Australia Oppresses Jedi 987
eberry writes "Despite over 70,000 respondents (.37% of the population) replying "Jedi" to an optional faith question on Australia's census, it will not become a recognized religion According to CNN "Australian officials say respondents could face a $1,000 fine for supplying false information. Citing, and I quote, "...people of a particular religious affiliation do not provide the correct information, certain facilities might not be built that otherwise would be."
Personally I find their lack of faith disturbing." And I find the fact that this is on CNN even more so ;)
Separation of Church and State (Score:4, Insightful)
They should not even ask for this information. It is irrelevant to any aspect of the governments purpose.
My tax money shouldn't be used to provide any religious services to anyone.
False? (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Lucus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
False information? (Score:5, Insightful)
I presume that people who write Jedi on their census form are most agnostics and other non-religious people who would have otherwise not answered at all on the census. So the Australian religious budget would not go to them to begin with. Why not have a little fun? It doesn't hurt anything, except for a few hours for the census department to remove the figures from there total.
Now if a person from a legitimate religion answered Jedi, and therefore has caused less dollars to go to his religious organization, I say he gets what he deserves.
-BrentRe:Australia has no freedom of religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't want to spend resources on people who are essentially purpetrating a hoax by giving them legal status as a religion.
Re:Australia has no freedom of religion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately I doubt the census bureau will try to do anything, as it is next to impossible to prove anything about a religion - after all a religion is based on faith and beliefs, not proofs, and any attempt to push people on it might lead to uncomfortable decisions affecting "real" religions...
Separation of church and state unpopular? (Score:1, Insightful)
Narrow minded? I think not. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:4, Insightful)
They should not even ask for this information. It is irrelevant to any aspect of the governments purpose.
My tax money shouldn't be used to provide any religious services to anyone.
Do you live in Australia?
Uh, what about Scientology? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for fiction in modern religion, other then the fact that Jesus was a person, and was killed, we don't have much other proof to support the stories in the bible. Who knows maybe 2000 years from now people will worship Yoda as a person? I think the point is sure Jedi is a fictional concept, but who knows there isn't much proof that other religions are little more (and don't come back with the "Word of God" stuff, cause that is just bringing dogma into a factual argument).
Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the US government acts (and allocates resources) based on faith beliefs of citizens. The US is a representative republic, and so the actions of government reflect, to some extent at least, the will of the people. For many people, their faith beliefs affect their wills more than any other single factor.
The US is also properly a constitutional republic, and to the extent that we pay attention to the US Constitution, governmental action is limited. For example, the Constitution would obviously forbid establishing the Lutheran Church as the official church of the country, even if 90% of the citizens were Lutheran. However, it does not keep Lutherans from lobbying for laws that fit their particular views.
(Note: I just picked Lutheran out of a hat as an example. Don't read more into it than that.)
Sad devotion to that ancient religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the CNN article, they state:
Hmmm...I wonder where the idea that 10 000 responses would make "Jedi" a recoginzed religion?
Anyone know what the real criteria are? Or do you think the Aussie gov't is just trying to sweep this under the carpet?
And how would you charge them with fraud? How could they prove you aren't a Jedi? Or at least an observer of the Jedi faith. I fail to see how anyone can prove anything *isn't* a religion.
Do they call Pope Lucas and get the list of faithful from him?
Is Scientology an official religion in Australia?
70, 000 Jedi. Rock on down. Good Onya, mates!
Re:How is it fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)
Their are practices and beliefs associated with Druidism and the Wiccan faith. A person can't reasonably _be_ a Druid just by calling himself one momentarily on a piece of paper, any more than it's reasonable to claim to be a Catholic while taking a page from the feminist movement and worshipping Athena as the goddess of Wisdom.
Re:What about Lucus? (Score:2, Insightful)
Read what you wrote.... (Score:5, Insightful)
People claim to be religions and do things contrary to them all the time. Does that make the Catholic who gets an abortion guilty of commiting fruad on their census by claiming to be a Catholic even though they don't strictly adhere to doctrine? Or the Mormon who drinks? Or the Druid that eats meat and hunts? etc etc etc. That is why we have freedom of religion in the US, so someones concepts for a religion don't have to apply to mine, then again the government doesn't fund/build churchs here either.
My point is you are singleing out Jedi's becuase it offends you, and not seeing the bigger picture that this "fraud" as you state it goes on ALL the time.
Shame on you, Jedi (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, though, Australia has no real concept of state-church separation (we have an official religion - the world's most boring religion: Anglicanism) yet it is America, despite the first amendment, where sectarian forces are the bigger political threat.
(*) Pre Jar-Jar
Re:Narrow minded? I think not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Just an ordinary guy. What he says has no more influence that what any of the other 200,000,000 Americans might say. I don't even know why they keep showing him on TV.
Byebye organized religion (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had to prove your religious beliefs existed, say goodbye to all organized religion.
Not that it would be a bad thing.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:5, Insightful)
UK Baptist for prior disclosure. That's rather different to a US Baptist for reference :-) Try here [baptist.org.uk] for more info.
Let's say I decide to move to Utah, for example. Let's say that I want to build a church because I can't find anything other than Mormons for a 50 mile radius of my house.
Let's say that the local council continually refuses building permits for bogus reasons. I'm not saying this happens, Utah has simply been picked on as an example of the area of the US least likely to like to my church by reputation.
Let's say that the census data is able to show that 10% of the local population are Baptists, meeting in small house churches. This data would be very useful in getting the council LARTed for not letting the permit through.
Over here, with a different attitidue to church and state separation, it has more, very real uses. Some areas are currently fighting for state supported Islamic schools on the grounds that there's lots of Muslims in the area and we already have CofE (think Episcopalian, I'm told) and RC state funded (technically voluntary aided) schools. Some areas were able to use this data to confirm that they had a high enough Muslim population that they allowed some shops to open on Christmas day last year, with safeguards for staff in place.
Or let's say that someone's noticed that 30% of people arrested but released without charge are Hindus but they only represent 5% of the population and 7% of the jail population (for example, and the only reason the second number is higher are the general link between poverty and crime and poverty and immigration, I promise!) - in which case there's a case to be answered for discrimination.
If the government doesn't ask for this data it can't pick up on these anomalies and so can't serve groups properly. This is GOOD - and besides, it's not like they're doing ID checks in church carparks and giving people tax breaks as a result...
Oh, BTW, any UK politician want to do that and they've got my vote... ;-) <duck>
Re:False information? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, there is no "correct" answer to religion. By definition, it's what YOU (personally) believe, and has nothing to do with any organizations that might think they somehow represent your worldview.
I, personally, would like to see organized religion stop sucking away all my tax money (by claiming excemption, all the churches force ME to pay higher taxes and carry THEIR part of the burden). I recognize that some few of them do good work for the community, but I also see constant remodelling of perfectly good church buildings, and very nice cars the clergy drive.
Government is not God, although perhaps the Australian government thinks it is...
Re:Mockery of Christ (Score:2, Insightful)
Mockery of Christ? Sure, but modern Christians are generally better mockeries of Christ than someone claiming to be part of a Lucasfilm copyrighted religion.
After all it's not as if my church teaches that Star Wars fans are going to hell, why use Star Wars in an attempt to persecute my church?
Just how exactly is your church being persecuted?
Nothing's seperate in a socialism! (Score:2, Insightful)
Exclusivity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Christianity's truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats my point. They're all unique, or they wouldn't be seperate reason. He might as well say, "I bought a Ford because it was the only car with the Ford logo on it!"
Re:False information? (Score:3, Insightful)
Belonging to "the Jedi religion" need not be the same as being a Jedi, just as belonging to "the Christian religion" is not the same as being Christ.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:3, Insightful)
But plenty of others do agree. Last I heard, the guy who devised the details of the Jedi faith (who is an identifiable, contactable person after all) states that the whole thing was devised for a story and has no deeper meaning.
Even if you believe Christianity is utter rubbish and was made up for a story too, we don't have someone standing up saying 'Hey, I wrote that for this cool film, here's a draft of the screenplay with some different details!'. That puts Christianity and Jedi on an entirely different footing and saying anything else is just silly.
It's offensive, but I'm used to that where religion is concerned so that sort of bounces off. But from an academic POV, I've seen nets that hold more water than your argument.
Oh, last I heard, BTW, transubstantiation was a Catholic doctrine. There's a whole lot of Christians in the world who have serious issues with some Catholic theology, and that's one of the bits. We're called Protestants.
Re:Mockery of Christ (Score:2, Insightful)
How did religions come to be in the first place? My guess is that they started off as fictional stories to explain things they didn't know anything about thousands of years ago. That includes celestial phenomenon, weather phenomenon and indeed whether a battle would be won or whether the harvest would be good this year. Very soon, I assume, a few people realized that if people believe in a higher power to which you must suck up to (like pray and sacrifice animals and even humans), then you could easily use peoples beliefs to control the people itself. Religions - whichever religion it may be - are basically nothing but a story with some amazing characters, lots of adventures and some fictional supernatural entities. Religious wars are even more stupid as they are nothing but people fighting over whos imaginary friend is better. But, as much as I don't like the religions, at least I recognize every citizens right to choose exactly what they wish to believe, may it be Jesus, Allah, some space war lord with a name that starts with X, or Yoda.
John the baptist (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the question even meaningful? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if asked a bizarre question about religion, dragons or anything else, I'd feel perfectly entitled to put a bizarre answer. Cargo cults believed that planes were linked to God, why shouldn't I think a film is?
Re:I can't blame him (Score:1, Insightful)
No its not. A Cardinal is a tangible person in the Catholic church. A Jedi is something made up in the past quarter century to sell movies.
Definition of a religion under US law (Score:3, Insightful)
The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational,
scientific, or other charitable purposes,
Net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
No substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
The organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
No part of the organization's purposes or activities may be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
And that's it. So under US laws the Jedi church would qualify (if it existed in the US).
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are you saying that we should have a federally mandated atheistic state? That would worry me as much as dictating any particular religious faith. Religion is part of society, and society creates the government. It's chilling to think of it your way - a government that dictates the society.
--
Evan (no reference)
Do they accept Scientology? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:2, Insightful)
Second, it was a joke. It is even funnier that the government is pissed at it. I can see some religous organization now asking for something special to happen and someone saying that there are more "Jedi's" in this country than you have in your religion.
Lastly, please show me where in the constitution is separates church and state. Do you mean amendment one of the contitution?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
That sounds a lot more like we have the right to practice any religion we want to in the U.S.A. In fact it sounds like our kids should be able to pray in a public school.
Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I can't blame him (Score:1, Insightful)
And the afterlife is something made up in the past 3000 years to sell religion.
What's your point, caller!?! ;-)
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:1, Insightful)
What I laugh at is how they say they are one thing, and yet history shows they clearly are not. Example of tolerant? Had a mission Prez who thought it necessary to handle 'tough situations' personally. He would literaly shred their beliefs and then force them to decide whether or not they should join his religion.
I have known many people who are ostricized by their family for choosing another religion, or to be with someone who is of another religion. You may argue that that is the people, but if I recall, the people make the culture, and mormonism is neck deep in that culture.
Re:There is no separation of church and state (Score:2, Insightful)
All I mentioned was muslim charities that are using the money for terrorism. I did NOT say that islam supports terrorism. That would be about as correct as someone else saying that militant christian groups in montana (nothing against montana, just pulling a state out of the air) represent all of christianity.
For your info, my Master Instructor in martial arts is muslim and I respect him more that almost anyone else I know (short of my family). I do not agree with his religion and he doesn't agree with mine, but he ethics and moral values are impeccable and represent nothing like the radical groups in the middle east causing havoc and killing innocent people.
It is the very people that are calling sentiments against organizations that create terror anti-islamic that I suspect becuase they are trying to cloud the issue and destroy the credibility of those fighting to stop radical fundamentalists from killing innocents and confuse the public to their own agena of destruction.
Have you noticed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but you don't have to listen. (Isn't that what everyone is always saying about the 1st Amendment? You have the right to speak, but I have the right to ignore?) And if it solves this following problem...
Then let's say you got arrested for drunken & disorderly.
(Of course, many argue somewhat plausibly that the constitution says nothing about denying government support even to religions, just that it would guarantee religious freedom, in contrast to what was happening in England at that time and before. But I'm not here to argue that.)
If one who is an atheist (to use your example) is bothered by being in a "faith-based" organization, perhaps that person's own faith in atheism (contradiction?) is weak. He should be able to remain firm without trouble, I would think, as many others have in the past, even to the point of being killed over it. (Ancient Rome, anyone? Modern China, anyone?)
Remember also that many hospitals are religiously-affiliated. In times past, especially in Catholic hospitals, a very large percentage of the staff would actually be comprised of priests and nuns. I don't think anyone was ever shocked and horrified by that, so why should this small-time stuff bother you now?
I say this: if the gov't is to be involved in maintaining quality of life in any capacity, it should act like a corporate investor, funding charitable organizations ("companies") that give a good return on investment, not ones that are cash sinkholes and don't benefit anyone. Who should care about ideology if the job gets done?
The only other possibilities I see are (A) the gov't doesn't concern itself with quality of life at all (unreasonable), (B) the gov't funds everybody regardless (a huge waste of money), (C) the gov't does everything itself (bloat and corruption) or (D) the gov't only funds "ideologically pure" organizations.
Of course, since it's impossible for an organization to be ideologically pure (everyone has an ideology), "purity" becomes defined simply on the basis of whatever the regime in power says it is, which sounds to me like a much more tyrannical and arbitrary exercise of gov't power than any of the above. The gov't should be non-descriminatory, and denying funding solely because an organization is a religious one, regardless of its merits, doesn't sound like non-discriminatory behavior to me.
So if someone opens a Jedi alchoholic rehab center, and they do have a good rehab rate, what do I even care whether "Jedi" is a real religion or not?
Re:John the baptist (Score:4, Insightful)
Several other people were martyred before Paul's conversion (and he himself died for his faith). Who would die for something they knew to be a lie?
They Did Not Lie On Their Forms (Score:3, Insightful)
They scoff at anything outside their narrowly-defined concept of a "genuine" religion. "That's not a real relgion, it's just an excuse to _____." "They're just thumbing their noses at us devout _____s, they're not religious." "I've never heard of anyone belonging to _____; it must be a fake."
Religion is much broader than that. Religion is about closely-held beliefs. In the United States we have what's known as "Freedom of Religion." Many people interpret this to simply mean that the government cannot prevent you from going to church/praying/etc. The Constitutional amendment which provides "Freedom of Religion" is also focused on "Freedom of Speech." The whole idea is "Freedom of Ideas." The government cannot tell you your your beliefs are wrong without solid proof
"Your belief that God is dead is wrong because God lives in every man," doesn't fly. "Your belief that you have a mandate from God to murder people of other religions is wrong, because you are harming another person," is valid.
This distinction is very important. When a government can condemn ideas or mandate ideas without the burden of proof, its leaders attain totalitarian power. The power to define valid religions/beliefs translates into the power to define facts and reality, and the government will evolve into a self-serving dictatorship.
I don't care for Star Wars, and I don't think any one of these people can levitate rocks. But I do believe there are many people who are religiously fanatical about Star Wars. I'm not going to ridicule people for claiming Jedi as their religion or accuse them of lying about their beliefs, because their beliefs are just as valid as yours and mine.
I don't pity these "Jedi" for their beliefs. I pity them for living in Australia. In the U.S., the government doesn't have the right to suppress beliefs by calling them lies.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:4, Insightful)
In your example, you say 10% of the population of some area is of some faith, therefore they deserve special consideration.
Instead of making consideration for this one religion though, the altenative could be to simply have the group sue the government based on discriminatation.
Furthermore, your example showed the good side of counting, that the more of a population there is, the more they "count". But what if the census showed a lot population count, say of
Does the number of people in a religion mean that it's more "right" than other?
If we cannot answer that honestly then we cannot justify making decisions based on it, and then why count it at all?
- Serge Wroclawski
Australian Officials (Score:3, Insightful)
If Australian officials don't like the answer they shouldn't ask the queston in the first place.
Re:How is it fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't see a huge difference between Star Wars geeks going to Star Wars conventions, where they dress up as Jedi Knights, listen to their chosen leaders (Star Wars actors, writers, etc.), and rant and rave about how great Star Wars is, and Christians going to church, where they dress up in "proper clothing" (formal attire), listen to their chosen leaders (priests, deacons, selected speakers, etc.), and rant and rave about how great Jesus is. The only real difference that is see is that one side is adoring a film work and the other side is adoring a written work.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:1, Insightful)
The 'official' church stance is tolerant, but individual mormons and the people in government leadership positions in Utah are definitely not.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:3, Insightful)
However, what we cannot have is a gov't program specifically designed to benefit faith-based organizations over non-faith based organizations. We also cannot have court-mandated participation in any faith-based organization because that amounts to a state endorsement of religion.
Re:Of course the gov't acts based on faith beliefs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:John the baptist (Score:1, Insightful)
Have you ever read the Bible? You may have noticed that it quotes and borrows from many earlier works, ideas, and stories.
The fragments in no way prove that the Gospels were written at the time of Paul's ministry - in fact, since so many of them have different wording, spellings, and even names of the characters, it tends to show that the "final form" of the Gospels as we have them now are from much later, after many rewrites.
And out of curiosity, can you give me a reference to Paul's death? I mean an historical work (not the Catholic encylopedia). I know of one existing reference, but it's from over 300 years after the fact. Do you know of an earlier one?
Be careful with "know" and "beleive" (Score:2, Insightful)
They beleived that it was true, and that's all that was necessary. When you start to wade in to matters of faith and belief, proven knowledge doesn't seem to hold much sway in the actions of those that believe something to be true.
Take as an example the christian church's reaction to galileo. What he found about the planets and the sun is true, but it was forsaken. Similarly, Paul and the early martyrs could very easily have believed very strongly in their cause, and still have been wrong due to that which they didn't know.
Re:Separation of Church and State (Score:2, Insightful)
Then get all your friends who feel the same way to do the same. And all their friends. And advertise it to people you don't know.
Then, when your congressmen get thousands of letters saying this, they might bring it up in Congress and it might eventually change the system.
And I can assure you, by the sheer fact that Muslim and Jewish and Mormon and Catholic Chaplains exist in the US Military, and get paid equally and receive the same support from the government, that our government does in fact allocate funds to non-Christian religious institutions.
Re:Byebye organized religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that moon rock very very similar to rocks on earth?
The use ofelectricity inside the case of a computer is part of the hoax. It really does use magic.
The parent's point is that your evidence is still consistant with the hoax theory. Is it simpler to believe that someone used GIMP, or that someone actually built a huge rocket to boost a very heavy camera at such a velocity that it will eventually leave Sol's gravitational influence, just to send back a few photos? Give me a few million dollars for some JPEGs of the solar system, and I know how I'm getting the JPEGs. I might also point out that you cannot prove that the Earth revolves about the Sun. For an earth-bound reference point, Sol orbits Earth and pretty much everything else orbits Sol. Earth has the unique distinction of being the only planet about which Sol orbits.
Now, as far as evidence for the claims of Christianity, you have more early manuscripts of most of the boks of the Bible than you do for any of Shakespear's works, and you have a pretty good geographic distribution of the manuscripts. You have a corroborating document by the non-Christian Roman historian Justinian. You have the question of why the Roman goverment didn't simple produce the body of Jesus when his cult they tried to squash started spreading rumors that he was up and roaming about.
Now, I'm not really asserting any of these claims. I'm just saying that the stuff you presented isn't very scientifically or historically convincing. Be careful about pointing your finger at the fool when you may be found even more foolish.
I agree that people are sheep. However, I tink you fail to realize how much of your "knowledge" you take on blind faith. Oh.. but.. but.. it's not blind faith, it's self-consistant. Most itelligent people in most faiths have come up with an interpretation that is self-consistant. I'm not saying I don't trust the scientific method, I'm saying don't think you're above taking things on "blind faith". I've had some coursework in special relativity. I understand and believe it. As far as anything more complicated in physics goes, I take it on blind faith. Some theories in the past have been shown wrong. Some of the things in physics I take on blind faith will later be shown to be in error. You may be less foolish than I, but I doubt you are much less foolish than I.
Re:How is it fraud? (Score:1, Insightful)
Many people believe in some kind of supreme being and a way of life defined in some text or other. They don't necessarily follow it exactly, or regularly, or devote their lives to it, but they believe it has some kind of real factual truth to it.
However most people recognise that Star Wars is a work of fiction presented in a movie, and Jedi is a fictional 'religion' created in that movie. Few (sane) people would base their life, or even take seriously, concepts like midichlorians and a 'force' holding everything together as factual. For those few that seriously believe in this, most everyone else can quickly trace the exact origins of these terms to a popular and relatively recent work of fiction, and declare that person a loony geek.
Only the true messiah (Score:2, Insightful)
Brian: "Oh, all right, I am the messiah!"
Mob: "He is the messiah! He is the messiah!"
I put Jedi down as my religion, and I promise I am training to be able to wave my fingers and make people not notice my illegal cargo. I would love to be in communion with others who share this belief that makes these things possible.
And just because Lucas doesn't want to be the messiah - and he isn't, or even the author of the faith, doesn't mean it isn't a faith.
Do I want the government to provide me with religious refuges, or Yoda figurines? No.
Did I do this as a prank? No, I did it because I worship Yoda and all he stands for.
Yoda: "There is too much fear in him. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hatred leads to the Darkside."