There Are Orthodox Jews; Why Not Orthodox Jedi?
Jews are supposed to do this and that because a bush supposedly kept burning or Red Sea supposedly formed a nice walking path and more. Supposedly. But, people don't howl with laughter or tell the men in the black hats and funny coats that they're overdressed for the grocery store. So...who are the grocery store guys to tell the Jedi -- yes, that's now actually a religion -- that they have to take off their hoods?
Helen Carter writes for the Guardian that Tesco told the 23-year-old founder of the 500,000-member Jedi church to take off his hood or leave one of its stores. He's accused them of religious discrimination:
But the grocery empire struck back, claiming that the three best known Jedi Knights in the Star Wars movies - Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker - all appeared in public without their hoods. Jones, from Holyhead, who is known by the Jedi name Morda Hehol, said his religion dictated that he should wear the hood in public places and is considering legal action against the chain."It states in our Jedi doctrination that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head," he said.
"You have a choice of wearing headwear in your home or at work but you have to wear a cover for your head when you are in public."
...Tesco said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods.
Truth be told, I think you should be able to set whatever rules you want for your business, but if you're going to accommodate one groups Imaginary Friend-centered beliefs, why tell the other how it's going to be in your store?
I just love the underlying implication -- that there's more validity to really silly unproven stuff from a long, long time ago than much more recent really silly unproven stuff.
This sounds like a story fed by an urban legend. The story was that if enough people listed Jedi as their religion in the last (actually one before last IIRC) British census, it would get "official" religion status. That was never the case, and even if it were, they never reached the magic number anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon
I know your distaste for religion is an across the board thing and I'll not refuse you the right to dispute them (it is your site after all), but going for the "If this religion is okay why not this one" in this case is a bit hack. You're taking an obviously comical story and trying to apply a serious bent to it, to further your case. You're comparing Star Wars to Judaism, and you're expecting the scale to come out even. They're not equal, they're not even mathematically similar. Two quote a great thinker, "It ain't in the same ballpark, it ain't even the same motherfuckin' sport".
One of the tenets of a religion (far as I'm concerned) is that at the very least, the people who found it must believe it is true, or at least pretend they do. Although Francis Ford Coppola suggested he do so, George Lucas has never founded, authorized or in any way purported Jedi to be a "real" religion. This is a case of a bunch of dedicated fans taking precepts of a fictional (as in ACTUALLY a story, as opposed to your proposed definition of all religion as fictional) religion and choosing to follow it. Like the woman who reports to work and showed up for Jury Duty in Star Fleet uniform, they are...not even deluded, just taking the bits of the narrative that give them comfort and adapt them into their own lives. There are Star Trek fans who claim to follow the Vulcan IDIC (Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations) precepts in their life as well. But I don't recall any wannabe Vulcans suing Denny's to make them carry Plomik soup.
To take a step further back, as these fans are "practicing" it, Jedi isn't even a religion, it's more of a philosophy or a "belief system". The thing that separates a religion from a philosophy (IMHO) is a facet that is patently unprovable, or even flatly ridiculous to a non-believer. "Be good to other people because it will help make other people's lives easier and bring you some joy" is a philosophy; "Be good to other people and when you die you will get to go to Magical Cake Land" (to steal from the new patton Oswalt album, in stores now) is a religion. The Jedi don't believe in the Force as a physical/actual thing, they follow the precepts of the Jedi more as a discipline, like a Kung-Fu practicer practices to reach inner peace and balance or some such.
In the films, the terminology of it as a "religion" comes from that one line in episode IV. Besides, as we later learned in Ep. 1, The Force comes from a completely trackable source (midichloian levels in the blood), and not from mere faith and belief, so since it has a provable measurable facet, it's not faith-based, by definition. So it's not even a religion in a galaxy far far away anyway.
Wow, that stopped being about religion a while back, didn't it?
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 20, 2009 1:06 AM
> they follow the precepts of the
> Jedi more as a discipline
"Trust your feelings, Luke!" is the antithesis of discipline...
So this sounds like a faith with future. People love it when the preacher tells them that they're on the way to heaven.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 1:16 AM
The point, Vinnie, is why does Judaism get to be a "real" religion while Jedi-ism is treated like a joke? What if I start Amyism, and say that my three followers and I must wear black ski masks over our heads at all times, even when we go to the bank? (Because "god" says so. He told me so one afternoon while I was breaking a set of stone tablets on Mount Whitney.)
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 1:42 AM
Vinnie, your objection is one long appeal to authority.
Which is a fallacy.
Your place in the world does not have to be dictated to you by any organization, regardless of your feelings of security as a member of a mob.
Radwaste at September 20, 2009 3:39 AM
Amy,
These might help getting Amyism's practice of ski masks, even in banks, accepted. A) Make sure you state that those who don't believe in Amyism should be converted or killed. B) Anytime a follower of Amyism commits an act of violence on others? The first words you speak about it should be, "don't you dare speak negatively about Amyism" no matter how many times the acts of violence keep repeating. C) Only one group of your followers based on race or sex should be made to wear the ski masks.
I remember sometime back Tucker Carlson having a discussion on Scientology vs other established religions. I found his statement on the subject refreshingly honest. He said something to the effect (NOT verbatim) *religions that have a founder that died a long long time ago are just more legitimate for no other reason than that* (he was admitting to the illogic of his argument). So it's possible 400 years after your death your followers will wear their ski masks anywhere without prejudice or persecution!
TW at September 20, 2009 4:05 AM
Hah - love that TW. And Raddy, exactly right! P.S. Sorry to be behind in e-mail.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 6:13 AM
Amy, I think you buried the lede. The last line of the story should have been your title:
"If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."
You just know that whoever wrote that had to be British.
AlamedaMike at September 20, 2009 8:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/20/if_there_are_or.html#comment-1668590">comment from AlamedaMikeLoved that bit, Mike.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 8:07 AM
"why does Judaism get to be a "real" religion while Jedi-ism is treated like a joke?"
Historically, ANY new idea is met with at best hesitation and at worst violence. See Christianity, the heliocentric theory, psychiatry and the idea that Cascada has talent. But again, in this case we're talking about a actual fictional religion from an actual fictional movie that has been mutated into an "actual" belief system by a bunch of its fans. No matter how seriously they may or may not take said religion, it's not going to be treated as anything other than fanboy overload by anyone else. Indeed, centuries from now, it might have enough followers and have done enough "good works" to be taken seriously, but until then, it's laugh-and-point time.
Yes, that matches Tucker's point to a degree. But again, this is not a binary argument. I am not arguing that ALL religions are valid and worthy of respect, tho Amy does argue (or seems to) that NONE are. There have been endless religions, religious leaders and followers who have fabricated, manipulated or perverted teachings to increases their own income, reputation or power. I could name a couple right now, but that would just pull the conversation of course and descend into specifics. Contrariwise, there are people who have done good in the name of a "fake" religion. I'll lay odds that like the 501st Legion (the guys who've built their own Stormtrooper costumes and show up at conventions) the real-world Jedi are involved in numerous fundraising campaigns and have collected a goodly amount of cash for various charity. Star Wars fans have been doing that for years. Comics creator Alan Moore is follower a of the Roman snake god Glycon, who he himself admits has no basis in fact. But there's no inherent profit in calling him out on it, just like there's no point in explaining to soap opera or pro wrestling fans that what they see on he magic picture box "isn't real".
Using a story about a member of an "established" religion trying to force the world to change to accomodate their religion and extrapolating that as a result, said religion (indeed all religions) are dangerous is already a weak argument. All it proves that that SPECIFIC person is a cretin, and is trying to be a prick, or Make A Point, or some other motive. Trying to base said weak argument on an "unestablished" religion is even more tenuous. That was really the only point I was coming out against.
I do, as one could glean, have a problem with people who come out SO vociferously and unilaterally against religion, period. Amy and other folks like Bill Maher are as fervent in their desire to convince people of a deific paucity that others are in their atempts to prove a god, specifically theirs, as described in their book and translation and revision of choice. Both great strides and great horrors have been done in the name of religion. Whenever a belief system is SO powerful in one's mind that attempts to shift it (or hesitation from others to have theirs changed to yours) are met with violence, that's dangerous. But there are millions, likely billions who believe in one religion or another, and think there's nothing wrong with you NOT believeing in their religion, or in none at all. The ones who do act violently to Those Who Are Not As Us, yes, some action must be taken, be that education, incarceration or something invoving hot liquid and ground capers. But the mindset of the "fundamentalist atheists" comes off that the very existence of religion is dangerous, and must be stamped out like a cancer. Too often they come off as pompous and (you should pardon the expression) holier-than-thou as those who walk up to strangers at McDonalds who "alert" people that those french fries are coffin nails, and that Big Mac might as well be a Mac-10. The mindset that these people don't know any better, and must have the truth screamed into their ears, slowly and loudly.
Amy and Bill, like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh on the other side, are primarily entertainers, and as such must take up an extreme contrary position. I get that. Hyperbole sells. But I can find a joke not funny, or a statement too strong, and I point it out when I do. That does not make me the enemy. If someone's as a 10 and I want them at about a 7, it's unfair to make it seem as if I asked to to go to 2, or zero.
Argue against religion as much as you like. Argue against specific religious practices that endanger people, members of said religion or no, and I may be right there with you. But argue against religion period, and actively mock and deride every single person who chooses to follow one, and you run the risk of coming off as intolerant and pigheaded as the people you mock and deride.
In the interests of disclosure, I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic who believes that both abortion and the death penalty are viable options in certain situations. I choose to believe in a God and an afterlife simply because it brings me comfort, have no problem with anyone's other choices, and do not try to convince anyone that my belief set is superior to theirs. Except when it comes to the perfect joy of a corned beed, turkey and tungue sandwich, plain, no dressing, on a hero roll. People, you do NOT know what you're missing.
"your objection is one long appeal to authority."
No it was one long appeal to Amy. Unless I missed an election, her title is honorary only.
"Your place in the world does not have to be dictated to you by any organization, regardless of your feelings of security as a member of a mob."
Absolutely true, and I wasn't arguing that. But if a person chooses to follow a belief, and said beliefs, as they specifically practice them, harms no one, why should their be such an overwhelming desire to change or erase it? For a country that loves to thump its chest about its freedoms, we can still be damn restrictive about things we specifically don't agree with. NOBODY in this country should be able to get away with the statement "Things like that shouldn't be said or allowed" without getting a few slaps about the face and neck with a wet bamboo cane.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 20, 2009 8:29 AM
I would argue that no god-believing religions are "valid and worthy of respect." I likewise don't respect people who believe, sans evidence, in astrology, numerology, or who believe their living room carpet can levitate.
More from Vince: "But again, in this case we're talking about a actual fictional religion from an actual fictional movie that has been mutated into an "actual" belief system by a bunch of its fans."
And you have proof that the Bible is anything other than old made-up stuff or the written-down version of stories told by people who practiced primitive religions?
And regarding this: " But if a person chooses to follow a belief, and said beliefs, as they specifically practice them, harms no one, why should their be such an overwhelming desire to change or erase it?"
The irrationality practiced by religious people is damaging to all of us in many ways, especially that of the death cult/totalitarianism masquerading as religion known as Islam.
But, if people are going to be all P.C. about "respecting" the silly practices of followers of older evidence-free belief systems, leave the boy with the Jedi hood be. It's religion if you say it's religion, and nobody's requiring the Muslims, Jews, or Christians to offer proof that their beliefs are based on anything but their own gullibility.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 8:38 AM
"religions that have a founder that died a long long time ago are just more legitimate for no other reason than that"
I think established religions gained their legitimacy long ago by offering a convincing explanation for why the natural world is the way it is & why people behave the way they do. Picture yourself as Cavegirl Amy circa 20,000 BC. Suppose that one evening you looked out of your cave and saw a shooting star streak across the sky. The next day, Gregg got eaten by a saber-tooth tiger on his way to the mammoth hunt. Are you going to try & convince me that you would have seen the meteor shower as just a harmless natural phenomenon, rather than as an evil omen from the Gods? And you wouldn't need any white-bearded shamans to put that thought in your head. It would just come naturally. String enough incidents & stories like that together, and you have the seeds of Genesis.
Nobody who wasn't already a sucker or an imbecile could have been taken in by L. Ron Hubbard. And even if he'd been around two or three thousand years ago, he probably wouldn't have gotten very far. The Bible stands on its own as literature & poetry, even if you don't believe in it. You can't say the same for Dianetics. Judaism & Christianity have more authority than the latest crackpot cults because for a long time they provided some of the best available explanations for the natural world & human behavior. For many people, they still do. What can you or Richard Dawkins do about it, other than write columns & books & occasionally throw your hands up in despair?
Martin at September 20, 2009 9:06 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/20/if_there_are_or.html#comment-1668599">comment from MartinThe next day, Gregg got eaten by a saber-tooth tiger on his way to the mammoth hunt. Are you going to try & convince me that you would have seen the meteor shower as just a harmless natural phenomenon, rather than as an evil omen from the Gods?
It's 2009, and there are only Mercury Sabres, and Gregg, a Detroit boy through and through, favors the Taurus when renting.
And actually, people tell me from time to time that I've persuaded them to rationality -- not believing in god, no longer believing horoscopes have validity, etc.
Dawkins is too much of a snot -- he alienates many people. Hitchens is much better.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 9:14 AM
"I would argue that no god-believing religions are "valid and worthy of respect." I likewise don't respect people who believe, sans evidence, in astrology, numerology, or who believe their living room carpet can levitate."
Again, you're comparing concepts of varying levels of acceptance and presenting them as equivalent. That's similar to Ingrid Newkirk maintaining that "A man is a dog is a rat".
"The irrationality practiced by religious people is damaging to all of us in many ways, especially that of the death cult/totalitarianism masquerading as religion known as Islam."
The irrationality of SOME religious people. You're taking all members of a group and equating them to the worst example. It's an unacceptable practice to use when referring to nationality or skin color, it's hard to use the same argument against religion.
"But, if people are going to be all P.C. about "respecting" the silly practices of followers of older evidence-free belief systems, leave the boy with the Jedi hood be. It's religion if you say it's religion, and nobody's requiring the Muslims, Jews, or Christians to offer proof that their beliefs are based on anything but their own gullibility."
In both cases, you're being binary again. We are not arguing purely contrary positions. You are arguing "NO religions are valid", I am NOT arguing "ALL religions are valid". I am arguing, if anything, "Any religion or religions MAY be valid, but may also be dangerous or simply maliciously fraudulent and as such may be open for review." You're saying "no" and I'm saying "maybe".
All religions are at their core, ways to get through the day. Some are dangerous to others, some to oneself, some are deliberate attempts to mislead and bilk, and some are innocuous. There are ones I actuvely deride because based on their sources, I see fraud to be the most obvious motive. But you know what, there have been people who have gotten better by taking sugar pills. Sometimes help comes from odd places. If someone was able to do a positive thing by believing that God lives in a green cat on Mars, good, let them. I don't believe in astrology, and I know lots of people who do, but I don't go through my day infuriated that they do.
If someone does or believes something, and it affects you in some way, you have a case in passing comment on it. If it doesn't, they should live and be well. It's the brick wall dense unilateral intolerance that I can't grasp. It's the same buring in the gut that I imagine fundamentalists must feel just KNOWING there are gays out there, even if they're just in their home watching The Harvey Girls and not bothering anybody.
You can't abide the fact that people don't agree with your specific philosophy and belief set. Can you not taste the delicious irony?
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 20, 2009 9:53 AM
Hey Vin, are you this long-winded in real life? Geeeez...
o.O
Flynne at September 20, 2009 9:59 AM
"Nobody who wasn't already a sucker or an imbecile could have been taken in by L. Ron Hubbard."
Believe it or not, on this I disagree. When Dianetics was first introduced (in the May 1950 issue of the magazine Astounding Science Fiction, something I always love bringing up just to watch their faces twitch), many Sci-Fi writers found it had merit as a self-improvement doctrine.
At its core, dianetics was far more similar to a homespun version of psychiatry. The base concept was that traumatic events in your past could affect your behavior today. So if a man with a moustache frihgtened you as a child, you might have a distrust of men with moustaches today. That's the base of modern psychiatry. Indeed, that's why psychiatrists came out against it - they thought it might be dangerous for untrained people to attempt analysis. Ron added the trappings of religion to escape from persecution.
There have almost certainly been people "helped" by Scientology (even while Scientology helped itself), if only by the law of averages. For others there are those who keep hoping it will work, just like those who faithfully buy lotto tickets or watch for the next book from Oprah or Dr. Phil. Hell, The Secret has had some successes.
I have often thought about writing a book called "Stuff that don't work, and how they might help you". Just about ANYthing can be used as a crutch to get you through life, no matter how foolish. Jimmy Doohan used a fan's love of Star Trek to keep her from committing suicide. A friend of mine was brought out of a dangerous fit of post-partum depression after giving birth to her SECOND severely mentally retarded child by the episode of WKRP in Cincinatti where they dropped turkeys from a helicopter. Gordon Jump literally saved her life, she's said, by saying "In the name of God I thought turkeys could fly". (He actually heard about this and called her some months later, gloriously flattered.)
To point at these people and say "You're an idiot for believing that" is the height of cruelty and inherent of a superiority complex.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 20, 2009 10:18 AM
I also own a jewelry store and will not permit anyone wearing a niqab and burqa to enter, nor should anyone else. If that makes it impossible for certain female Muslims to live in western society then it just shows that Islam is not compatible with the West.
If, on the other hand, they are free to choose to wear it or not, as they like to say, then let them choose not to wear it when entering a store or bank.
In my article from last year Philly Cop Killed: Time to Ban the Burqa, I wrote: Suppose we lived in a world where there was a religion that required the faithful to carry an AK-47 in public similar to the Sikh wearing of daggers (known as kirpans); would we bend over backwards to accommodate that religion even at the peril of our lives? It happens with Islam. The weapon: a mask to thwart identification and evade capture. In Islam the mask is called a niqab (face-veil) attached to a burqa (body cover).
As much as I want to see a ban on the wearing of a burqa in public there is one exception which we should allow which I illustrate in my post.
bernie at September 20, 2009 10:19 AM
"are you this long-winded in real life?"
About things that I believe in, or simply enjoy discussing, possibly more so. Check my blog for my tirades on the events in DC Comics' Blackest Night crossover.
I don't bill myself as a Freelance Pontificator for nothing.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 20, 2009 10:24 AM
> I also own a jewelry store and will
> not permit anyone wearing a niqab
> and burqa to enter, nor should
> anyone else.
Love you, Bern-man.
_____________
Offtopic—
Through a series of contingencies too complicated to detail in this context, I've concluded that this is the shit.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 20, 2009 11:12 AM
Agreed on Hitchens vs Dawkins.
"The irrationality practiced by religious people is damaging to all of us...especially that of the death cult/totalitarianism masquerading as religion known as Islam"
Since 9/11, 841 American, 216 British, and 131 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan. Care to hazard a guess as to how many of them were atheists & how many were Christians? The bottom line is that rabid Islam is a threat to the entire civilized world, and a big proportion of those brave enough to fight it face-to-face are Christians & Jews. There are just not enough godless soldiers to send every jihadi to Paradise. The voice of reason can't defeat Islam alone.
Martin at September 20, 2009 11:23 AM
To TW:
That Tucker Carlson remark reminds me of an old guide to college life (wish I could remember the author) who said that when it comes to unsavory influences away from home, one should make every effort to avoid any religion that is not at least 150 years old. Seriously.
Given the publication date, it was clear that meant one should also avoid Mormonism. But not, apparently, any religion that can easily be "taken literally," as in the well-known verse "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Which reminds me of this satirist, Edward Current:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLQfRn7rJV0
Check out his "I Hate Phony Christians" too - he points out how silly it is to argue, as some Christians do, that the Bible cannot be followed literally because of contradictions therein, such as "thou shalt not kill" vs. laws on stoning your children. He said, in effect, "it's no more inconsistent than a WALK/DON'T WALK sign!"
lenona at September 20, 2009 12:05 PM
Truth be told, I think you should be able to set whatever rules you want for your business, but if you're going to accommodate one groups Imaginary Friend-centered beliefs, why tell the other how it's going to be in your store?
Things not to do around Amy:
Be next to her in a lightning storm.
Ride in an airplane with her.
Spill Holy Water on her.
Allow any mirrors around her.
Take her picture with silver-based film.
Enter a wooden building with her.
Go to the gas station with her.
:)
Suki at September 20, 2009 12:31 PM
Why should any commercial establishment have to accommodate any religious activity?
It galls me to hear people of any religion or group whine that they aren't being accommodated by others. Why should I sacrifice for their beliefs/feelings. It is their belief let them make the accommodation.
If the policies of a store or employer violate your beliefs then shop or work elsewhere. But don't demand that the store or employer run their business based on your code of what is right and wrong. Open your own store or business and run it any way you want.
Jay at September 20, 2009 12:32 PM
Amy,
Doesn't it just drive you CRAZY that you can't prove a negative?
Jay R at September 20, 2009 3:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/09/20/if_there_are_or.html#comment-1668658">comment from Jay RJay R, I don't have to. I simply don't believe without evidence. I don't believe in god, flying carpets, or your ability to a wave your hands and turn your wife into Jessica Biel. Feel free to show me evidence that any of the above exist/are true.
Per Carl Sagan: ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
If you believe in god, either show proof god exists, or just admit the likely truth: Somebody told you there's a god and you believe what people tell you.
Amy Alkon at September 20, 2009 3:28 PM
No, Vinnie: you engaged in one long fallacy, called "Appeal to Authority". In short, the truth of any statement does not depend on the identity of the source.
Be careful, lest the subject be diverted.
As you consider the validity of a religion claiming their key person did things...
Lumos!
The seven volumes about Harry Potter are actually true. J.K Rowling, a destitute single mother living on the dole, was discovered by the real Hermione Granger - played in the movie by Emma Watson - and Hermione recognized a way to do some real good. Ms. Rowling could tell the world Harry's story using Muggle technology and reach an audience much larger than that available under wizarding law. If presented as a fantasy play, it would be wildly popular.
This was a win-win situation. Hermione, already acknowledged as the best witch of her year, sold the idea to the Ministry of Magic because, in addition to the telling of young Mr. Potter's triumph, it would ease tensions between wizard and Muggle wherever the secrecy of the wizarding world was breached.
Far-fetched, is it? Consider this:
Muggles routinely ascribe the formation of unusual weather and the occurrence of unusual events to "a miracle". These are actually magical acts, committed by deranged, evil or otherwise irresponsible wizards. Sometimes, a Muggle is saved by an Auror on the scene. This is where you get those amazing stories of survival against impossible odds. One of my favorites is the tail gunner who landed alone, upright and unharmed, in the sheared-off tail section of his B-17 during WW2.
Magic cannot be dismissed by religious argument. Muggles widely acknowledge as TRUE the magical stories of religious icons throughout their history. Many of these figures demonstrated their magical powers, such as Apparition (Jesus), Transfiguration (Jesus again), the power of flight (Jesus, Mohammed) and the ability to survive apparent death, although the Horcrux used by Jesus has not been identified (these things are usually heavily shielded from detection, for obvious reasons).
Since the Harry Potter story was released, public notice of autism and Asparger's Syndrome has taken off. This unfortunate side effect is the result of improvements in Muggle communication and reporting networks detecting the Ministry's effort to suppress underage magic. You will notice that many autistic children still possess unusual skills.
If you don't believe this, it's just because you choose not to believe.
Hmm. Where have I seen that before?
Nox!
Of course there are no Jedi "powers". Tell me about the magic tricks of others - important holy men?
How do you distinguish between fact and fiction?
Radwaste at September 20, 2009 5:25 PM
Again, you're comparing concepts of varying levels of acceptance and presenting them as equivalent. That's similar to Ingrid Newkirk maintaining that "A man is a dog is a rat".
Vinnie Bartilucci
Well vinne lets see, men, dogs and rats all have body hair, two sexes, our skin teeth and nails are made of the same material, we all breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, all three species are capable of survivng on an omnivouros diet, we all have an endo sketeltion complete with a backbone a highly developed nervous systems.
Aside from a few minor details mamals of different species are not that different.
My point? peoples dumbass security blankets arent that different either, christianity, jedi, judaism, hinduism, zorastrianism, they are all ficonal salves that sad people incapbalbe of faceing reality wrap themselves up in to block out what they dont want to understand
lujlp at September 20, 2009 7:34 PM
Sigh…….. Why can’t I lose enough of my conscience to start a religion? Money is good and lots of impressionable youth to take advantage of.
David H at September 21, 2009 6:57 AM
Those Christians don't sound very knowledgeable about their own theology. "Thou shalt not kill" and "stone your children" are both incorrect, and for different reasons. Every so-called contradiction in the Bible has a reasonable explanation.
God created logic such that it is impossible to prove his existence or non-existence. The only way to be convinced that God exists is through personal experience.
Pseudonym at September 21, 2009 7:26 AM
I recommend a wonderful book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things." It explains why even personal experience isn't good enough for belief, even among people who are of average intelligence and psychologically healthy. The author relays an experience in which he was so exhausted from marathon bicycle racing that he fully believed aliens were impersonating his friends and trying to conduct experiments on him. Our brains are highly unreliable.
MonicaP at September 21, 2009 8:00 AM
I'm happy to respect all sorts of crazy beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with others.
Sacrificing a goat in your backyard interferes with your neighbor's peace and quiet.
Sacrificing a PERSON is murder.
Wearing masks over your head interferes with safety.
But if you want to wear a scarf that doesn't hide your face, or a purple and orage robe, hey, have at it.
NicoleK at September 21, 2009 9:41 AM
I see Brian brought it up, but to generalize a bit more from there - Does the prohibition have to do with people being identifiable (their face being visible)? If so, then tough on the "Jedi". The hats and coats of orthodox Jews do not hide their faces, while a hood, especially the loose type favored by the "Jedi" do, so the two are not comparable.
WayneB at September 21, 2009 10:02 AM
"Those Christians don't sound very knowledgeable about their own theology. "Thou shalt not kill" and "stone your children" are both incorrect, and for different reasons. Every so-called contradiction in the Bible has a reasonable explanation."
The proper english translation is Thou shall not MURDER. The King James translation is not very good. Murder is unlawful killing. Guess who makes the laws.....................
What I find amusing is trying to justify slavery, which the bible clearly ok with.
David H at September 21, 2009 10:26 AM
Vinnie said - "Ron [Hubbard- Scientology dude]added the trappings of religion to escape from persecution." I thought it was to avoid taxation ... interesting history on how close Dianetics is (or was) to "EST," which has in recent history distanced itself from the days ('70's) of seminar-goers not being allowed to use the potty until they "got it," by becoming Landmark Education. Landmark has many helpful principles based on Zen/Eastern philosophy, but is often scarily cult-like; and unfortunately for them is not non-profit. I recall talk of Werner being pissed that L. Ron stole his ideas...
Good call David on "Thou shalt not MURDER;" when people tell me they believe in the Bible as the literal word of God, I like to ask them "which version?..." I won't go into the whole thing about stoning your neighbor for eating shrimp ...
Mr. Teflon at September 21, 2009 10:48 AM
This sounds similar to how I view the formation of belief in a person. I wouldn't phrase it as "why personal experience isn't good enough for belief," though: what defines "good enough" depends on what standard is being used, and experience shows that most people use a low standard. In most cases we take three data points to indicate a trend, which is quite handy if you're trying to avoid being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger but not very useful if you're trying to determine if there is an above-average rate of child molestation committed by Catholic priests. (There isn't.) Amy posted an article a while back that is very informative on this topic: Top 10 Thinking Traps Exposed.
The Bible acknowledges the reality of slavery in the ancient Near East and sets down rules to make it less oppressive. Some have used that to justify a much more oppressive form of slavery, but I don't believe them.
Pseudonym at September 21, 2009 10:50 AM
A good argument can be made that all religions are founded on fictional stories that probably originated as moral education. The only advantage the three major Middle Eastern religions have is their stories were made up so long ago that "history became legend and legend became myth." With most of evidence lost or destroyed, the believer can now insist his myth is true.
So the Jedis can wait a few centuries and pray for an Endarkenment to destroy the chain of evidence or they can short circuit the process by emulating Scientology.
parabarbarian at September 21, 2009 1:26 PM
I look forward to hearing that argument made.
Pseudonym at September 21, 2009 3:19 PM
"The point, Vinnie, is why does Judaism get to be a "real" religion while Jedi-ism is treated like a joke?"
Well, at least Jewish men have some 'skin in the game.' My apologies if Vinnie beat me to that one, his posts were too long to actually read.
smurfy at September 21, 2009 5:04 PM
I look forward to hearing that argument made.
Posted by: Pseudonym
OK then, you are a christian correct pseudonym? And as such you do not belive stories of Odin, the olympians, or the Egyptian pantheon to be true correct?
So lets take away everything in the jesus mythos that copies other mythologies, what are we left with?
A carpetneter who bitched about his friends sleeping and may or may not have re attached an ear
In the mean time check out this guys cartoons
http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/diminishing-skills.html
lujlp at September 21, 2009 5:23 PM
Leave a comment