would have a hard time defending the churches unelected role in our country. So yes, putting 'Jedi' was funny ten years ago, but this time around those people are just being dicks.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[dkleinsc]

Some atheists do have a belief system, namely that a complete understanding of the universe can be discovered by scientific inquiry given sufficient resources, time, and intelligence. That's definitely a different sort of belief system than thinking there's an invisible man with 10 things he doesn't want you to do, but it is a proposition that this variety of atheist has no proof of and accepts on faith.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[mrsquid0]

Joyous Solstice and a Peaceful Perihelion.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rgbatduke]

Do you have any hard evidence of that? A survey, perhaps? I mean, Americans drink a lot. This is a possible explanation for why England apparently has only 2148 Scientologists while the US has over 25,000 (still). I suspect that it is absolutely impossible to become a Scientologist if you're both sane and sober. Of course, this could just reflect the prevalence of mental illness in both countries instead.

The good news is that -- according to ARIS, the US religious census last conducted in 2008 -- Scientology is seriously on the wane (as are most of the lesser Christian denominations and some of the major ones) to the point where in only one or two decades more it could completely disappear. More good news from ARIS is that a full 15% of Americans are atheist/agnostic and another 5% are "don't know" (which translates into agnostic, question answered by somebody who sadly doesn't know what the word means) and another 5% or so on top of that are non-scriptural deists who believe in a non-personal higher power but not any sort of personal god associated with an organized religion. And this still doesn't include the Buddhists (where Buddhism is not a religion, it is an atheistic philosophy and ethical practice that fulfills many of the same social rituals as a religion).

That makes a whopping one American in four who does not buy into any of the scripture-based antique mythologies, with Christianity down from 90% or so of the population several decades ago to 70% today (and falling!).

The survey goes further. Even among those that formally identify as being Christian, many no longer attend any sort of church or participate in any of the primary religious rituals; a substantial fraction don't even plan to have a religious funeral should they die. It is difficult to assess this accurately, as people do not always tell the truth about this sort of thing when they perceive of something being an "accepted" social norm (as "being Christian" has been in America for a very long time) but it is quite plausible that another 10 to 20% of the US population that are nominally Christian are really socially Christian but have little to no actual belief in the Christian creed, do not attend Church or do so only very rarely or to attend weddings or funerals, and (perhaps most importantly) do not give money to a Church. I haven't read the breakdown by age, but I suspect that young people who have been taught critical thinking are failing to enter their parents' religion and over time, the older members of the Churches are dying off unreplaced.

The survey strongly suggests that many of the church denominations are more or less in crisis. Since they are funded by donations, a decline in membership cuts off the funds required to sustain the top-level infrastructure and leadership that gives the denomination its named identity. As numbers drop below critical values in various communities, they can no longer sustain or support a priest or minister and a church. Christianity in the US is heading for a financial crisis due to declining membership that could wipe out a number of smaller denominations or lead to some sort of consolidation, and the numbers of non-religious Americans is already large enough that it is no longer impossible or risky to openly acknowledge that one is atheist (although it is sadly still probably political suicide to do so).

I do feel for you in England, though. Having a national religion is a clear violation of established human rights (and this isn't being smug or superior -- having "In God We Trust" on US currency is also a clear violation of established human rights). It makes us no better than countries seeking to establish Sharia and entrench Islam as a state religion. Religions should receive no tax advantages and no special treatment whatsoever by any government; if anything, governments should continue to aggressively teach critical thinking so that belief in antique mythologies continues its well-deserved slide into oblivion. But then,

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Regardless of your actual faith, why wouldn't you choose this option?

Heretics will never know the Beer Volcano that He has prepared for us in His Noodly Paradise.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[camperdave]

The axial tilt of the planet (giving us a solstice) is in no way related to the perihelion (closest point to the Sun of the Earth's orbit). The solstice will happen on 21-Dec-2012, and the next perihelion will happen on 05-Jan-2013.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If a comparison between the US and the UK is anything to go by, having a relatively feckless state church to provide service with the same care and attention as your average monopoly telco might actually have been a very sensible move... The US left religion to a dynamic private sector and just look at all the talented, competitive, marketing-savvy complete and utter nutjobs we have to put up with...

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Oh; but without the lovely patina of legitimacy that age lends to even the most childish iron-age bullshit...

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Are they allowed to open any flavor of 'faith school' that they want, based on the overall number of non-atheists? Shouldn't an uptick in Jedi require them to open more Jedi Academies, rather than more of some other denomination's preferred facility?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[JohnSearle]

As a Jedi, I prefer the term "thank Disney."

Seriously, though... does Disney own the copyright to this "religion," then? Can you actually copyright a religion, or is it protected in some manner?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[icebraining]

Yes, but there are many atheists who don't have that belief, and there can be some theists who do (some religions don't consider their deities to be inscrutable like the Abrahamic ones). It's just a belief system that is often - for obvious reasons - correlated with atheism.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If you want to make a protest about being asked to choose a religion, do it properly. Just write atheist or agnostic, according to your view of things.

If memory serves, the protest was about which religions got to be on the choices list. The 'Jedi' were drumming up enough write-ins for something no stupider than the options already on the list in order to protest the incumbency-based listing.

It's analogous to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's role in the US creationism-in-schools fight. Obviously, nobody actually wants children to be told that biology involves a Flying Spaghetti Monster creating trees and midgets with his noodly appendage; but it was a useful way to highlight the absurdity of the fact that bizarre nonsense with the advantages of incumbency was at serious risk of being taught as science, while equally bizarre nonsense without that benefit would never even be considered.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[heathen_01]

Life peers are effectively elected.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[mrsquid0]

Exactly. The Peaceful Perihelion is for people who do not want to be bound to the western calendar.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[coofercat]

Yeah, you might think that. Apparently not though. What it means is "open more Catholic and CoE schools, with a peppering of Muslim schools so we can be seen to accommodate minorities". I'd love to see a Jedi school though - you can bet all the kids would want to go there ;-)

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[RMingin]

"Only Sith deal in absolutes."

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Crosshair84]

Incorrect. Agnosticism is not a religion because a person professing it is simply claiming that they don't know if god exists or not.

Atheism however IS a religion. It is a religion based on the POSITIVE belief that there is no god and then forms a belief system around this foundational belief. Just like how Christianity holds to the belief that god does exist and has revealed himself to humanity by the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth.

There is a VERY good practical reason for why Atheists deny that their religion is a religion and that is the separation of church and state. Atheists in many avenues would be thrown out on their ear if the public made the proper association. Just one example is in the issue of Darwinism. Leaving aside the issue of intelligent design, people like Eugenie Scott go around the country to places were teachers are simply showing the evidence AND the objections to Darwins theory. Even if they make NO mention of intelligent design, simply point out facts that science has discovered that we simply don't know the answer to, the Atheist Inquisition comes down upon them. The scopes trial has been turned on its head, it used to be that you couldn't teach Darwinism, now you can't teach anything BUT Darwinism and only the evidence in favor. Sorry, that's not science, that's Atheistic religious dogma. Eugenie Scott and her ilk would be throw out next to the 6 day creationist if not for the public's ignorance. (This is starting to slowly change.) Mainstream Christianity is comparable with Darwins view being true or false as we have other evidence and arguments that are not affected by it, but Darwinism being false is fatal to Atheism. (Actually, quite a bit of modern science is fatal to Atheism, but that doesn't seem to stop them any more than it stops the 6 day creationists.)

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Golddess]

Can you actually copyright a religion

Sure, just look at scientology.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[AmiMoJo]

There is a bit more urgency with Church/state separation though. We need to get them out of the House of Lords ASAP, for example, as it is an affront to democracy and non-Christians.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rich_hudds]

Yes we drink a lot more than America. There's a breakdown by countries here.

No need to feel sorry for us. We may have an established church but the only reason we have it is because disestablishing it would take up a lot of time in parliament and there are always other things more pressing. It really doesn't breach our human rights trust me.

The census results are misleading. I know from speaking to friends and family that people identify themselves on the form as 'Christian' purely because they think that's what white British people are.

There is a debate over her about the wording of the question and it is likely to be changed as no one actually believes that only 25% of people are not religious.

To put it in context for you it is believed that only 10% of the UK population attend some sort of church. The figure in the USA is 43%.

For a politician to invoke God would be seen as deeply weird over here. The opposite seems to be the case in the USA where you almost have to say you believe to get elected. Tony Blair's (who is a true believer, an oddity in British politics) press officer famously stated that 'we don't do God' to make sure that Tony never said anything about his beliefs.

Again with the monarchy, the main reason we have it is that we have always had it. Getting rid of it comes up every now and then but there is no real enthusiasm for republicanism. The monarchy have no power so what's the point in worrying about it? They also mean we don't have to have an elected head of state which saves us a lot of time over worrying which self serving charlatan we should have.

I mean if we had a vote to scrap the monarchy I'd probably vote in favour but meh I'm really not fussed.

If you want to feel sorry for someone feel sorry for yourself. I'd be particularly upset about plea bargaining. I mean you took our justice system, the best in the world, and then ruined it. People pleading guilty when they're not to escape long sentences in your barbaric prisons. You also lock up more people than anywhere else in the world.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[icebraining]

No. People who don't hold any proposition regarding the existence of god to be true are still atheists.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[tenco]

If you don't follow the laws and rules of a country, you have three choices: go to jail, fuck off and live somewhere else or change the laws and rules.

FTFY.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[icebraining]

Agnosticism is not a religion because a person professing it is simply claiming that they don't know if god exists or not.

Atheism however IS a religion. It is a religion based on the POSITIVE belief that there is no god

No. Agnosticism is related to whether we can or not have knowledge of god's existence. You can believe in god without professing knowledge about its existence (it's called faith), and then you're an agnostic theist.

You can, on the other hand, just simply not believe in god, but not claim you know it exists. Those are the agnostic atheists.

They're related but not different values on the same scale.

The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.

        If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist â" an agnostic-atheist â" an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[jez9999]

Also, the bishops in the Lords are usually left-wing intellectuals

The ones that argue against abortion and euthanasia because God wouldn't like it?

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[icebraining]

Atheism IS the belief system there is not god. Otherwise you would be agnostic.

False dilemma: one can be both.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Sir_Sri]

That is the stated intent. It has not actually been enshrined in law. Doing so is mostly a political hot potato, because it gives republicans something to complain about.

Again, if it turns out to be an issue the 15 realms in question will have to get off their arses and do something, but I'm sure they have other things they'd rather argue over. I picked the example specifically because everyone agrees the law should be changed, people are just lazy about actually doing it.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Sir_Sri]

Lords reform is already on the books. It's also extremely complicated, because right now the church of england is compelled to make it's properties available for any citizen (weddings marriages etc.) whether the church wants to go along with it or not. If they are made independent it will require a lot of lawyer hours to sort out just what will happen to existing contracts and future rules etc. There is also the issue of the leadership of the church, the sovereign acting separately as head of a church of england could pass church laws that are not consistent with the views of parliament. That's a constitutional nightmare waiting to happen.

as it is an affront to democracy

the UK has been quite successful for the better part of 900 years being a half step to democracy and a half step toward the legal rule by people who will just buy power anyway. Changing that seems counter productive. You don't want to end up like the united states.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[AmiMoJo]

It's also extremely complicated, because right now the church of england is compelled to make it's properties available for any citizen (weddings marriages etc.) whether the church wants to go along with it or not.

Unless they are gay.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rgbatduke]

No arguments. I fully agree we have plenty of splinters in our own eyes. And without the monarchy, what would the tabloids do? I don't know that plea bargaining is the problem you make it out to be, but there are plenty of other problems that are so who cares?

The sad thing is that in both our countries there is a huge gap between people who profess to be Christian and those that actually practice some aspect of Christianity e.g. attend church. 70% in the US profess to be Christian currently -- way down from previous years, but still well short of 43%. In the US this matters, because it misrepresents the political leverage of the religious right. But that too is changing, slowly. Give it a few more decades...

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[narcc]

No trap. That's why I wrote "It's not a trick question".

I was hoping someone would point out the difference between knowledge and belief -- a distinction that's often missed by the average internet atheist, leading to some hilariously misinformed comments. (One of my favorites is the "lack of belief in any gods" vs "believe that no gods exist" schtick. That one's funny because they're clearly trying really hard, yet failing so absolutely.) I'm not usually one for schadenfreude, but that particular crowd has spread so much misinformation about science and related topics that I can't help but enjoy seeing them flail.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[DaveGod]

Far more interesting to me is that Christianity declined to less than 60% of the population, while No Religion almost doubled to get around 25%. That's a massive attitude shift for a 10 year period. Really brings into question why we have a state religion- although I suspect the figures will have to sink even lower before we can use census data as an excuse to separate church and state.

I expect the reality is less dramatic than the statistic. 10 years ago I just ticked the "Christian" box figuring that's what I should tick because I'd been christened, last time I just ticked the other one. I haven't changed my attitudes or behaviour in any meaningful way with respect to my religion (or lack thereof).

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[mcgrew]

Buddhism is not a religion, it is an atheistic philosophy and ethical practice that fulfills many of the same social rituals as a religion

Not athiestic, polytheistic. I spent a year in Thailand while in the USAF and knew a LOT of Bhuddists. They burn incense to various gods, and have ornate little "spirit houses" outside their homes so the spirits will inhabit the beautiful little spirit houses and not their homes.

Even among those that formally identify as being Christian, many no longer attend any sort of church or participate in any of the primary religious rituals

There have been long stretches of time, sometimes years, when i didn't atten church. Usually it's when the pastor of a church I'm going to says something incredibly stupid and wrong, like "God hates fags" or prays for President Bush to have continued wisdom (actually happened), which is like praying for the ocean to have continued dryness.

A Christian doesn't NEED a church. Any Christian can perform a baptism or communion. Christ himself said "whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I will be there."

t is quite plausible that another 10 to 20% of the US population that are nominally Christian are really socially Christian but have little to no actual belief in the Christian creed, do not attend Church or do so only very rarely

Sadly, there are people who attend church weekly who are like this. I know one woman who calls herself a Catholic but unabashedly states that she doesn't believe God exists.

Christianity in the US is heading for a financial crisis due to declining membership that could wipe out a number of smaller denominations or lead to some sort of consolidation

Christianity itself isn't declining, but the various denominations are. The church I attend (a very large, rich church) is nondenominational. I think the reason for this is that many denominations have beliefs that aren't really backed up by scripture, such as the Mormons and Southern Baptists who think drinking is a sin, despite the fact that Jesus was a drinker.

having "In God We Trust" on US currency is also a clear violation of established human rights

I'd say it's also unconstitutional.

It makes us no better than countries seeking to establish Sharia and entrench Islam as a state religion.

Well, that's pushing it a little I'd say, to the point of hyperbole. When some TV preacher or politician says "the US' laws are based on the bible" I say "then why is pot against the law but adultery is perfectly legal?" If the US were truly a Christian nation, there would be no poverty in the US.

As to critical thinking, once God has shown himself to you, no amount of critical thinking is going to make you not believe. Elephants are pretty unbelievable untill you've gone to the zoo. If it weren't for people actually knowing God, religion would have died out centuries ago.

You will never find a hidden thing that you don't believe in.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Patch86]

It's an interesting thought. But do remember that Elizabeth Windsor is not just the Queen of England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. She is also the Queen of Australia (no official religion, formal separation of church and state), Canada (no official religion, formal separation of church and state), New Zealand (no official religion, formal separation of church and state), and all the other Commonwealth states (I'm not going to look up all of them, but you get the idea).

There are also degrees of separation. I would feel much happier if the Church of England didn't get free seats in parliament for their bishops, for example (especially since they've just reaffirmed their ban on women bishops, and opposition to gay rights). If they wanted to keep the bit where they put the hat on new kings and queens, I'm happy for them to carry on there.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Patch86]

If you want to make a protest about being asked to choose a religion, do it properly. Just write atheist or agnostic, according to your view of things.

Not to nitpick (as I agree with you), but there would be no need to use the write-in option for this- a "No Religion" option was provided right there in the list.

It was (and is- there's always next time, kids!) important to tick No Religion if that's what you are- not Christian "because I was baptised, I think", or Jewish "because my mum is", or anything else. These figures are used to make important decisions- such as opening state-funded faith schools, or tax subsidies for churches. If you want your view to be heard, as a non-religious person, then you've got to make your presence known properly.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[fremsley471]

Can't think of any controversies involving CoE bishops and abortion? Euthanasia's still illegal, so they can have any view they care.

They neither vote nor speak as a bloc and draw little comment. My recall of their speeches are when they take successive govts. to task over poverty and such. They realise their unelected selves shouldn't be in the upper house. Rocking the boat too much will only send them back to leading coffee mornings in the largest churches quicker than is probable.

It's a hell of an anachronism; think the UK is the only democracy in the world with churchmen in its apparatus.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rgbatduke]

Not athiestic, polytheistic. I spent a year in Thailand while in the USAF and knew a LOT of Bhuddists. They burn incense to various gods, and have ornate little "spirit houses" outside their homes so the spirits will inhabit the beautiful little spirit houses and not their homes.

Since Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy, one can certainly incorporate the religion into other spiritual or religious practice. Hinduism, for example, just made the Buddha into an avatar of Vishnu (and hence a bona-fide Hindu god). Thai Buddhism is derived from this branch of the family tree. In China and Tibet it often was mixed with Taoism or various forms of spiritualism, giving rise to e.g. Zen and still other flavors. In a similar way, Quakerism is sufficiently broad that there actually exist atheistic Quakers and Buddhist Quakers. However, the words of Buddha himself, to the extent that one believes that e.g. the Pali Canons preserve them, do not teach of God or Gods, but rather the contrary:

http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

To put it more literally, Buddha argued that believing in Gods is not useful. It is pointless. Even if they exist it is pointless, because they too are bound the the wheel and must seek enlightenment, and then, there is no evidence that they exist. To the spiritually enlightened in Hinduism and Buddhism alike, the gods are viewed as metaphors, as crutches to aid human understanding by personifying traits both desirable and undesirable. A perhaps better summary is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

which also explains the minor differences between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, where Theravada is more abstract and less religious. Buddhist "devotion" should not be confused with theism, and Buddha explicitly stated that he was not a God and that the entire idea of God is a distraction from the path to Enlightenment. Of course, Jesus explicitly stated in the New Testament that he wasn't God as well, but look how well that worked.

People want to believe that the Universe is personal, not impersonal. They want to believe that there is a point to it all. They want to believe in cosmic/divine justice, because there ain't no justice here on Earth in any living being's actual life. They will invent Gods or deify innocent philosophers given half a chance, if that's the only way they can have them.

This is not clearly presented even by Buddhists. They often prefer to present Buddhism as "non-theistic" but not atheistic without recognizing that "non" is the literal meaning of the "a" in atheistic. They also often present atheists as people who assert that they can prove that there is no such thing as God. Neither of these is true. Atheists don't assert that there definitely is no God. They assert that there is no good reason to think that there is. On a really good day, a really famous atheist like David Hume might go so far as to logically prove that there never can be good reason to think that there is, any more than some finite observation can prove the existence of something infinite. Buddha asserted both that there is no good reason to believe in a God, and furthermore, that worrying or arguing about it is equally pointless, establishing himself as both an atheist and a reasoner who anticipated Hume's argument 2100 years earlier.

A Christian doesn't NEED a church. Any Christian can perform a baptism or communion. Christ himself said "whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I will be there."

Depending, of course, on what kind of Christian you are. Christianity isn't a religion -- it is many. We could also go down a list of what Christ is supposed to have said -- For example: "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[DrVxD]

I'm an agnostic atheist - I have no idea what I don't believe in.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[DrVxD]

We drink a lot more than Americans.

Mostly because we have access to much better beer. Oh, and we can have a drink without turning into an alcoholic.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Sir_Sri]

I believe they can decline to perform a ceremony, but cannot prevent renting of the venue.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Patch86]

Incorrect:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20688479

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[mcgrew]

First, let's invite Jesus to show himself to me, like he promised he would do, when asked nicely. Usually I ask for Jesus to show up in my den where I'm typing this reply, would that do? OK, I just issued the invitation yet again, let's see if it works!

What a taunting "invitation". You say "come over to my house and watch the game" then leave the door locked, the knocker gone and the doorbell disconnected because you're sure your invitee won't show.

I'd strongly suggest that you get your cognitive priorities straight, with observation first, beliefs afterwards.

As I've said before, I believe because God has revealed himself to me.

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone acted as Jesus taught. No more war, no more poverty, no more hate.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[rgbatduke]

What a taunting "invitation". You say "come over to my house and watch the game" then leave the door locked, the knocker gone and the doorbell disconnected because you're sure your invitee won't show.

Piffle. How can you lock the door on God? You have inflated Jesus in your mind into some sort of arrogant bastard, to help reduce the cognitive dissonance caused by the unsolvable problem of theodicy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy ...in case you haven't worked through it. None of the proposed "solutions" are at all logical or appealing, and they are infinitely less appealing with the hell meme, which makes God infinitely unjust for punishing a finite offense committed by a flawed character for an eternity.

No, I'm merely assuming for the sake of the argument that you are correct, that Jesus is real, but I'm insisting on applying the exact same rules I used to determine the reality of everything else to verify that. You have a vague feeling in your mind and say "Aha, Jesus!" I insist on rather more. My mind is certainly capable of generating a feeling of Jesus, or Ganesh, or Buddha, or The Great Spirit watching over me, because my mind is complex, far more than just my interior dialogue or current focus of attention. So is yours. As I'm married, I'm perfectly aware that my mind is capable of synthesizing entire fantasies and substituting them for a memory of reality (if you are married, I'm sure your wife or husband has successfully demonstrated this to you as well). When I teach, I often say one thing but my hand writes something else at the board. Who wrote that? Jesus? Satan? Or is my brain just more complex than what's going on in my verbal centers and sometimes confused, sometimes feeding garbage from one part into the sensory channels of another?

Also, why do I even need to ask? Why does anyone? If you believe that the contents of the Bible are factually correct -- God knows how you possibly could, given the vast collection of internal contradictions and contradictions with simple known facts, but if -- then you agree that Jesus revealed himself to certain people "in person". Saul/Paul was my example, but according to SPaul "hundreds of others, some of whom are now asleep" (dead). Spaul wasn't inviting Jesus at all; nor was he taunting. He simply thought that Jesus was yet another false messiah and that Jews that thought otherwise were blasphemers, which is not, actually, an unreasonable proposition given the straight up beliefs of Judaism at that time. In persecuting them, he was simply following the rules laid down in the Old Testament for dealing with blasphemy and idolatry.

One has to assume that SPaul would have gone to hell had Jesus not intervened, completely uninvited, personally. One has to assume that nearly everybody on Earth will end up in hell if Jesus doesn't intervene, uninvited, personally since it is still the case that 2 out of 3 people living are not even nominally Christian (and one has to assume, as you seem to agree, that many of those that claim to be Christian on a sheet are not, although that's a No True Scotsman logical fallacy for anyone to assert about anyone else). So here I am, surely no worse thatn SPaul on the road to Damascus. As I've pointed out, probably better -- I hardly ever persecute anybody but undergraduates who are flunking my course. My disbelief in Jesus is utterly reasonable and completely honest disbelief, just as your belief is completely unreasonable as you've never actually seen Jesus, touched Jesus, or had any of the usual sensory experiences associated with things that are actually objectively real (forgive me for speaking for you here, but you know this is true -- you've never shared a glass of wine with Jesus in the real world and chatted about theodicy to see how God explains the solution to the problem).

I believe -- mostly -- in the laptop I'm typing

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[Grumbleduke]

In most places you can't copy an idea, merely the expression of it. So they'd potentially own the various copyrights in the religious texts/works (the films, the books and so on). There is some debate as to whether or not a single word can be covered by copyright, in theory, yes, in practice, probably not, particularly in this case as "Jedi" is merely one word used in a film (so not really a substantial part of the work). Trade marks* might be an option, but infringement is harder to show.

A quick check shows that the following trade marks are registered:

- A community trade mark (EU-wide) for "JEDI" owned by Lucasfilm (covering classes 09; interactive entertainment software etc., 16; user manuals, and 28; games and playthings);

- A community trade mark for "JEDI POWER BATTLES" owned by Lucasfilm (for classes 09 and 16);

They also have trade marks for "Yoda, the Jedi Master" and "Jedi Power Battles" in the UK only. I think the former is due to an advertising campaign for Vodafone which they've licensed it to.

Re:Survey with "Jedi" option available

[balaband]

One word: celibacy

Although amusing

[pkthunders]

I see nothing wrong with this. Now, if they get control of the republican Senate, then there might be a problem...

Re:Although amusing

[r33per]

if they get control of the republican Senate, then there might be a problem...

Thank heavens we're still a constitutional monarchy!

Re:Although amusing

[siddesu]

Isn't the Senate Democratic now?

Re:Although amusing

[devleopard]

Maybe not, but I'm thinking poster was referring to the Galactic Republic Senate (or at least I hope so)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Galactic_Senate

Re:Although amusing

[sco08y]

"Isn't the Senate Democratic now?"

The Republicans effectively control the Senate and will continue to do so until either of the following happens: 1. The Democrats have 60 Senators (excluding Blue Dog Democrats) or 2. The filibuster is reformed to require actual filibustering instead of the mere threat of filibustering.

You can't filibuster a budget resolution, only a simple majority is required. That's the big lie the Dems keep pushing to avoid taking responsibility for not passing a budget. They don't want to pass one because if they do, they either have to take responsibility for the ballooning deficit *or* for cutting handouts to their constituencies.

Re:Although amusing

[pkthunders]

Then I pray for the Jedi to return.

Re:Although amusing

[pkthunders]

It was a Star Wars reference...

Re:Although amusing

[siddesu]

Then it was the Reaganite Senate, not the Republican.

Re:Although amusing

[pkthunders]

Wookiepedia says otherwise. Not really that much of a Star Wars buff myself, but...

Re:Although amusing

[siddesu]

What is this wookipedia, some new kind of sexual perversion?

Jedi is a title.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same as putting down 'Samurai' as a religion? Maybe they should put Jedi Order.

Wow... I geeked all over the place...

I for one

[gagol]

Believe in the giant spaghetti monster.

Re:I for one

[rolfwind]

Giant?! Heretic! True believers only believe in the FLYING Spaghetti Monster!

We must engage in battle, for I will not let this blasphemy stand!

Re:I for one

[similar_name]

That's nonsense. It's the flying spaghetti monster. You heathen.

Re:I for one

[gagol]

who said I was talking about pastafarian religion, cannot I have my own silly thing? Spaghetti cannot fly, but it can be made giant!

Re:I for one

[gagol]

Convert to megastafarianism or die!

Re:I for one

[stms]

Why can't we just agree that the universe is ruled by some kind of pasta and coexist peacefully.

Re:I for one

[MightyMartian]

Who invited the Unitarian?

Re:I for one

[drkim]

Why can't we just agree that the universe is ruled by some kind of pasta and coexist peacefully.

...because, silly twit, the purpose of religion is to start violent arguments and wars.

Anyone violently disagree? Good! You are a true believer...

Re:I for one

[Woek]

Made my day..
Where are modpoints when you need them?

Re:I for one

[rgbatduke]

Or, note that giant or not, the semolinic deity in question is hurtling through space, hence flying. Also that any flying noodly mass capable of creating a Universe must, in fact, be giant. Pastafarianism is therefore identical to megastafarianism in all ways that matter, provided only that they share the same general beliefs about the finer points of the faith -- in particular about pirates.

So Arrr, mateys! Do ya now, or do ya not accept as yer true creed and faith that global warming was caused by the decline in piracy from the golden age of piracy (which took place, by no coincidence at all, very close to the peak of the Little Ice Age) to the present, with pasta-scorching heat only recently being narrowly averted by the heroism of pirate clans in Somalia and the Carribean and the South Pacific (who are clearly responsible for the recent flat interval in the lower troposphere temperatures)?

If not, yer no no true worshipper, touched by His Noodly Appendage. Ye probably are subgenius heretics who consider J. R. "Bob" Dobbs to be the human avatar of Fettucini and Meat Balls, served with a white sauce. But beware, a pot of boiling, slightly salted water awaits those who reject the smallest caper...

Re:I for one

[Jason Levine]

Oh sure. Focus on the pasta and ignore those of us who believe in the Flying Pizza Monster.

Personally, I've been thinking of converting to the religion of the Munching Cookie Monster.

Re:I for one

[DrVxD]

I'd moderate this "+10 - owes me a new keyboard!"

Re:I for one

[r33per]

Why can't we just agree that the universe is ruled by some kind of pasta and coexist peacefully.

Pizza the Hutt!

Anerisian Heresy!

[m.shenhav]

All Hail Discordia!

Re:Anerisian Heresy!

[magic maverick]

Ah, Eris? Why use Latin when you can use Greek?

Re:Anerisian Heresy!

[hawkinspeter]

How many Discordians does it take to change a light bulb?

Re:Anerisian Heresy!

[dkleinsc]

How many Discordians does it take to change a light bulb?

Depends on the sect. In some cases, 17 or 23. In my personal offshoot branch, the answer is a kumquat.

Cue The Whack-Job Zealots Masquerading...

[kosty]

... as "Concerned Parents" in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Cue The Whack-Job Zealots Masquerading...

[kosty]

Make that: "Concerned Parents." There. Fixed that for... me.

Re:Cue The Whack-Job Zealots Masquerading...

[Vanders]

Whack job zealots? This is the UK. Most people quietly giggled at this, then went and did something more interesting, like Christmas shopping or the pub.

The only people who'll pretend to be outraged by this will be the Daily Mail, and we'll all giggle at them when someone makes a joke about them on Have I Got News For You.

So it's the number one "Made Up" religion

[Grayhand]

By "Made Up" I'm talking religions that came to be in modern times as in post industrial revolution. This puts it ahead of Scientology and Mormonism. Also one of my personal favorites, Jehovah Witness. I am surprised it passed up Pastafarianism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster definitely makes as much sense as Scientology or Mormonism.

Re:So it's the number one "Made Up" religion

[agm]

No, the number one "made up" religion is Christianity.

Re:So it's the number one "Made Up" religion

[SternisheFan]

.And it turns out that THE one true religion is.... Mormon! Yes, it turns out that eternal life and salvation is only for those of you who picked Mormon, and Heaven is basically some guys walking around in polyester suits. I'm so sorry to everyone who picked another religion, but thanks for playing "You Bet Your Soul".

George Carlin on religion: When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy shit !

http://rense.com/general69/obj.htm

How many are "Sith"?

[ShanghaiBill]

I don't worry about the people who consider themselves Jedi. But we really should be keeping an eye on the people that choose "Sith".

Re:How many are "Sith"?

[tehcyder]

I don't worry about the people who consider themselves Jedi.

Indeed, I suppose it's a testament to how liberal the UK is that we allow mentally ill people to complete the census too.

Re:How many are "Sith"?

[ratbag]

Reading through all the comments here, you (tehcyder) seem to be popping up quite a lot. Do you have a beef with:

• humour: whilst it's merely chuckleworthy, rather than laugh-out-loud, it really is funny, both for the individual concerned and for us lot looking at the figures;
• the Jedi faith: this would be illogical and suggest that you possibly were mentally ill (see item above - it's a joke);
• all faiths other than "the one true faith": I get the feeling, call it a hunch, that you're a believer. Possibly one who's aggrieved that "your" faith has reduced in popularity over the last ten years. Possibly even blaming people who put "Jedi" down as their religion for the drop in adherents to your faith.
• all of the above
• none of the above

I've been there, done that, in terms of being a believer, and I think I recognise the signs of someone being just a little bit defensive: "how liberal the UK is", rather than "how enlightened, sure of itself and diverse the UK is" is a bit of a giveaway. Sorry if I've misjudged you, etc., but it would have been me posting verbatim what you've been doing, in the dim and distant past.

Good opportunity

[Tea-Bone of Brooklyn]

Disney needs to build some Jedi Temples in the UK.

Re:Good opportunity

[pep939]

Please don't remind us that one must now associate Star Wars with Disney. It makes me feel funny.

Re:Good opportunity

[gagol]

That is probably the main reason for the decline in Jedi followers.

Re:Good opportunity

[Sulphur]

Please don't remind us that one must now associate Star Wars with Disney. It makes me feel funny.

There is a disturbance in the Force : A giant mouse and another, a Mini mouse.

--

Is it Goofy yet?

Re:Good opportunity

[Tastecicles]

talking mutant... whateverthefuck Jar Jar is...

Re:Good opportunity

[clickety6]

Apparently the main reason for decline in British Jedi followers is the current midi-chlorian shortage in the UK.

Re:Good opportunity

[tehcyder]

Please don't remind us that one must now associate Star Wars with Disney. It makes me feel funny.

Star Wars has always been on the same cultural level as Disney, i.e. very popular, sentimental, technically accomplished, childishly political, soulless trash.

Re:Good opportunity

[robthebloke]

Digby says he'll bite your head off unless you start you start worshipping your new oversized disney dog overlords!

Disregard last...

[kosty]

Disregard last... [Yeah, yeah, yeah... Shut the f$ck up, already.] Was trying to stick ol' U+2122 -- Trademark Symbol -- to the end of "Concerned Parents." Didn't work out too well...

Re:Disregard last...

[kosty]

Amateur.

Re:Soooo...

[turbidostato]

Yes, and even then, they dropped by 50%.

It's me, or the redaction looks quite Monty Python-esque?

-The most popular religion is Jedi cult.
-Hummm... no; Christianity is.
-Well, the Jedi cult is the most popular after Christianity.
-Hummm... no; Islam is.
-Well, the Jedi cult is the most popular after Christianity and Islam.
-Hummm... no; Hinduism is.
-Well, the Jedi cult is the most popular after Christianity and Islam and Sikhism.
-Hummm... no; Judaism is.
-Well, the Jedi cult is the most popular after Christianity and Islam and Sikhism and Judaism.
-Hummm... no; Buddhism is.
-Well, the Jedi cult is the most popular after Christianity and Islam and Sikhism and Judaism and Buddhism.
-Hummm... yes.
-A-HA!

Kopimism

[CanEHdian]

I guess Kopimism still has a long way to go in the UK...

Light-sabre wielding?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it's just the Knights who are lightsaber wielding and the rest of us shared a belief in the Force as a common thread. If I not I needs to get me a lightsaber!

Alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

In New Zealand, Jedi is the second most popular religion overall.

Re:Alternative?

[fremsley471]

Why would they be mentally ill? It's a meta-joke about organised religion, thousands of people chare it and participate in it. It shows that their humanity is leavened with a lovely dose of wit.

For many, even being asked about their religion is seen as an act of oppression. This is their reaction.

Re:Alternative?

[rgbatduke]

Would that be right behind the worship of Elbereth?

Pfff...

[ikaruga]

I rather pray for Jesus Christ Second Impact.
Evangelion NERV Church in India

Re:Pfff...

[Saija]

wtf is that?

Well

[SmallFurryCreature]

Mass murderers, child molesters and republicans also blend in.

Just sayin'

Re:Well

[davester666]

Why list republicans? They are just a subset of the first two groups...

Re:Well

[smittyoneeach]

Only to the extent that the GOP is the starboard wing of the Progressive Ruling Class.

Re:Well

[mrsquid0]

The US Republican Party is not a right wing party anymore. They have been effectively hijacked by nut jobs, extremists, and the whining classes. Which is too bad. The US could use a sane conservative political party.

Re:Well

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd hesitate to call them 'sane'; but Democratic Party has largely stepped into the role of being the American center-right.

Re:Well

[Chrisje]

Sane and Conservative? I always thought they were mutually exclusive.

Re:Well

[mrsquid0]

They have been in the US since the Reagan era, but in general there are sane conservatives. The Eisenhower era Republican party was quite sane. The old Progressive Conservatives in Canada were a very reasonable bunch until Mulroney took over. One of the greatest tragedies of the current US Republican Party is that they are tainting the concept of political conservatism in a way that may take a generation or more to overcome.

Re:Well

[HyperQuantum]

Why only the first two groups? They are also a subset of the third group.

oh wait...

Re:Well

[mrsquid0]

Wow. You really need to do a bit more reading, and visit the rest of the world. Oh yes, I never said that I was a "right winger".

What is called right wing in the US has very little to do with what is called right wing in much of the rest of the world. Similarly, what is called "left" in the US is far different from the left in Canada, Europe, and most other democracies. The US Republican Party is not a right wing party except in their own mind, their own propaganda, and other simplistic world views. The closest thing that the US has to a right-wing party is the Democratic Party. In almost any other democracy they would be considered conservatives.

Re:Soooo...

[Woek]

Came here to post exactly this :-D
Mod up please!

Jedi is just a renamed Christianity Clone -

[DontScotty]

Virgin birth: Check

Holy Ghosts: Check

Passover: Many people Pass Over re-watching Ep 1 due to Jar Jar Binks: Check

Re:Jedi is just a renamed Christianity Clone -

[DrVxD]

"Christianity Clone" - sounds like a porn name to me.

All religions are "made-up"

[krigat]

All religions are "made up". Only difference is, with modern religions we still know that they were created by humans, whereas "old" religions seem to be "just there", so for most people it's easier to believe these religions were not man-made.

Re:All religions are "made-up"

[Black Parrot]

All religions are "made up".

Surely you meant to say, all religions except mine are made up.

Re:All religions are "made-up"

[fldsofglry]

Interestingly enough, to say all religions are made up is probably generalizing too much. There are "revealed" religions and "natural" religions. Most major religions are revealed religions at this point in time. Basically, revealed religions are those in which God/gods reveal themselves, generally through intermediaries. Essentially, revealed religions are those in which someone has to tell you about the religion and how you relate to God/gods. Meanwhile, natural religions involve finding the nature of god by examining the world around us. An awesome book on natural religions and some of the paradoxes that result is Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4583

Re:Soooo...

[Cinnamon Whirl]

The numbers from the pdf show 0.31% of the uk is pretends to be a jedi, and that somehow qualifies the religeon for a most popular tag?

"Alternative" to what?

[Rogerborg]

One of those "real" religions, all of which are 100% factually based on the words of an invisible sky giant?

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[Patch86]

Badly worded title. What they mean is that it was the most popular write-in option (the list only included the obvious major religions).

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[Andtalath]

I think the assumption is that people don't actually believe in the Jedi Faith.
People actually believing in imaginary* friends telling them what to do differ quite a lot of people following a set of philosophical guidelines.

*By necessity, most of them must be imaginary since most religions are exclusive in some fashion

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[tehcyder]

I think the assumption is that people don't actually believe in the Jedi Faith.

Then why the fuck bother writing that you do? As a political gesture it's up there with drawing a funny moustache on a candidate's election poster.

It seems to me the sort of thing that only sounds funny when you're a very, very drunk student.

People should have the courage of their convictions and just write "atheist" or "none" or something.

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[icebraining]

They are treating the field on religion with the importance they feel it deserves. Strong convictions in this matter are for people who actually care, like theists and petty anti-theists. For the rest of us, it's no different than asking our favorite color of socks.

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[Ost99]

"Courage"? WTF are you talking about. I find your post insulting and offensive.
Why the fuck should they restrict themselves for your benefit?
Jedi is just as likely to be true as any of the other fantasy options.

I'm personally surprised there are not more professed Cthulhu worshipers.

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[AshtangiMan]

Plaid of course

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[SirGarlon]

Historians have a strong consensus that Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, and Gautama Buddha were real, historical people, and it's on their words major religions are based. So even if you don't believe in the Divinity of, well, anything, to put these major religious figures on the same level as a green rubber puppet is just ignorant of history and culture.

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[heathen_01]

I'm fairly sure that George Lucas was/is a real historical person too.

Re:"Alternative" to what?

[rgbatduke]

Historians have a strong consensus that Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, and Gautama Buddha were real, historical people, and it's on their words major religions are based. So even if you don't believe in the Divinity of, well, anything, to put these major religious figures on the same level as a green rubber puppet is just ignorant of history and culture.

Dear Sir Garlon,

Please read: Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. Or Forged, by Bart Ehrman. Or Jesus, Interrupted, by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is an apostatic ex-born-again Christian who is currently a professor of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill (who happens to live about a mile away from where I'm sitting right now at Duke, where his wife works). He started studying the Bible thinking it was God's word, but the facts (as he will exhaustively and clearly teach you, if you bother to actually try to learn) did not support this. In fact, his conclusion after years of devoted study was rather the opposite.

Regarding the historical reality of Jesus -- there is no contemporary evidence -- outside of the obviously suspect writings of the Church itself -- for this. None. Not one word, one relic, one corroborating fact. The earliest mention -- and only first century mention -- of Jesus is in a probable second or third century insertion in Josephus (the language is infinitely improbable for a man who was a devout Jew). It was also written around 90 CE, which would mean that even if it were written by Josephus, he could not possibly have been reporting events from circa 30 CE as an eyewitness. Note that at this time adult life expectancy was pathetic -- there were probably no surviving humans who even might have witnessed any of the events recorded in the gospels by the time one single historical word about Jesus was written anywhere.

There are no Roman records or Jewish records that confirm a single one of the events reported in the Gospels. In most cases they directly contradict assertions made in the Gospels, such as the idea that the Jewish priesthood had no law to put a man to death. Puh-leeze, they did it all the time. Remember, Jewish Law called for people to be stoned to death for an appallingly long list of "crimes" including adultery, blasphemy, disrespect of your parents. One can go down quite a list of these problems (and of course, many people have done so).

Turning to Christian writings (automatically suspect given their vested interest): The gospels that speak of the birth of Jesus (Matthew and Luke) cannot be reconciled -- one (Matthew) places the birth of Jesus firmly in the time of King Herod the Great with the supposed slaughter of innocents and flight to Egypt. The other (Luke) places the birth of Jesus firmly in the time of Herod Antipas, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. These two times are separated by at least fifteen years. Clearly neither Matthew nor Luke had ever met Jesus or had the foggiest idea when or how or if he was born. Mark, considered by most serious Bible historians to be the primary document from which both Matthew and Luke were later derived (that is, the earliest document actually written) was a) almost certainly not written until after the Jewish revolt and fall of the temple and b) was absolutely not written by an eyewitness. It doesn't even get the geography of Palestine right, and many of the cities it describes -- such as Nazareth -- literally did not exist at the time Jesus was supposed to have come from them (making your reference to "Jesus of Nazareth" interesting in the extreme). The Romans were excellent record keepers and kept excellent tax rolls, and Nazareth was founded no earlier than late in the first or early in the second century, primarily to exploit the increasing numbers of Christian pilgrims.

It is also a simple fact -- a

fuck Jedi

[Tastecicles]

I worship gaffer tape. It has a light side and a dark side, just like the Force, and it binds the Galaxy together. Difference being, it's real, tangible, and doesn't require faith because its physicality is a reassuring proof of its ubiquity.

Re:fuck Jedi

[LongearedBat]

fuck Jedi

Good luck with that. Jedi aren't generally allowed such relationships.

But Sith are so full of passion! Take your breath away. Probably blow you mind... though perhaps a bit too forceful, in a dominatrix kind of a way.

Just proves power of social media

[Coisiche]

While there might actually be respondents who believe themselves to be disciples of Jedi principles, the other 99.999% would have just seen a facebook friend post, "Hey! Wouldn't it be funny if we all put Jedi on the census form as our religion".

I found a more interesting blog post at the time about Lockheed Martin having a fixed price contract to collate the census data and if enough people answered honestly but took measures that would interfere with the automated form scanning, then the costs incurred in manually processing the forms would hit their projected profit a bit.

Re:Jedi was a joke... and still is!

[tehcyder]

What's wrong with the Cenus anyway? Is it another example of paranoid libertarians hating something just because it's done by "the government"? Do they think "the government" are collecting this information so that it can be used to persecute you later? If being an atheist, Christian or Jedi ever becomes a matter that gets you brought to the attention of the Secret Service in the UK, we're beyond fucked already.

Disney has bought this religion apparently

[GoodnaGuy]

I read in the news just last week that Disney has brought the rights to our religion. This is an outrage, we must protest this my brother Jedi. Surely you cant copyright a religion. Imagine if Disney copyrighted christianity or Pixar bought the rights to Islam.

Too much like commitment

[docilespelunker]

Is it not suspicious also that their main feature is a little stick that gets bigger when you hold onto it. Admittedly it is a kickass weapon, but the feminist within would prefer if there was a less masculine option

Re:Too much like commitment

[Black Parrot]

Is it not suspicious also that their main feature is a little stick that gets bigger when you hold onto it. Admittedly it is a kickass weapon, but the feminist within would prefer if there was a less masculine option

Surely the feminist within enjoys watching a couple of guys trying to hit each other with theirs.

TIL

[FatLittleMonkey]

Why list republicans? They are just a subset of the first two groups...

Jedi and Wiccans?

Huh.

Actually...

[deergomoo]

This is slightly problematic. Most people who put Jedi are likely non-religious and taking the piss, but the government considers anyone who doesn't put either non-religious or chooses not to answer to be religious, increasing funding for things like faith schools, which many non-religious people are opposed to. That said. 170k people out of 60m doesn't make a massive difference, and I got a chuckle out of it.

Re:Jedi was a joke... and still is!

[itsdapead]

What's wrong with the Cenus anyway?

The Census question [warning - PDF] on religion is "What is your religion: None/Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/Other (write in).

Some people feel that, despite the "None" option, this exaggerates the number of religious people by not distinguishing between those with a serious religious commitment and those who just tick the name of their preferred provider of wedding, funeral and baby-naming services (or feel obliged to tick 'Christian' because their parents had them baptised).

If the Jedi campaign had a point, it was to highlight this. I vaguely remember that one of the secularist organisations had a more serious campaign.

If being an atheist, Christian or Jedi ever becomes a matter that gets you brought to the attention of the Secret Service in the UK, we're beyond fucked already.

No but it might, for instance, influence such policies as support for faith-based schools or discussing whether public bodies represent the community.

Re:Jedi was a joke... and still is!

[WillerZ]

If being an atheist, Christian or Jedi ever becomes a matter that gets you brought to the attention of the Secret Service in the UK, we're beyond fucked already.

The forms linked from this page give you a good idea of what will bring you to the attention of SIS and friends.

Re:Jedi was a joke... and still is!

[joostje]

Well, wikipedia hasn't forgotten!

As an englishman..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am ashamed to say that many englishmen are quite seriously mentally retarded.

Re:As an englishman..

[Anonymous Coward]

My dear boy, mad dogs and Englishmen is our national character.

Ew.

[FatLittleMonkey]

You may have just invoked Rule 34 on Queen Elizabeth and Hayden Christensen.

Re:Ew.

[Cro Magnon]

As long as nobody invokes Order 66, I'm happy.

Really? No Apple Fanboyism?

[Bitzer2]

At the risk of starting an unholy war, I'm shocked and encouraged to see that fruit worshippers are outnumbered by fluorescent tube wobblers. Well done UK!

Re:Soooo...

[19061969]

Ooops - you forgot Hinduism.

So the Jedi cult is the most popular cult in the entire country! Except for Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism.

Re:Soooo...

[SirGarlon]

How many pretend to be Christian, I wonder? Probably more than pretend to be Jedi.

Re:Soooo...

[mrsquid0]

Now this deserves to be modded up to five. I have often encountered self-professed Christians who have no idea of the actual teaching of Christ, or even the basic principles of Christianity. And then there are the people who call themselves Christians, but have not been to church in years.

I'll really be disappointed when...

[Mister Liberty]

... "Dawkins" becomes most Popular Alternative Faith In England.

Being serious

[assertation]

Important decisions are made based on the census. It behooves people to answer honestly, particularly if they do not belong to the majority religion. Atheists and agnostics are under-represented

How disappointing

[Rambo Tribble]

We must redouble our efforts in service to the message of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

"alternative"

[Sir Realist]

'Hey! That makes a great headline: "Jedi is the biggest!"'

'Yeah, but its not the biggest."

'Well, its the biggest _alternative_'

'Alternative to what?'

'Things bigger than "Jedi"!'

Gogo circular definition power!

if history is any guide

[sribe]

In a century or two, people will have forgotten the light-hearted unbelieving nature of this, and the Jedi will be true believers.

Too bad their religious media isn't Pubilc Domain.

[VortexCortex]

Unfortunately the Jedi religion is being hindered by draconian copyright laws which say they must wait 70 years beyond the life of the author to be able to freely duplicate their religious media. I mean, what if Lucas gets cybernetic implants? Being a head with a robot body or uploading minds into mainframes could extend copyright law for Eons! You see, padawan, short of time travel to a long time ago or fleeing to a galaxy far away, the ways of the Jedi can only be protected by fighting the droids and their master, Darth Lucas.

Freedom of Conscience

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see this story come up, I look for one phrase- 'Freedom of Conscience'. If Humans spent thousands of years, and millions of lives fighting for a fundamental Human Right, I might expect some to remember this fact when events directly relating to the subject come up.

Freedom of Conscience means that your spiritual beliefs belong to you, the individual, and may never be defined by the State. You are free to believe in what you wish, observe your spiritual beliefs in any way you deem fit, and change those beliefs as often as you like. (And for the dribbling cretins that hang around Slashdot, this does not mean freedom from lawful punishment if one's actions in the name of one's spiritual beliefs infringes the laws of the land).

Anglo Saxon nations (UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Australia) have Freedom of Conscience as a Human Right for all their citizens, even when freedom of expression is not a right. You spiritual beliefs may not be tested, defined or forceably characterised by the State.

For those dimbulbs on Slashdot, this means it is IMPOSSIBLE to illegally answer a question about your religion on a UK or USA census, by definition.

Why do so few people understand the right of 'Freedom of Conscience'? Because this right threatens organised religion. If the people that belong to organised churches get it into their head that their understanding of their own spiritual existence trumps the 'teachings' of the church, that church will rapidly lose power.

It is no accident that when Census time comes around, sites like this are spammed with nonsense about the 'illegality' of answering the 'religious' questions whosoever the respondent may wish. The spam is purposeful, deliberate, pro-organised religion propaganda that plays on people's ignorance of their rights.

It should be noted that most non-Anglo-Saxon nations do not have the right of freedom of conscience. Even many first world European nations lack this. Instead, at best, you get the right to join one of a number of State authorised organised religions, or sometimes to be an official non-member of any. The battle for people to have the right of 'Freedom of Conscience' was fought and won in the UK, and fought and lost in nations like Germany. In Germany, the State can officially rule Scientology 'illegal', something that could never happen in the UK or USA.

Those that play on people's ignorance of 'Freedom of Conscience' and spam garbage about how 'Jedi' respondents have broken the law and should be prosecuted, are actually attempting to persuade citizens of Britain and the USA to accept the situation found in backwards nations like Germany or Indonesia. Their tactic is to use ignorance of fundamental Human Rights to eventually wither those rights into non-existence. They are the religious bigots that love the power wielded by organised religion, and hate the power potentially wielded by the free-thinking individual.

Freedom of conscience will die in the UK, just as freedom of expression has (Brits have been successfully prosecuted in the last few years for simply expressing anti-war sentiments in public). The method of killing rights here is to give useful pressure groups ever more power over members of their communities. This tactic is overseen by organisations like 'Common Purpose'. It is the old tactic of divide-and-conquer by 'tribal loyalty' , where no matter who you are, you are forced to belong and submit to a given tribe, the leaders of which all share 'common purpose' with the leaders of the other tribes.

In the meantime, while they still can, the sensible thinking part of the UK populace will express their love of freedom through acts like ticking 'Jedi'. For each individual, in is a small and tiny voice in the gathering storm saying "I am not a number, I am a free Man".

Re:Soooo...

[Patch86]

FYI, you missed Hinduism, which was number 3 after Islam.

You may now return to your humorous banter.

Re:Soooo...

[r33per]

How many pretend to be Christian, I wonder?

Interesting. Dawkins mentioned that as well, but no-one seems to be speculating on the atheists who frequently pronounce and exclaim the name of a deity on a daily basis: are they really true no-god followers, or are they like vegetarians who eat chicken and fish?

Atheism Theory vs Atheism Application...

[damn_registrars]

I have been in this discussion before on slashdot, and I think there is one thing that helps to clear the differences in understanding that tends to go unsaid. (disclaimer - I am agnostic)

Your statement that an atheist does not believe is accurate. However that is the theory of the term. In application, many (not all) atheists demonstrate themselves to have just as much faith as theists, in that they believe there to be no deity. While they are believing there to be no god, they are still nonetheless believing in something. Conversely, someone who is agnostic states they do not know there to be - or not be - a deity.

Hence to many people, both those who are and those who are not, atheism is a religion. Atheism in its current incarnation most often involves the belief in there not being a deity.

Re:Atheism Theory vs Atheism Application...

[FatLittleMonkey]

Your statement that an atheist does not believe is accurate.

Actually, he said an atheist does not believe "in deities."

I think you are confusing "belief" with "religion". People can believe and disbelieve a lot of things without that being in any way a "religious belief".

"Atheism" speaks only of a belief in god(s). An atheist can still believe in UFOs, Atlantis, reflexology, or any number of nonsensical beliefs and not believe in god(s) or religions. Or an atheist can believe none of those things, and instead believe in objective reality and science. Still a "belief", a very pragmatic one, and still not in any way a religion.

The other thing is that I think you are allowing the loudest, most aggressively obnoxious anti-theists define your idea of what atheism "really means". It would be like defining "religion" solely by behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" family). In the UK example, "No religion" was around 40% of respondents; so allowing for people who believe in god but not in religion, that still leaves probably more than ten million people in England and Wales who are atheists. Millions. You think they are all aggressively anti-theists? Or maybe most just live their lives day to day as if there is no god. And that's all atheism means.

Aside: Most people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheist-type agnostics. They don't believe in god or gods because they don't have any knowledge of god or gods, and they don't accept that anyone does. People who say "I guess I believe in god, but I don't go to church or anything" are theist-type agnostics. They do believe in god(s), but don't have any knowledge of what god is/isn't, hence they don't practice any religion.

Re:Atheism Theory vs Atheism Application...

[icebraining]

If you don't have a belief in god(s), you're just as atheist as I am. Atheism and agnosticism aren't two incompatible positions, they're in two different axis. (A)gnosticism refers to the knowledge, while (A)theism refers to the belief.

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

Personally, I think the only really rational position is Ignosticism, but I'm an agnostic atheist for any definitions of god(s) I've been exposed to.

Vs religous growth in the US

[damn_registrars]

More people are likely followers of the church of ron paul in the US than are Jedi.

Re:Soooo...

[IrquiM]

Could you replace often with always?

...and WHY NOT?

[iq145]

Think about it... One fine day, a science fiction writer thinks up a religion, and millions of people around the world swear to it, and its "religious leaders" get filthy rich. The name of the religion: Scientology! History repeats...

Isn't Jediism covered in one of these

[NewYork]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_writings

Re:Soooo...

[turbidostato]

"no-one seems to be speculating on the atheists who frequently pronounce and exclaim the name of a deity on a daily basis: are they really true no-god followers, or are they like vegetarians who eat chicken and fish?"

You would have a point... if atheism was a religion. Hint: it is not.