Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination 615
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.'"
He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Funny)
"These are not the dorks you are looking for."
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".
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Funny)
"These are not the dorks you are looking for."
Not only that, only nerds would get excited about a STOCK response from HR about discrimination, and then post it on slashdot. Not trying to troll here, but HR folks aren't lawyers, and are trained to be extremely careful when it comes to possible litigation. In short, even the bad publicity makes it worthwhile for HR to apologize to this "Jedi" instead of saying something like "we only recognize jedis on active duty, with working light sabers".
That's precisely why it's funny. Of course no one there takes his religion seriously, but our culture forces them to act as though they do.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Informative)
I dug deeper into the nested links and found this, so I'm updating my previous post:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/09/jedi_knights_achieve_official_recognition/ [theregister.co.uk]
"Update
An official from the National Statistics office had called us up to complain about the story. Apparently they've been getting a load of phone calls asking if Jedi Knight is officially a religion.
This is the official line: the Census does not provide recognition to any religion in the official statistics nor does it attempt to define religion. The list that you can see by checking out the pdf file above is merely a list of possible answers that people have been known to put in the box marked religion.
As such, Jedi Knight is not officially recognised as a religion."
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, let's accept for a moment the premise that Jediism is a valid religion. Let's further accept for the moment that a tenant of this religion requires you to dress like it's Halloween. Why does he have to leave his hood up? Jedi appear in every episode of the Star Wars movies, most if not all of the books, and numerous comics, games and other media. The *most* that has ever been said of them is that they *usually* wear robes. It's not a requirement of the order for them to do so, they often wear practical clothes or uniforms when appropriate, but they *usually* wear robes. Of all the various incarnations of Star Wars I've consumed, I'd estimate that the Jedi are wearing hooded robes with the hoods up less than 5% of the time.
This sounds suspiciously like the post I read on a Wiccan forum once. It was from a non-pagan squad leader in the Army, curious about athames. It seems that a member of his squad was insisting that carrying around a non-regulation knife was a part of his Wiccan religion; and to not permit him to do so would be a violation of his religious freedom. The squad leader was sympathetic to the soldier's religion, but thought this sounded far fetched. We calmly explained that while knives are certainly a part of Wiccan Ceremony, they do not need to be carried at all times, their absence can be worked around, and they certainly do not *need* to be 12 inch long Gothic daggers.
I'm all for Alternative Religions. I'm a member of an Alternative Religion. Alternative Religion does not mean you just get to claim that everything you want to do is part of your religion.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Informative)
Most religions don't adhere that closely to their sacred texts. They 'interpret' them to mean something quite different, which changes over time. [...] Compare, for example, "On the seventh day, God rested." -> "Everyone has to take a day off once every seven days."
Umm... try Exodus 20:8-11 --
Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work--you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
or Exodus 23:12 --
For six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey may have relief, and your home-born slave and the resident alien may be refreshed.
or Exodus 31:14-15 --
You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; everyone who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it shall be cut off from among the people. For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall be put to death.
or Deuteronomy 5:13-14 --
For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work--you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.
etc.
I don't think these passages require much "interpretation" to get to the idea that everyone needs to take a day off every seventh day... do you? Sounds pretty darn explicit to me.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I saw a clown car crash once. There were bodies all over the place, laying in funny positions.
This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Funny)
To allow the Idle section to remain idle?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I heard that it was supposed to be a section honouring Eric Idle.
Re:This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Funny)
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:This belongs in IDLE. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
As an American, I spend a lot of time reading posts like yours, and wonder why you people consider yourself so much better than us when you drive your own opinions on stereotypes and extreme cases. Then I remember you aren't any better, you just think you are, and I feel okay.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Insightful)
the only similarity between them i can see is the first chapters often contridict the later chapters.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Insightful)
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:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Interesting)
Well until the next idiot and the next idiot and so on come along and try to pull the same stunt. Sometimes it's best to just nip it in the bud before it blows up and you have tons of assholes trying to make up excuses for why they should be above a rule that everyone else but them has to follow.
Thank you. For a while there, I was reading the comments thinking, "I can't be the only person here who can recognize a precedent when one is being set." As it is, businesses are already too eager to accommodate melodramatic and otherwise unreasonable people in the hopes that such people will spend money. The effect on society is that being unreasonable, childish, and unable to understand viewpoints other than your own is behavior that has been repeatedly validated. When everyone knows this is the case, everyone feels free to be unreasonable. There should be a difference between "treat them with courtesy, respect, and benefit of doubt" and "kiss their ass no matter what," and everyone benefits from higher-quality interaction when there is.
It's also like the nuisance lawsuits that are without merit, but companies often settle them out-of-court because the cost of the settlement is less than the cost to defend themselves in court. If immediate short-term planning is the only kind of which you are capable, this sounds like the best way to cut your losses. If you can think a little more long-term, you can see that the legions of people who knowingly file lawsuits that have little or no merit are doing it because they are counting on the company to settle just to make them go away. They look at previous cases where this happened and are encouraged.
I am not saying that corporations should start caring about their effects on society more than money, because that's unfortunately unrealistic. I am saying that their shallow, short-term selfishness could be replaced with enlightened self-interest. They'd realize that accommodating pathological behavior is not in their interests, that it only creates more of it, and that discouraging it during its early stages before it takes off and becomes a widespread trend is the most cost-effective approach available. They'd ultimately sustain fewer losses this way, and therefore would make more money.
That's the situation you have here. I have no doubt that other members of other, equally questionable "religions" are watching this, and that what they feel they can or cannot get away with is going to be strongly influenced by what happens here. I also don't doubt that there is a non-zero cost to companies to have their HR staff deal with this and that more incidents means more of this cost. Failing to discourage it early on makes it more likely to wind up in a courtroom with all the extra expenses that entails, not to mention the bad PR of a "religious discrimination" lawsuit.
Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (Score:4, Funny)
Why, it's almost as if they were acting like immature twerps and that Jedi is not actually a real religion.
Brett
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
"These are not the dorks you are looking for."
I'm not surprised he was out of work. His sad devotion to that ancient religion hasn't helped him find a job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good resume.
ha (Score:3, Insightful)
Neeeeerrrrrrrrdddd
What now.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Talking about 'religion' going to far... Maybe if leather jackets are allowed he should join the church of the Fonz...
For those who don't recognize the reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz)
We Todd Dead (Score:5, Informative)
Unbelievably stupid indeed. I see Jedis take off their hoods all the time in the movies. Why can't he? The only force-user who's adamant about keeping his hood on is the Emperor, in which case you'd best throw this guy down a shaft now and save us all a lot of trouble.
Re:We Todd Dead (Score:5, Funny)
It could be worse... they could have been Scientologists rather than Jedi.
Re:We Todd Dead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We Todd Dead (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I bet he really embarrasses his girlfriend at the theater.
Oh, wait.
Wave your hand and say: (Score:5, Funny)
I am not the unbelievably stupid asshole you are looking for.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:4, Interesting)
To paraphrase Thomas Wolfe:
"A religion is a cult with political power".
The modern mantra of "separation of church and state" has lead some to the erroneous conclusion that religions exist entirely in the private sphere and have no interaction with the public and especially political one. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Religions are inherently political institutions who will at all times strive to commandeer the powers of the state in enforcing their religious views. I'm not attempting to be controversial here. This kind of church-state interaction goes back to the early days of the Roman empire and before. Separation of church and state only puts limits on the level of official political status a church can have. It doesn't make their political status go away though.
The "Jedi" religion does not attempt to court political influence, and as such is only a cult, not a religion. By contrast, the Sikh religion is very politically influential in many areas of Britian via voting blocks etc, and so are able to obtain exemptions on motorcycle helmets and ceremonial knifes and so forth.
Religions are inherantly political institutions and modern society would be a lot better off it it came to terms with this fact rather than pretending it had somehow gone away.
Re: (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:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Funny)
> So true.
WTF do you think this is, Twitter?
If you can't add to the conversation, just STFU, OK? Don't be polluting the page with "I agree"s and "So tragic"s and shit like that.
You! Over there, with the seven digit ID. Yes you! This means you too.
True, 'dat.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (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)
Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem in the US isn't nationwide, it is regional. Take Utah for example. There is massive discrimination and harassment against non-Mormons, and they elect religious leaders into public offices on a regular basis.
They also create laws thinly disguised so as to force others to conform to their religious beliefs. Where are the dance clubs in Provo? Last time I checked, they had put them all out of business using any excuse (one was after the olympics were held, "certain" businesses were required to ha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The University of Utah and BYU are light years apart. Utah is a normal public university. There's less partying than most schools because there are lots of Mormons (although they drink too when they're 18 and away from home for the first time) and most students work full time jobs. Salt Lake City is a normal, progressive city. Our liquor laws are strict but not more so than other states (Pennsylvania, Kansas, South Carolina IIRC have similarly restrictive laws).
BYU is in Provo, which is probably the mos
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:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Informative)
1) I think even Jefferson would object to being called an "atheist with a philosophical bent." Deism != atheism. He professed a belief in a God of some type, though he disagreed with most of the core theologies of Christianity. Washington, whether he was a deist or a Christian, was certainly not an atheist.
2) Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means. The early Americans were eager to avoid a state church, such as Anglicanism, not to avoid churches. The issue was not, for them, that "religious people" might unduly affect the political process, but that the government not require adherence to a particular church. The word "establishment" in "establishment of religion" is a verb, not a noun; they were concerned about not creating (establishing) a state religion, not fighting "the establishment." Also, "respecting" is like "regarding" or "concerning," not "being nice to." They didn't want to ensure that respect was never paid to any religion, but that the government not dictate what people could and could not believe. Point is, it's about not forcing people to adhere to one faith, not about treating any/all faiths or lack thereof execrably.
Apologies if you knew all that, but your post made it seem like you were saying "the government shouldn't make decisions based on a positive attitude toward the established (Christian) religion," which I think is an incorrect reading on all counts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Buddhism and Taoism aren't systems of beliefs? really? honestly?
re·li·gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ [ri-lij-uhn]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Franklin also invented the glass harmonica which was banned due to it's demonic sounds and he flew kites in lightning storms
So he invented stuff and carried out scientific experiments. Anything else to add?
was a patron of every whorehouse in France...
...so I have to ask, what's your point, with any of these particular facts? Franklin also invented the Franklin stove, discovered the connection between lightning and electricity, and was a diplomat, probably most directly responsible for the French coming to our aid -- doubtful we could've won the revolution without them.
Buddhism and Taoism aren't systems of beliefs? really? honestly?
Didn't say that. However, there's a point to be made here -- many Christians are appalled by atheists, som
Re: (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
Re: (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... luck
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Informative)
No non-profit organizations in the United States have to pay taxes.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:4, Funny)
yeah, but churches are for-prophet organizations...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, not all non-profit organizations are tax exempt.
Second, non-profit organizations that are tax exempt have to prove that they're non-profit by disclosing their finances. That is, except churches, who are considered non-profit on religious grounds, and don't even have to disclose finances to their members, much less anyone else. In fact, they don't even have to file to be treated as tax exempt.
Then again, whether churches are even non-profit is also very much arguable.
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:4, Informative)
Holy crap!
I was about to post to say you were full of shit on this one, so went to the IRS site to get a reference, and it turns out you're right.
"Religious organizations" still have to do all the paperwork that regular non-profits do, but there's a special exemption for "churches" that waive all these requirements. They don't even have to pay the $150 a year that we have to.
The IRS has a handy summary Q&A [irs.gov] explaining how it works.
They have to obey certain rules, such as they're not allowed to transfer Church property to private individuals for less than market value (but nothing prohibits the church from owning a private jet that's used solely by Pat Robertson, for example).
Also, the church is prohibited from spending a "substantial part of its activity" in attempting to influence legislation, nor may it interfere in political campaigns. Of course, these rules are blatantly violated by large churches all the time.
There's even special rules for churches limiting the IRS's authority to audit them.
Damn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reference would be section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a decent write-up.
Also see the other reply to my post.
Re: (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: (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.
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
I think religion started as a way to explain phenomena that were not understood. To give the feeling of control over things that were random. People see patterns where there are none, and really like their world to be structured and safe.
It was then used by those in power to control the population.
The history of the church is a prime example. I found this program very interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ntrqh [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I sense a market gap for motorbike helmets that are airbrushed to look like turbans.
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: (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!??
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.
Theologian here (Score:3, Interesting)
My first choice for career was theology, and I have a Ph.D. in New Testament. So I've given this a bit of thought.
The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold. That's all very well and good when you happen to agree with the religious and cultural perspectives of the state--for example, from the sound of your posts, you seem to hold to "liberal democracy" (in the technical sense, not the pundi
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:Theologian here (Score:4, Interesting)
all the humanist values that you hold dear... the rights of man, civil liberty, universal suffrage, the civil rights movement... were first nurtured in churches
Umm... sorry, no. The Civil Rights Movement in the US was nurtured in churches, because that was the community that existed among African-Americans. But beyond that... the Rights of Man were championed in (fiercely anti-clerical) Revolutionary France. Civil Liberty was at least as much championed by deists/quasi-atheists, or secular liberals like JS Mill. Universal suffrage (do you mean of men? or race-blind universal male suffrage? and in which country?) had both religious and non-religious sides, but churches were certainly not at the forefront of supporting female suffrage in the US. (There was a strong religious abolitionist movement, as well as a non-religious one, and I suppose you might be right about that in terms of colorblind suffrage).
But humanism generally was not a belief endorsed by churches; the Papacy made use of humanist scholars of course, but also subjected some of them to Inquisition, and Luther didn't exactly go around encouraging Germans to learn Ciceronian Latin...
The problem is that, without these exceptions, you end up setting the disastrous precedent of the state defining what is an acceptable religious belief to hold.
I... suppose. I would prefer a state that makes minimal rules over arbitrary social practices, but then does not make exceptions to them solely on the grounds of religious belief. Not that there aren't plenty of relics of religious belief in, say, American public life (we wouldn't need an exception for Quakers if we didn't insist that people swear before God for public functions, etc.)
Re: (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: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: (Score:3)
You are already modded insightful, but in most cases, such comments are taken as trollish. The UK is slightly ahead of the US in discriminatory practices made in the guise of respect to and for religions. It's insane. Inch by inch religions are weaseling their way into government. It won't be long before you have to be someone of faith to get treated as a citizen, be elected to office, or conduct business. Yes, many will say that sounds silly now, but Rome was not built in a day. We can see them laying foun
Re: (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....
Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Luke was wearing a hood when he entered Jabba's palace at the start of Return of the Jedi.
Re:Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods (Score:5, Interesting)
Yoda has a hood on his robe in most of the Prequel Star Wars movies.
Luke uses one when he first Enters Jaba's palace in Return of the Jedi.
Just about each of them so far, Sith and Jedi Alike have worn hooded robes at one point or another.
Oh - that gives me an Idea. Can I create a Sith Religion and start a legal Crusade against the Jedi?
Chuch of Highlander (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Chuch of Highlander (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
The Church of Highlander can only have one member.
Eventually...
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.
Which Jedi religion? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe he's Western Reformed Jedi instead of Eastern Orthodox Jedi.
Re:Which Jedi religion? (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, he doesn't look Jediish.
(with apologies to Mel Brooks)
Re:What BS! (Score:5, Informative)
I think if his boss checked the Jedi Church's web site, it would have been clear that this guy was full of BS. Quote, "The Jedi church has no official doctrine or scripture." In other words, the Jedi Church does not require its members to wear hoods. This guy is taking a satirical jab at organized religion a bit too far. Here's a link to the Jedi Church's page about doctrine.
http://www.jedichurch.org/jedi-doctrine.html
Re:What BS! (Score:5, Funny)
And thus began the great jedi schism of 2010, when hoodie fundemenatalists were cast out of the light of the one true force and were forced to found a new order referred to derisively as "the dark side".
In my books, if you can have people this upset over doctrine, you are indeed qualified to call yourself a religion.
He would also have a legitmate complaint in the US (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, the Irony (Score:2, Funny)
Don't get me wrong - I love Star Wars, but this whole situation makes me a bit bitter.
A little extreme? (Score:5, Funny)
As it is, the guy was wearing a hoodie, not a Jedi robe.
Seems a bit extreme.
Might not be PC, but... (Score:5, Funny)
...Jediism carries the same credibility as other religions directly based on science fiction stories. Just ask Tom Cruise.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hard to Imagine (Score:3, Funny)
Hard to imagine why this guy is out of a job.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
"These are not the jobs you looking for"
I think this is less of a Jedi religion issue.. (Score:3, Funny)