Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Canadian Census: 20,000 Jedi Worshippers

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue May 13, 2003 08:08 PM
from the liar-liar-pants-on-fire dept.
Lev13than writes "Canada.com is reporting that some 20,000 Canadians listed "Jedi" as their religion in the last national census (2001). Apparently this is the offshoot of an Internet joke which originated in Australia a few years back. The results are interesting on a couple of levels. While it show that some people may have too much time on their hands, it also raises questions of privacy rights, Internet activism and data integrity. Although it's not statistically significant given Canada's population of 31.5 million, 20,000 lightsabre-wielding census-takers is nothing to sneeze at. StatsCan's full report (with no mention of Jedis) can be found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gortbusters.org (637314) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:09PM (#5950780)
    (http://www.gortbusters.org/ | Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @06:34AM)
    There are about 20,000 single guys who enjoy D&D and star wars in Canada!
  • Just Wondering (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dirkdidit (550955) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:11PM (#5950789)
    (http://www.pixelmovement.com/)
    There's not an organized society for the Jedi religion like there is for other larger religions is there???
  • by Faust7 (314817) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:11PM (#5950793)
    (http://www.drgw.net/~nnthayer)
    "Virgin (Y/N)?"
  • No wonder (Score:5, Funny)

    by quantaman (517394) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:12PM (#5950798)
    How else can you explain all the Americans who can't figgure out where the heck Canada is! And yes I'm Canadian :)

    p.s. This isn't the country you're looking for.
  • What do you expect by Gefiltefish (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:12PM
  • Census takers (Score:5, Funny)

    by worst_name_ever (633374) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:13PM (#5950807)
    20,000 lightsabre-wielding census-takers is nothing to sneeze at.

    I think you mean census respondents... census-takers are the people who come to your door asking you to fill out the census form. If one of those folks whipped out a lightsaber on me I think I'd try to do an extra-good job of filling in the little bubbles...

  • Go England! (Score:4, Funny)

    by big_groo (237634) <.groovis. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:13PM (#5950814)
    (http://google.com/)
    In the U.K., for example, there are more Jedis than Jews. Nearly 400,000 people identified themselves as Jedi in the 2001 census. Only 260,000 said they were Jewish. The Jedis seemed to be concentrated in England and Wales.

    *waves hand* There is nothing to see here. Move along.

    • Re:Go England! by Guppy06 (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:35PM
    • Re:Go England! (Score:5, Informative)

      I really wanted to put Jedi down on my Census, but the I had heard rumours that the UK government were going to fine people who put religion as Jedi so I chickened out.

      As it turns out, the only part of the census the government can't fine you for is the religion option... as this snippet from a 2001 Register article says here :

      We spoke to the Home Office - which was not overly entertained especially since the Census is supposed to be deadly serious. However the Home Office would not say what constituted a religion and we subsequently discovered that while you can be heavily fined for putting down false details on a census form, it does not apply to the religion question.

      Ah well... I think 400,000 was more than enough anyway ;)
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Go England! by freddled (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @04:57AM
    • Re:Go England! by Sentry21 (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @07:25AM
  • lightsaber kid by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:13PM
  • hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jeffy124 (453342) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:14PM (#5950819)
    (http://slashdot.org/my/amigos | Last Journal: Sunday July 25 2004, @02:59PM)
    (standard disclaimer: IANAL)

    I know in the US someone can register for religious recognition if they have something like 100 followers. (i dont know the exact number) The application can be accepted as long as no animal or person is sacrificed or otherwise eliminated as part of the religion's practice. Other requirements probably have to be met, but I do know that religious killings are a no-no.

    Canada probably has something similar. Maybe someone should consider institutionalizing the Jedi religion and filing the proper paperwork.
    • Re:hmmm... by mharris007 (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:16PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:hmmm... by KrispyKringle (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:27PM
      • Re:hmmm... by Slack3r78 (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:44AM
        • Re:hmmm... by KrispyKringle (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:18PM
    • Re:hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Greyhand (673151) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:34PM (#5950978)
      If someone set up an "official" jedi religion, George Lucas would sue the hell out of them. This in turn would set a precident allowing religions to be sued.
      1. Someone creates the official jedi religion
      2. George Lucas sues them
      3. Precident set : religions can be sued
      4. I sue the major world religions for upsetting world peace
      5. PROFIT!!!!
      [ Parent ]
    • The US government is Constitutionally prohibited from sanctioning any state religion. In recent decades that has been bastardized into not recognizing any religion.

      Others responding to you seem to be confusing IRS not-for-profit status with religion. They are not the same. The Catholic Church and the NAACP both enjoy not-for-profit status, but the latter is not a religion even though they both have the same tax status.

      BTW, not-for-profit != "non-profit", the former is a tax status (more precisely a not-federally-and-other-places-taxed status) and the latter means you do not make a profit. Yes, there is a huge reality difference and a small technical difference.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:hmmm... by Flounder (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:56PM
        • Re:hmmm... by GMontag (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:11PM
          • Re:hmmm... by Flounder (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:16PM
            • Re:hmmm... by GMontag (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:38PM
      • Re:hmmm... by balthan (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:12PM
        • Re:hmmm... by GMontag (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:31PM
          • Re:hmmm... by Abcd1234 (Score:3) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:37AM
      • Re:hmmm... by NeMon'ess (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @11:23PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:hmmm... by Tonytheloony (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:23AM
      • Re:hmmm... by Joe the Lesser (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @07:40AM
      • Tax Status by Presence1 (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @09:33AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:hmmm... by uncoveror (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:25PM
      • Re:hmmm... by Slack3r78 (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @12:49AM
        • Re:hmmm... by TheCarp (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @03:15PM
    • Re:hmmm... by gurps_npc (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @10:08AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:hmmm... by Mozai (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @02:42PM
    • Lots of religions "eliminate" animals... by jonskerr (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:45PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Religion Question? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mharris007 (142886) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:14PM (#5950820)
    (http://www.addictzsystems.org/)
    Which brings up a question; Should Religion be a question on a national census form?

    If people are getting offended by the race question on the U.S. census form, I can just imagine the number of people that are going to get pissed off by a religion question.
    • Re:Religion Question? by kovarg (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:20PM
      • Re:Religion Question? (Score:5, Funny)

        by echucker (570962) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:02PM (#5951147)
        (http://reefs.org/)
        The one that really gets me is when the option of Aetheist is listed as a religion. What's that about? Anyone else tripped out by that one?

        They only have it because most census respondents don't know who the hell that CowboyNeal guy is.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Religion Question? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ajs (35943) <ajs@aj[ ]om ['s.c' in gap]> on Wednesday May 14 2003, @07:08AM (#5953411)
        (http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/)
        The one that really gets me is when the option of Aetheist is listed as a religion

        In that sense, Atheist is being used as a "none of the above", which is a more valid use than some I've seen.

        Is atheism a religion? I'm willing to roughly define religion as "a belief system, generaly characterized by the personification of natural forces, worship of same and a system of ritual." In that sense no, atheism is not a religion.

        On the other hand, if you simply defined it as, "a set of beliefs concerning a system of one or more deities," then yes, atheism is a religion, at least as practiced by some.

        I have a friend, for example who has what I would characterize as a "deep and irrational faith" in the non-existance of all gods and the evils of all religion. This is his core faith in the way the universe works, and I can't really make a strong distinction between that and believing that the Post Office box down the street created the universe in 22 nanoseconds out of the belly-button lint of Winston Churchill.

        I, on the other hand am a strict agnostic. I have reached what I consider to be one of only three rational conclusions about religion: that we currently have no conclusive proof that there are any deities, and even if George Burns poped into my living room today and whisked my off to a distant galaxy to show me wonders beyond my imagining, I would still have no proof of anything but a George Burns-looking guy with some amazing abilities (at least to make me see cool stuff, if not actually manifest cool stuff) and a god-complex.

        The other two rational conclusions are a) Pascal was a jerk for pointing it out, but he was right... choose a religion based on the degree of the negative outcome it predicts and hope you're right (note, such people are still technically agnostic in my book) and b) There are more important things to wory about. Enjoy the sun-rise and then get back to work.

        FWIW: When I was about 10, I realized that I was an atheist (I didn't know the term agnostic, much less "strict agnostic" at the time), and in thinking about what that meant I was perhaps more terrified than I have ever been. It's a big deal for a 10 year old to have to face the insignificance of his own existance all at once, but I got over it and decided that I wanted to enjoy it while it lasted anyway.

        I've since refined my sense of ethics based, not on fear of reprisals by a deity, but on the drives that I have in terms of a comfortable society of tolerant peers. Woefully there are too many folks in the world who will never introspect to that degree. For them, religion seems a fair way to deliver a moral and ethical outlook that they'll never have the inclination to generate for themselves.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Religion Question? by soul_cmd (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:53PM
      • Re:Religion Question? by scotch (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:58PM
      • Re:Religion Question? by Alan Partridge (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @04:03AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Religion Question? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RestiffBard (110729) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:47PM (#5951054)
      (http://restiffbard.com/)
      For the people that are going to say its no one's business about this or that or how many toilets they have and so forth allow me a moment. First off, the toilet question was a real question from the 2000 US Census.

      Now, before people get up in arms there are legitimate reasons for wanting this data. And they in no way harm any citizen. They are designed to help citizens.

      For instance, the Marklar race respond that on average they earn 12,000 a year and have no indoor toilet. This lets the government know 1. Marklars may not be getting the racial equality that in the US should be mandatory. 2. Marklars are not properly being serviced by their government. This is rudimentary but you get the idea (i hope).

      as for the questions, a curious thing happened in 2000. people complained about the questions, race, toilets, salary etc... Trent Lott, then Senate Majority Leader said that if people didn't want to answer the questions then the Census had no right to compel people to do so.

      Here's the funny part. 1. the Census is meant only to count heads. 2. the other questions on the Census are tacked on by Congress 3. Congress in fact gives the Census the mandate to compel people to answer. 4. Trent Lott is an obvious asshat.

      Finally for all of you clever people that thought the Census wouldn't count you if you closed the blinds when ever an enumerator came by you're wrong. Enumerators, towards the end of the Census would park at the end of your street and count people entering and leaving. How many cars in the driveway? How many people-size shadows behind the curtains? They would make an educated guess at the number and put that down.

      Where is the 2000 Census data now? Arizona. In a big vault for the most part.

      How do I know? That's where I Fed-Exed it. I was a Census Clerk for 2000. No, I really didn't care what you wrote down.

      By the way, James Weatherby of 3247 Main St. has 5 bathrooms.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Religion Question? by aron_wallaker (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:50PM
    • Re:Religion Question? by rcf (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:50PM
    • Re:Religion Question? by Doppler00 (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:53PM
    • Re:Religion Question? by /dev/trash (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:56PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Religion Question? by joycea (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:30PM
    • Excerpt from Census form:

      9. Describe your religious beliefs:

      a. Christian conservative
      b. Other Christian
      c. Please add my name to John Ashcroft's list of "suspicious persons"
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • I find your lack of faith.. disturbing by axis-techno-geek (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:26AM
    • Re:Religion Question? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by franimal (157291) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @10:18PM (#5951607)
      (http://francisbarnhart.com/)

      Actually, I received a census form a few months back and after reading the "You are required by law to truthfully complete this survey" statement, I decided to give them a call. Guess what. That religious and race data gets used. It's available to all those congress men and women just itching to do a little social engineering and earmark funds for their various flavors of constituents. For instance, the woman I talked to indicated something along the lines of "I there is an area with a high race concentration that has difficulties they may be elligible for special funding."

      The good thing is that she also indicated that it'd be acceptable if I entered 'DECLINED' in the objectionable boxes. Even though it's really not optional ... they'd prefer that to a lie or the bother of fines/legal action.

      The really bad thing is that this data gets used and it's likely not even right! How many people intentionally enter false data? The really infuriating thing is that this data, perhaps incorrect, is used to collect information on social engineering programs like affirmative action. Yes, it makes sense. But it still drives me nuts.

      [ Parent ]
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Originated in NZ then UK (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrOrn (469069) <ornkelly@NosPaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:14PM (#5950826)
    Actually the Jedi answer for the census form started in New Zealand, then spread to the UK around April 2001. Australia's census wasn't until October.



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/new_med ia /1271380.stm

  • Originated in Australia? by nzlettuce (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:14PM
  • Use the Force eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by oogoliegoogolie (635356) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:15PM (#5950833)
    The force will be with you, always, you hoser!
  • Statistically significant? by etcshadow (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:16PM
  • Whos to say they arent jedi? by Unknown Poltroon (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:17PM
  • Funny... I'm a bonafide Jedi Master, and none of these so-called "Jedi from Canada" has ever taken my Jedi classes.

    You're all frauds, the lot of you. Your probationary period is OVER, you will never become a Jedi now.
    • Re:Funny ... by Dr Caleb (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:25PM
    • Re:Funny ... by MouseR (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:47PM
    • Re:Funny ... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Flounder (42112) * on Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:13PM (#5951210)
      Funny... I'm a bonafide Jedi Master, and none of these so-called "Jedi from Canada" has ever taken my Jedi classes.

      My name is Audo Jarkee, the American Federation of Jedi Knights Local 200. We show no records of you completing the level 3 Jedi Master training certification. If you continue to fraudulently claim to be a certified trainer in the Ways of The Jedi(tm) then we shall be forced to sanction you and your students, preventing them from acquiring their Labor Union cards and making them unqualified for holding positions as a Jedi Knight(tm)

      If you wish to continue in your training sessions and gain official certification as a Jedi Master, then please contact your local certification authorization office Monday thru Friday between the hours of 10am-2pm (closed for lunch 10:45am-1:15pm). Thank you for your cooperation.

      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • You are incorrect good sir by Suddenly_Dead (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:55PM
  • ..and this guy is one of them by BlueLines (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:19PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • And if IIRC, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:19PM (#5950863)
    the number of "Jedi Worshippers" in Australia dropped dramatically in a census taken after Episode Two came out.

    Nothing like a sucky sequel to weed out the unbelievers.

    All of a sudden, I have this vision of a bunch of Christians in ancient Corinth, huddled around the latest of Paul's writings. "Wait, this sucks so much compared to his first letter! That's it, I'm leaving!"

    ;-)

  • Of course we use the force. (Score:4, Funny)

    by csguy314 (559705) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:23PM (#5950888)
    (http://csguy.blogspot.com/)
    Why do you think we're so damn good at hockey?
  • Canadian Theme Song by TheSam (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:23PM
  • Obvious...? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DirtyJ (576100) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:25PM (#5950909)
    From the report: Prior to 1971, fewer than 1% of the Canadian population reported having no religion. In 2001, that percentage increased to 16% of the population.

    I find their lack of faith disturbing.

    [ducks]

    • Re:Obvious...? by ToadMan8 (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @08:02AM
    • Re:Obvious...? by arkane1234 (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @11:10AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • What does this show? by spRed (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:30PM
  • Undermined by Lucas by debrain (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:31PM
  • And so what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:32PM (#5950966)
    (Last Journal: Monday March 28 2005, @11:39AM)
    In the UK, some 390,000 individuals are followers of the force [bbc.co.uk] But as the original Canada.com article [canada.com] notes, the Jedi religion choce may have been a protest agains the government surveying religious preference.
  • Lucky Candadians by BladeMelbourne (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:33PM
  • That would make them Sith, eh? :-P
  • Personal Privacy Aggregate Statistic by nuggz (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:35PM
    • It's traceable by Baron_Yam (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @09:14PM
      • Re:It's traceable by Liquid Tip (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @11:22PM
      • In Canada by nuggz (Score:2) Wednesday May 14 2003, @05:17AM
        • Re:In Canada by Baron_Yam (Score:1) Wednesday May 14 2003, @06:41AM
  • What angers me... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Davak (526912) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:39PM (#5951009)
    (http://www.carotids.com/)

    What angers me is that everybody assumes that these people do not actually Worship jedi!

    Articles [colorado.edu] and films [ifilm.com] already exist regarding this spiritual movement.

    Plus, we already admit that other such religions exist:

    - Star Trek - Leonard Nimoy Should Eat More Salsa Foundation [rr.com]

    - Hicks - Love thy Mullet [mulletsgalore.com]

    - Plastic surgery - Cosmetics for the holy [eyeforgod.com]

    Anyway...

    Davak

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • lightsabre-wielding by Ironpoint (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:40PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Importance of religion by Luguber123 (Score:1) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:41PM
  • Dodgy reporting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gwernol (167574) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:41PM (#5951020)
    So if as the article claims:

    "Statistics Canada didn't report the number of people who responded Jedi in tables listing response rates for other religions, saying that their analysis did not include the "media-driven'' response, in part because the sample was so small. However, statisticians did when asked produce tables showing a much smaller number of Rastafarians, Scientologists and Satanists."

    How do they know that 20,000 Canadians declared themselves to be Jedi? Could it be (gasp) just a number that the web site made up so it could write a story about the NZ and UK census returns?
  • Ack, Damn Aussies always manage to get the credit! by bad_fx (Score:2) Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:49PM
  • Story (Score:5, Funny)

    by quantaman (517394) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:50PM (#5951069)
    A few years ago, BEFORE the Episode 1 came out, we named our soccer team "The Jedi". I played fullback and during one game I was having a particularly easy time thwarting the the opposing teams attempts to get by me. Finally one play I miscalculated and a player with the ball slipped by me and started to rush up the field, about 2 seconds after he got by he collapsed with a leg cramp and had to roll himself off the field. For the rest of the season my team was convinced I had used The Force :)
  • A Time-Honored Tradition (Score:5, Informative)

    by ewhac (5844) on Tuesday May 13 2003, @08:51PM (#5951076)
    (http://ewhac.best.vwh.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 18 2001, @10:28PM)

    When I first read about this phenomonon, I thought it sounded familiar to something some prankster did many years ago. Now, in this Age of Google, I have found the original article [www.tao.ca].

    The article deals with the propogation of "memes" -- infectious ideas that take on a life of their own (e.g. "All your base..."). It discusses in particular how the author faced what he thought was a rather impudent question on his college admission form -- asking for his religion -- and, with his cheeky response, inadvertently started a meme. It also discusses how the meme was extinguished by the college administration.

    The religious meme thing is about one-third of the way down, but I recommend reading the whole article. It's a good read.

    Sch