Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination 615
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the these-are-not-the-benefits-you-are-looking-for dept.
from the these-are-not-the-benefits-you-are-looking-for dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Chris Jarvis, 31, is described as a Star Wars fan and member of the International Church of Jediism. Said church's intergalactic hoodie uniform is at odds with the strict doctrine of the Department for Work and Pensions, which may require Jobcentre 'customers' to remove crash helmets or hoods for 'security reasons.' Following his ejection, Jarvis filled out a complaint form and within three days got a written apology from branch boss Wendy Flewers. She said: 'We are committed to provide a customer service which embraces diversity and respects customers' religion.'"
ha (Score:3, Insightful)
Neeeeerrrrrrrrdddd
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
"These are not the dorks you are looking for."
Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".
This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do crazy stuff by yourself, its because your insane. If you get another person to do it as well, its because its a religion and is now worthy of respect and special treatment.
Just another reason to hate nerds. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because sampenzus knows that 99.9% of people block idle so he posts his stories in the other sections to get page views.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm by no means even close to being so dedicated a fan, but I'm pretty sure a Jedi would remove his hood when asked to after entering a building, specifically one run by the local government. All the Jedi characters I remember were pretty polite. Also, I don't recall many complaint forms being filled out.
Still, kudos to Ms. Flewers for coming through, even if it's only on a customer service front. If being accommodating is possible, why not formally apologise if someone was upset enough to complain.
What BS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when do Jedi have to wear hoodies with the hood up? There are numerous points in the movies where Jedi do not wear their hoods up, and numerous occasions where they even wearing a garment that has a hood at all. Clearly, mandatory hoodies is not one of the precepts of Jediism as it existed in the Galactic Republic/Empire.
This reminds me of all the rituals and requirements Catholics make up that was never mentioned in the Bible. But at least they can point at a section in the Bible that can be read to say that the church leaders are allowed to make this stuff up.. As far as I know, not only is there no such statement in Star Wars, Lucas is quite serious about restricting who is allowed to expand upon Star Wars. Is there some Expanded Universe novel in which the Hoodie Requirement is created?
So dude, I mean Mr. Jedi, put your hood down. You don't need it up to be a Jedi. Insisting on putting it up isn't holding fast to your religion, it's playing dress-up.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the key point here. Just because something is believed by many doesn't make it absolutely correct (well, in terms of everyone else anyway)... I mean which sounds more absurd, that there's an omnipresent being in the sky that knows all and watches over everyone (not to mention that the being "punishes" wrong doers), or that all life is connected by a inherent quality that connects every living being? You say "Who defines what a religion is"... I say "Who defines what a religion isn't"...
Religion started as a way to explain the unexplainable (Nature, Life, Death, etc), and in doing so implemented a moral backbone. Every major organized religion (I'm assuming major, I've yet to find any one that doesn't) attempts to qualify both aspects. They explain the hereto unexplainable, and they do provide a basis for moral life (typically through consequences in the afterlife, if one exits in said religion)... So what defines a religion then? Does it need to be organized (and a 503c organization) to be considered a religion? Or does it just need to be a set of beliefs that a person follows? I personally don't believe in any organized religion. But I do have my own beliefs about it. Does that mean I shouldn't be exempted from a law that violates my belief (For example, I believe that helmet laws are immoral. If someone wants to take the risk, let them) because it's not organized? Once we as a world can get our heads around that concept (that a religion is a set of ideas, and not something you are a "member" of), the world will be a lot better of a place...
IMHO at least...
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that a "more outrageous exception"? Groups formed to promote value system X will prefer people who also like X. An aerospace company will prefer people who are "really into" aviation over people who see it as "just another job". Where's the pity party for people turned down in these cases?
Even accepting that this group should be legally barred from discrimination, what makes it a "more outrageous" case? Oh no -- they're allowed to not hire you where ... um, everyone will hate you anyway. Next, Mosques will be allowed to prohibit Christians from leading services!
Re:A little extreme? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:2, Insightful)
In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them.
Kind of depends. If it's for a cleaner or a mechanic, then discrimination on sexual orientation is clearly an issue. However, if churches were unable to refuse employment for someone in, say, pastoral care, with a lifestyle or beliefs contrary to that church's teaching, then such a law would go beyond anti-discrimination and become intolerant dictature.
He needs to go back to Jedi school. (Score:5, Insightful)
Had he been a real Jedi, he would have just waved his hand and said "You don't have to remove your hood", to which security would have said "You don't have to remove your hood" and waved him on through.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What now.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Too far? How about we invent a couple hundred more and all start asking for special exceptions to be made for us.
Maybe that way we can stop treating the "old" religions as though they're somehow special with regards to taxes, government etc.
Long live full separation of church and state.
Re:This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] if you are a Sikh you are allowed to use a motorbike without a helmet since you have a turban in the way (although to be honest, in that case your violation doesn't harm anyone else) [...]
In Canada, if that person gets into an accident, my taxes are going to pay for his hospital bill. I'm all for saving lives, but I would rather prevent injury before it happens. In this case I worked goddamn hard for my money, a third of which goes towards taxes - his not wearing a helmet isn't harming me per se, but it is really fucking annoying. A simple helmet can save thousands of dollars in taxpayer money and I'm expected to kowtow to a religious right? What the fuck man!??
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
Another fun fact. Charities do not pay tax either. You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it. The "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion" refers to a state religion like the Church of England. It does not prevent the state from co-operating with already established religions.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the time, these things will be singular events.
Do you honestly expect this to lead to a whole bunch of Jedi trying to keep their hoods up in this place?
Sometimes the best response to a one-off like this is to just ignore it and move on. See previous post on letting things go.
Sure, the guy's religion is silly. But no sillier than any other, really.
Of course, she could have simply pointed out that nothing in the Jedi code requires one to keep their hood on at all times, and, in fact, we have counter-examples in every movie...
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, if he's in an accident the higher amount of ER/hospital time he may require harms no one. After all, the man hours available in ERs and hospitals are infinite and virtually free of cost. (Well, to him anyways. The taxpayers pay.)
Not harming anyone else isn't the same as not having consequences for anyone else.
If you're involved in a motorcycle accident and you're not wearing a helmet, the amount of time you require in hospital is virtually none.
The amount of time you require in a mortuary, however....
Eh, motor-cycle, no helmet (Score:3, Insightful)
What hospitable bill? I cleaned up after people who thought helmets are optional. Trust me. There is no hospital bill. The turban is a good thing however, it will keep the mess in. Makes it a bit easier for the person collecting the bits.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not quite accurate. They're against government social program. Private ones are just fine. The idea is that charity should be voluntary otherwise it's just another tax.
And This Is What's Wrong With The UK Today.... (Score:4, Insightful)
... people like me who have to work for a living in order to pay taxes so that shirkers like him can stay on the dole indefinitely without needing to make any effort to make themselves good prospects for employment.
Personally, I'd stop his unemployment benefit there and then because he's quite clearly not using it as stop-gap while he seriously looks for work... and wasting the time of Job Centre staff when there are more deserving people out there who are *DESPERATE* to get a job.
Sometimes I despair at people these days...
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it admits fault where there is none, sets a precedent, and generally encourages this sort of behavior.
I don't have any mod points, someone give this post some credit. We Americans need to stop letting the loonies think they are on even footing with the rest of society. We're only doing ourselves a disservice. First we let the Scientologists think they are legits, then creationists, then the Tea Baggers, now Jedis? Ugh.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:1, Insightful)
but this country was FOUNDED, by christians....
we are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.....
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
You Americans hate social programs like universal health care so non-profit organizations like churches help the poor, sick and homeless when taxpayers like you are unwilling to pay the state to do it.
You sound bitter...
That is exactly how it was intended to be, and we like it that way. Thanks.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, if we have to take one religion created by a science fiction writer as serious, we have to take them all as serious. Of course, if Jediism had as visible a spokesman as Tom Cruise, there'd be no question.
Re:Theologian here (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does a special exception for freedom in the context of religion serve this purpose better than freedom just 'cuz? In other words, if the freedom is good in the religious context why is it not good in another context?
Re:Might not be PC, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
"You don't get rich writing science-fiction. If you want to get rich, you found a religion." * L. Ron Hubbard, Nov. 11, 1948
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:4, Insightful)
This country was founded mostly by deists, aka atheists with a philosophical bent.
As for your pithy statement at the end, the 1st amendment states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. A law giving money to faith based organizations is definitely respecting an establishment of religion. It's that simple.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, GP is discriminating against the fantasy authors who wrote Genesis, the Quran, the Vedas...
Re:Theologian here (Score:3, Insightful)
They were also roundly denounced in churches, at times when those views were unpopular - just like homosexuality in the modern era. It's almost like the people giving sermons in church are people with varying opinions, and not particularly special in any way!
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, you're being an asshole.
this country was FOUNDED, by christians....
Wow, read a history book. (Or maybe not, given the revisionism that's happening in Texas...)
The founding fathers were Deists at best, and a few were likely atheists. Google "Jefferson's Bible" for an education -- or maybe note that Franklin said, "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
And even if it were true, where's the relevance? They had the balls to start a state which was never intended to be a Christian nation, but rather, was intended to keep religion the fuck out of politics. That was a huge part of the great American experiment, and what makes this country so great. You, sir, are an unpatriotic bigot.
we are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.....
Bullshit. That's a slogan concocted by people with a specifically anti-atheistic bent, who are ignorant of the sheer variety of religions that exist. Buddhism and Taoism are "freedom from religion" in every sense that matters to you people -- there are sects without dogma, and there certainly aren't any gods to pray to, that you hope will save you in the afterlife.
Freedom of religion necessarily requires freedom from religion, or it descends into absurdity like this -- unless you're OK with your tax dollars going to the Church of Scientology, or the Church of the FSM, or just maybe, to a new order of Jedi.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good resume.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, if you don't like that argument, what if my religion is one of the many polytheistic or animist religions? Why am I forced to acknowledge one God when I believe in many, none of whom should be called "God?"
Freedom of religion in this country is a joke. We allow only Judeo-Christian religions here, and even among those we barely tolerate some of them (Islam). If you're not part of a mainstream monotheistic religion, you're routinely discriminated against by the Judeo-Christian establishment. Meanwhile, the Christians who control everything whine about being persecuted all the time.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
the government can't pick favorites, you're absolutely correct...
but the government can (and does) support every established religion (tax exempt status)
personally i find evangelical christians distasteful... if i found radical Islamists less distasteful i'd move to Iran... luckily i can deal with those who disagree with me, as long as i have the freedom to believe what i believe... and in THIS country, i do....
name 5 others where that's possible...
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, it's almost as if they were acting like immature twerps and that Jedi is not actually a real religion.
There's a "real" religion?
Re:Theologian here (Score:4, Insightful)
My first choice for career was theology, and I have a Ph.D. in New Testament. So I've given this a bit of thought.
...and you're extremely biased.
The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.
Nope. Bzzt. Wrong. We are talking about exceptions to the law that everyone else must abide by due to your religion. We are not talking about being told what you may or may not believe.
However, allowing freedom of religion--allowing religious groups the freedom to have mixed services, or women in the pulpit, or roller-skating as a religious service, or damned near anything so long as you can make some sort of argument that it serves a religious function--becomes the place where unpopular viewpoints can be expressed.
You certainly don't need religion to express unpopular views or beliefs. I don't think your argument is terribly logical.
It's worth remembering that all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches, at a time when these views were very unpopular.
Now you're being dishonest. Religion in general and churches in particular are responsible for setting science back centuries or even millennia. If you held an unpopular view as defined by the state religion you could be excommunicated, tortured, killed. The Galileo incident is the standard one brought up but it is tip of the iceberg and had other political components (You don't call those in power simpletons!!!)
So, my point is that granting special privileges to religious belief serves a useful social purpose. Yes, it's good for religious people (although I might argue how good it really is... religions tend to thrive on persecution.) But it's also good for society as a whole. Simply put, kill religious freedom is like eating your seed-corn.
No it doesn't. It grants groups special privileges based on irrational views. You haven't demonstrated your point AT ALL.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:2, Insightful)
call Gordon College in Massachusetts and ask about their admission policies and the contracts their students sign...
whether they live on OR off campus.
i'm sure Providence College has similar policies... that's what religious education institutions do.
if you live in Utah and you don't like the laws, work to change them, if you can't change them, move to another state...
THAT'S WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT OUR COUNTRY!!
once you move out of your mom's basement, you can live anywhere and do anything you want!
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Insightful)
the only similarity between them i can see is the first chapters often contridict the later chapters.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Jedi" religion does not attempt to court political influence, and as such is only a cult, not a religion.
Actually, I think you're wrong. The entire existence of organised Jediism appears to be an attempt at making a particular political statement, i.e. that "other" religions have too much power and some of it should be taken away.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:3, Insightful)