UK Atheists Hope to Eliminate Jedi Population

[Not-here-anymore]

I actually filled in the census form earlier. Spent most of the time hovering over the religion question wondering if I should put jedi, sith or pastafarian.

Went with 'none' in the end, seemed easier.

 

[Tydanubus]

If I were a legislator in the UK, I would want people to not lie on their census form for the sake of being ironic and contrary.

Let me guess, atheist?

Yes. Is this going somewhere or are you just going for an Ad Hominem attack?

I understand that it's usually a joke; I even found it quite funny when I heard about it a few years ago. I also accept that there are some people who genuinely consider themselves Jedi, in a spiritual sense, and I can respect that. But whether or not you think it's useful data or if you think they use it correctly, law makers use the census to help make decisions. It's not fair on the non-religious community (which may include the people who claim Jedi), who are marginalized in public decisions because they're underrepresented. It'd be like putting down "Klingon" as your race. Sure, if the results came back and the Daily Mail gets to run a headline that "40% of people in Bristol are extraterrestrials," we all get a laugh. Neato. But at the same time, that leaves 40% of Bristol unaccounted for by the data.

People used to mock me when I talked about militant atheists....

Militant Atheism? Campaigning to get people to more seriously consider the answers they give to polls which decide public policy is militant? The campaign doesn't seek to convert the religious, it merely seeks to let those who are already non-religious be more accurately represented by the national statistics. What's wrong with that?

I'm morally opposed to arguing on the Internet, so I'm just weighing in to thank summerof2010 for being such a reasonable representative of the atheists' side of this discussion. I read through the first 7 pages of this thread before I got tired of reading posts made by people who either didn't read or don't understand the argument against screwing with the census data.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

Aww, come on! The Jedi movement is awesome. Some atheists should know how to take a joke.

And other people need to learn when to make jokes, and when to take things seriously.

The Census is to inform the government of how they shoud invest in communities, by putting a joke religion down on a serious thing the so called jedi's are making the country seem more religious than it really is, and thus getting the governemnt to invest in more religious communities over anything else, or simply making this generation look like a bunch of immature jokers that don't want a better community or care enough to allow it to be improved.

Eh...I know what the census is trying to accomplish,it´s in the original post

I get what you´re saying, but...

1)...i think that if people (and the media)make a big deal out of this, the number of self-proclaimed jedis might actually INCREASE this year.

2)...i hope that the government will be able to tell that those who wrote "Jedi" might not be a completely reliable demographic. If they´re not able to take that into consideration, this Jedi issue might be the least of UK´s problems.

3)...its obvious that these few atheists who are behind this have their own agenda. Sure, you pointed out a noble purpose in their movement, but i´m confident that they mainly want to change public perception of their cause (as in, that there are more atheists than before). Lets not pretend that they´re only doing this for the greater good.

4)...what if a lot of those people actually believe in Jediism? The whole "If your religion is of low enough importance to you to that you are willing to put in a religion from 3 good sci-fi films from years ago, and 3 more recent rubbish ones,please consider ticking 'No Religion' instead" line is a pretty arrogant and possibly offensive statement. I´m agnostic, but i believe if someone wants to believe in The Force, they have the right to do so. The message is delivered in the worst way possible and has a holier-than-thou attitude that i cannot defend.

Just my two cents. Cheers

 

[Natdaprat]

UK atheists need to get the big sticks stuck up there asses forcibly removed!! its a joke you uptight bastards! Besides most of the people claiming to be into 'Jedism' are probably nonreligious but they decide to say otherwise for a laugh

We're not all uptight bastards. The reason they want them to put non religious is because our government actually takes "Jedi" as a serious religion, and it will alter the numbers of "non-religious" in their eyes, which to atheists is a bad thing.

Also, I'm putting the Church of Google.

 

[mechanixis]

They're right. Taking the piss is funny up to a point, but botching an attempt at furthering secularization is taking it a bit far.
You will not be able to excise the cancer of religion by laughing at it, that's for sure.

The percentage of who is and who is not religous is not relevant to secularizing government. Even if 99% of the people are a certain religion, religious freedom would still mandate a secular government.

It's more complicated than that. In the United States, you literally have no hope running for office without being emphatically Christian. While there is a technical separation of church and state, in reality it's very much a Christian hegemony. By under-representing the actual non-religious demographic, we're just perpetuating a culture where someone's religion is seen as some kind of moral metric: being "Christian" automatically marks you as a good, intelligent person, while being Islamic or nonreligious demonizes you. It's a system of deeply ingrained prejudices.

I think you meant to say "Botching an attempt at destroying religion."

A) Forcing them to put Atheist rather than Jedi is not going to further any attempt at destroying religion, it would not help in any size shape or form.

How is this "destroying religion"? There's no forcing here; it's just an appeal for them to take these things seriously. If anything, it's begging. You're buying in to the inflammatory tone of the article.

B) Destroying religion is a violation of human rights. People have both a right to be free from being forced into other's religions, and to have whatever religion they wish.

C) Can you explain precisely why a lack of religion would make the world a better place? Chairman Mao of China, as I recall, did pretty much every horrible thing that religous people do. Same for Stalin. So it seems to me that the basic problems Atheists associate with religion are going to exist even without religion.

No one is talking about actively destroying religion! Atheists don't go out in the night and kidnap religious people to brainwash them! Religion is an extremely dominant force in government and culture, and 'militant' Atheists like this simply want to level the playing field by coaxing secularization along. As I said, religious fundamentalism has led to serious problems in the United States when it comes to elected officials. Gay marriage, anyone?

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

They're right. Taking the piss is funny up to a point, but botching an attempt at furthering secularization is taking it a bit far.
You will not be able to excise the cancer of religion by laughing at it, that's for sure.

The percentage of who is and who is not religous is not relevant to secularizing government. Even if 99% of the people are a certain religion, religious freedom would still mandate a secular government.

It's more complicated than that. In the United States, you literally have no hope running for office without being emphatically Christian. While there is a technical separation of church and state, in reality it's very much a Christian hegemony. By under-representing the actual non-religious demographic, we're just perpetuating a culture where someone's religion is seen as some kind of moral metric: being "Christian" automatically marks you as a good, intelligent person, while being Islamic or nonreligious demonizes you. It's a system of deeply ingrained prejudices.

I think you meant to say "Botching an attempt at destroying religion."

A) Forcing them to put Atheist rather than Jedi is not going to further any attempt at destroying religion, it would not help in any size shape or form.

How is this "destroying religion"? There's no forcing here; it's just an appeal for them to take these things seriously. If anything, it's begging. You're buying in to the inflammatory tone of the article.

B) Destroying religion is a violation of human rights. People have both a right to be free from being forced into other's religions, and to have whatever religion they wish.

C) Can you explain precisely why a lack of religion would make the world a better place? Chairman Mao of China, as I recall, did pretty much every horrible thing that religous people do. Same for Stalin. So it seems to me that the basic problems Atheists associate with religion are going to exist even without religion.

No one is talking about actively destroying religion! Atheists don't go out in the night and kidnap religious people to brainwash them! Religion is an extremely dominant force in government and culture, and 'militant' Atheists like this simply want to level the playing field by coaxing secularization along. As I said, religious fundamentalism has led to serious problems in the United States when it comes to elected officials. Gay marriage, anyone?

The people who are complaining about the Jedi aren't trying to destroy religion, they just want accurate census numbers because they don't want the UK to appear more religious than it is by having atheists sign up as Jedists.

But on the other hand, there are a lot of people who feel like the government has no business knowing their religion and sign Jedi because of this. And you know what? They're probably right. The census should just include a "prefer not to answer" option and the problem would probably be solved.

But you're wrong about militant atheists, some of them DO want to wipe out religion. Not all of them by any means, but some. They're nut-jobs and they give a bad name to the other atheists.

 

[Flatfrog]

Personally I'm with the campaign. Anyone who wants to make the point that 'all religions are shit' should do so unambiguously by ticking the No Religion box. Having clear data is always a good thing.

Do you really think 400k people putting "Jedi" as their religion will really skew the data? I would of thought the government would be smart enough to spot a joke and not to base legislation on it... all they need do is simply count all the Jedi as atheist and all is well, hardly a big adjustment to make.

They have said they won't do this, though - putative 'Jedis' will be treated the same as those who have ignored the question. (And in fairness, making a question optional makes the data fairly suspect anyway). So yes, I think that is a significant difference. These people have some reason for making a statement like that - even if it's a joke, it's a very specific joke, one that is at the expense of organised religion. And I think the movement towards secularism (as opposed to atheism) in the UK is really important, not least because of the faith school issue.

Besides, I don't think "all religions are shit", when I put "Jedi Knight" on the form its for several reasons: 1) OK I may not be part of an organised religion but I don't want to be lumped in with the secular, rake-up-ass atheists 2) Star wars is the closest thing I have to a religion 3) I want to show support for the nerd/geek contingent:- there are more dyed-in-the-wool geeks out there than people think and we want to be recognised as a social group too! (though maybe that's just me)

Yes, that's all great, but this census isn't about being recognised as a social group. It would be great if it did - I think it would be genuinely interesting to have a question that said something like 'if you had to use one word to describe yourself and the community of people you most belong to, what would it be?' In many ways I think that would tell us a lot more about the demographics of this country than asking about religion - there's a big difference between being a christian and *identifying* yourself as a Christian, (and similarly 'gay', 'black', 'English' or 'gamer' - a single person could be all of these, and being forced to choose one as the single most important part of their identity would be a really interesting challenge).

Anyway, my point is: by putting Jedi you're not making any statement at all. Your voice isn't being heard, it's making no impact on policy in any way.

 

[Haydyn]

You should be allowed to put down whatever you want. We have towns in America that have elected animals for Maker's sake! Speaking of Dragon Age references, next census I'm putting down Chantry.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Seems to me that the guys doing the complaining are missing the point entirely.

As I understand things the whole "Jedi Uprising" thing was done not by Atheists trying to be funny, but by people who objected to the goverment gathering that kind of information. A sort of "right to privacy" thing, where you might agree with the need for a census, but object to some of the information being compiled. I think the Jedi might have included Atheists, but also probably included a lot of people who DO practice a religion but were objecting to the question and were attempting to scew the results by giving a sort of "none of your business" response.

To be honest, I tend to agree with this, and am one of those people who believes that a lot of first world countries should start having their records destroyed in the name of public interest. As ridiculous as it sounds, I'm occasionally apalled at information that private companies as well as the goverment have managed to compile, or require to be given before providing nessicary services. There is such a massive amount of information out there in various records that I think the only real solution is rapidly becoming one where the records need to be destroyed in their entirety.

Even if it amounts to a war due to not accepting/maintaining records of, foreign debts or whatever, I think it's time to pretty much take flame throwers and magnets to currently exisitng databases, followed by imposing some pretty strict laws on what kind of information can be compiled from there on out.

I say this because as ironic as it sounds, the proliferation of records, and the fact that everyone leaves an "information footprint" when they do pretty much anything is a problem. What's more when I see companies like Nintendo implementing technology that they can basically use to track someone via their 3DS, both in their activity with the machine, and by what connections it automatically winds up accessing, all in the interests of "preventing piracy", things have simply gone too far.... and that's just the private sector. I don't see what business it is of the goverments who or what you pray to (if anything at all) faith is a private matter. Honestly I'm skeptical enough to feel that they already have this information in some places, and the census forms are just a method of updating it for certain offices.

I have no desire to see libraries burned or anything (so don't misinterpet this) just the records kept by things like town halls, clerks offices, debt collectors (who then sell that information to others), marketers, etc...

That's a little extreme perhaps, and very difficult to enforce in any meaningful way, but you do have a point.

I've already said it, but it's worth repeating:

Dutch census data was later abused to locate Jews in world war 2.

Accurate data about who belongs to certain groups can and has been used to commit serious attocities.

Anyone who thinks this is a trivial matter really needs to check their history.

Anyone who thinks it doesn't matter because the government/corporation collecting the data can be trusted with it...

Well, see above; It wasn't the dutch government that abused their own census data...

Statistical data that isn't 100% anonymous (and it never is), is much more dangerous than most people are aware of.

How else can anyone with ill intent (or even just the intent to be intrusive and annoying) work out who to target?

 

[DoW Lowen]

How many atheists have you met? What makes them so miserable? Because they do not believe in a supernatural superintendent? I should stop here, because I can go on forever - BUT

How does ANY of what this story about mean "Athiests wont be happy until everyone is as miserable as they are"? Seriously, what is with people's reaction to ANYTHING atheist? Before I could laugh it off, but I'm no longer speaking as an atheist but as a rational human being - how can you misread something or react to something so badly?

Atheism is like any other religion; A strong core of beliefs amongst its followers. In that they believe there is no God. And like any other religion, they become offended when others speak out against it or dont share their beliefs.

I know 7 athiests, and they are all Emos'. Its not a generalisation as a whole since I dont know every athiest. I can only go off the ones I know and the ones that crop up in the various media sources, who also come off as Emo. Emos are generally miserable.

Firstly Atheism is NOT a religion, atheism is a lack of beliefs, if atheism is a religion than off is a tv channel. Based on your avatar I can see your a Rammstein fan, so am I, and I believe that Rammstein is the best live act I've ever seen, someone might say "no, Guns N Roses is the best live act", fine they can believe that, but if they said Rammstein is pop then I'd get pissed, not because I hate pop music (which I don't) but because it's a misrepresentation, an inaccurate assumption that offends not just my Rammstein sensibilities, but the actual logical ones as well - RAMMSTEIN is NOT pop, they are nothing like pop and just because you say so doesn't make it true. This is no different.

I know thousands of religious people, I know hundreds of Atheist and I've seen thousands more from both online. Some religious people are happy, some atheist are miserable, some religious people are ignorant, some atheist are ignorant, some religious people are angry by nature, some atheist are always calm and composed, some religious people do terrible things and so do some atheist. But I do not assume that all atheists are smart just as I don't assume that all religious people are bigoted idiots, I don't assume anything until I've met them - but I do respect them, even if I don't respect their beliefs and it's especially disrespectful to misrepresent people purposefully.

Also if you want to see happy atheists than go on TheThinkingAtheist on youtube, there are literally millions of us who live happy normal lives - some of us are assholes, some of us are saints, some of us are brilliant, some of us thick as bricks - no different to religious people, the only fundamental difference is that we don't believe that we are supernaturally supervised.

As my friend, a gay lawyer once told me, "I'm just like every other guy, I like music, I have friends, I go to work and I like to watch TV, the only real difference is that sometimes when I go home at night I liked to get fucked up the ass."

 

[veryboringfact]

It's more complicated than that. In the United States, you literally have no hope running for office without being emphatically Christian. While there is a technical separation of church and state, in reality it's very much a Christian hegemony. By under-representing the actual non-religious demographic, we're just perpetuating a culture where someone's religion is seen as some kind of moral metric: being "Christian" automatically marks you as a good, intelligent person, while being Islamic or nonreligious demonizes you. It's a system of deeply ingrained prejudices.

This confusion is exactly why the census should be exposed in the most hilarious way possible, as many including myself have said; a large proportion of those 400k people back in 2001 were not anarchists or the like - "Jedi" was just a politer way of telling the government it's none of their f***ing business.

To compare to your US scenario, let me use my France/England comparison that I have used many times before, as it is an effective one and one I can endorse from personal experience having lived many years in both countries;

England, on paper, is not secular. The Queen is the head of state and the head of the church of England as it has been for hundreds of years, in reality however England has a very low percentage of practising protestants (when compare to other countries - state religion or no) and that number continues to decline, all the while very few religiously fuelled social and political issues result in furore in comparison to other countries - in Europe, America and elsewhere - and if you think religious tension is a problem in the UK I highly suggest you look at what is happening elsewhere in the world.

France, on paper, is secular, has no state religion, and defends the total seperation of state and church (lol), in reality however you can find a crucifix at every crossroad and some town centres compeltely jam up every sunday with catholics coming and going from mass. France's "secular" policy serves no more than to quash and oppress non-christian denominations.

Therefore, what could possibly be gained by lobbying to represent the british population as non-denominational or atheist ? Putting "Atheist" would do far more harm than simply putting a joke word like Jedi, and would increase backlash from devoutly religious groups who would see the communal statement as consolidation of opposition. It would create unrest.

I honestly believe it is old-fashioned British reservedness that retains the religious status quo in England - If they don't know your religion - or if you even have one, then they cannot persecute you for it.

Is "being right" really worth worsening the state of affairs in your home nation ? Imagine we all submit THE TRUTH and at the next election the BNP wins all seats and seeds a PM - everyone who put Islam on that census will get their phone tapped ( exaggeration...perhaps).

Surely the whole point of the census is that you put what YOU feel represents YOU, and if you wish to be the joker or tell them to get stuffed (or simply claim you can move shit with your mind and wield a laser sword), it is noone's right to accuse you of immaturity for doing so.

Honestly what I really want to see is 400,000 people put their Occupation down as Mujahidin. Then EVERYONE will have something to ***** about.

 

[darkapothem2000]

When I first read the headline "Atheists Hunt Downs Jedi" on the Escapist home page, I thought, "It's bad enough that their aim is to eliminate the Jedi, but targeting the ones that have Downs just seems a bit like overkill."

My apologies if this joke has already been made in the 11+ pages of this thread... And if not, I apologize for introducing this joke to the thread

 

[Parnage]

How rude of people to tell others what they should believe.

*shrug* Jedi's pretty easy enough religion. Don't be a jerk, don't kiss your sister, don't blow up planets. It's not they can prove the force doesn't exist.

If you want to be a follower of the Jedi way, why the hell not?

 

[CrystalShadow]

Why do they even need to know? They have no reason to care.
I'm still fucking putting Jedi.

/facepalm

read the article again, also read this:

"The data gathered is used to inform government policy, and was used by the last government to justify funding of religious community bodies over secular ones. For example, 2001 census data has been used repeatedly to justify an increase in the number of state maintained faith schools and the increasing level of government money spent on faith organisations.

By ticking 'No Religion', you will ensure that the Government receives an unambiguous message about the number of non-religious people in the UK. Any other response may be manipulated into a response in favour of religion and publically funded religious organisations."

source: http://www.yourenotajedi.com/

OK, have you read the information on the census website? (www.census.gov.uk), because if your statement is accurate, putting in that you're an athiest could also be classified as being a 'religion'

See this passage from the census website
(I've bolded the relevant sections"

"Question 20 ? Your religion

What is your religion?

You can use this question to record your religion, or to specify that you have no religion.

It is up to you to decide whether you have a religion. Select only one response.

If you do not have a religion tick or click "No religion".

If your religion is not listed, tick or click "Any other religion" and enter the name in the space provided.

If there is not enough space to enter the full name of the religion, enter as much as the space allows. See "Additional information" below for help on abbreviating religions.

If you are filling in the paper questionnaire, please write within the boxes and only write one letter in each box.

This question is voluntary; you do not have to answer it.

Additional information

Abbreviating names of religions: Suggested abbreviations to religions with long names.

Agnostic, atheist or humanist: If you wish to specify that you are agnostic, atheist or humanist, select the "Any other religion" category and use the space provided.

Christian denominations: Christian denominations have not been separated out into their own categories because of space constraints on the questionnaire. If you want to write in your particular denomination you can do so by ticking the "Any other religion" category and entering your denomination in the space provided.

Children and their religion: If you think that your child is too young to identify with a particular religion you can either select the "No religion" category or leave the question blank.

Why is this question voluntary? Parliament was concerned that a mandatory religion question would be seen as an infringement of respondents? civil liberties."


Also note the information about why this question gets asked:


"Individual question 20 asks: What is your religion?

This information reveals minority groups not identified by other census questions.

The statistics help in developing and monitoring policy aimed at assessing the needs of population groups whose experiences of public services and social interaction, for example employment and education, may be different to those in other groups. This information is used to plan services and target resources, and allows public authorities to assess and tackle discrimination and social exclusion associated with religion.

This information is also used by the NHS and local authorities to plan services for people from a wide range of religious backgrounds and to monitor their access to services, for example to inform policies on hospital chaplains or public literature and broadcasting.

This question has been asked twice before, once in 1851 and then 150 years later in 2001."

------------

Yes, that's right. "Atheist" should be entered under 'Any other religion' NOT 'No religion'.

There's no way the government can aggregate 'any other religion' with religions generally if they list that as a guideline for atheists.

It would turn the whole thing into a meaningless farce.

Meanwhile, note it also says you're allowed to leave this question blank, because the government thinks making it compulsory 'infringes civil liberties'.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I'm with the Brotherhood of Steel...

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

I wonder what they'd think about the metal for the 2011 census [http://www.facebook.com/heavymetal2011census] campaign.

This appears interesting, what is it about / what is their purpose besides being metal?

OT: I hope they do what is right. Giving accurate numbers to the government, plus appearing as a more rational nation compared to the US.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Darn you Sith Lords trying to destroy the Jedis!!!!! They also insulted episode 1 and 3 now im pissed!

 

[BioHazardMan]

It seems definitive, Atheists can't take a joke.

Jedi ftw.

Atheists can't take a joke? We are the one's who adopt things like Pastafarianism

I myself am I confirmed Pastafarian, I have been touched by the lord's noodley appendage!

 

[jawakiller]

Oh no! Must aid Jedi brethren... Finally, a problem that is so lame it makes me laugh.