Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jobcentre Apologizes For Anti-Jedi Discrimination

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the these-are-not-the-benefits-you-are-looking-for dept.

Star Wars Prequels 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31497896)

"These are not the dorks you are looking for."

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (4, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31497924)

"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 (1, Offtopic)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498384)

This is to real workplace religious discrimination as a Clown car with 12 clowns in it is to an overturned van with 24 illegals in it.

Although, it's still kinda funny to see all the illegals bail from the van whenever I see it on World's Wildest Police Videos.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (3, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498664)

I saw a clown car crash once. There were bodies all over the place, laying in funny positions.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498452)

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

Nope not a Troll, far far worse...

You are being Obtuse

This belongs in IDLE. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31497964)

What's the point of having an Idle section if you never use it?

Re:This belongs in IDLE. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498032)

To allow the Idle section to remain idle?

Re:This belongs in IDLE. (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498044)

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. (4, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498422)

That explains the Xbox coffin story immediately prior to this one. But Taco posted this story, not samzenpus.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31497992)

Agreed ... he sounds like a pretty weak ass jedi!

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (4, Insightful)

centuren (106470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498058)

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 (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498318)

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.

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 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498346)

This strikes me as an HR employee seeing some one being a complete Idiot and deserving to get several books thrown at him, and instead thinking "I'm just going to say I'm sorry and let this whole thing go, it's not worth shouting over, even though I'm right." If more people were this mature the world would have a lot fewer needless arguments in it. Just letting things go, too bad more people don't do it.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498416)

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.

Re:He could have fixed it with a wave of the hand (3, Insightful)

pluther (647209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498700)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498666)

I bet they wouldn't "respect" his religion if it involved - shock horror - simply wanting to live in a country of white people...

Because that would be a 'hate' crime, right?

After all, our lives are just so much better, now that we live under the constant threat of being called a 'racist' for not embracing our own destruction, under a flood of third world immigrants...

ha (3, Insightful)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31497904)

Neeeeerrrrrrrrdddd

What now.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31497920)

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)

Re:What now.... (2, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498410)

Too far? How about we invent a couple hundred more and all start asking for special exceptions to be made for us.

Maybe that way we can stop treating the "old" religions as though they're somehow special with regards to taxes, government etc.

Long live full separation of church and state.

Re:What now.... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498678)

May the Fonz be with you.

We Todd Dead (5, Informative)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31497940)

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 (5, Funny)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498046)

It could be worse... they could have been Scientologists rather than Jedi.

Re:We Todd Dead (4, Funny)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498160)

Not to mention the Emperor already has a job, so he'd be unlikely to be in the job centre in the first place.

Re:We Todd Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498200)

The point is that it's just as sensible as any other religious symbol someone refuses to remove...

Re:We Todd Dead (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498326)

It's not quite the same as this isn't a recognised religion. Whether you or I think other religious symbols are ridiculous is besides the point, the law states that you can't discriminate based on religion. Having said that, nothing here suggests they rescinded their no hoodie rule where Jedi are concerned, just that they apologised for his inconvenience, which is a pretty rare case of courtesy from a public organisation.

Re:We Todd Dead (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498418)

It's recognized to the extent it's an option on the census form.

Which...if you read the article...nm, I see my logic flaw here.

RTFA (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498434)

It's not quite the same as this isn't a recognised religion.

Jediism was officially "recognised" [theregister.co.uk] as a religion back in 2001.

Wave your hand and say: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31497948)

I am not the unbelievably stupid asshole you are looking for.

Fuck exceptions for religion (5, Insightful)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31497974)

For some reason in the UK we have exceptions for certain laws if you are a member of a religion. For instance, 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 a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them. As the gentleman in the article has demonstrated this is extremely silly. Who defines what a religion is?

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498030)

What defines a religion.

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:Fuck exceptions for religion (0, Redundant)

equex (747231) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498142)

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.

So true.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498212)

I think something like 400,000 people responded to a UK census with their religion listed as "Jedi", although I understand that the inclusion of Jedi as an option was more a stunt on the part of the census takers to encourage people in the student demographic (the demographic least likely to respond to the census) to take part and as such it was never officially recognised as a religion.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (3, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498330)

I don't think Jedi was even included as an option by the organisers, it was a write in response. That said, it was given an official designation [wikipedia.org] when the census was processed (recognising it as a 'common response' without explicitly stating that it is a valid religious choice).

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

agnosticanarch (105861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498072)

Thank you for stating the obviousness that so many other of our Slashdot brethren are apparently being completely WHOOOSHED by!

~AA

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498106)

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 (4, Insightful)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498178)

Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.

So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498436)

"So, where's this Church of the United States you're bitching about?"

It's called Government. Their first commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Their second commandment is "See Commandment 1."

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498442)

Right here [whitehouse.gov] .

Established by George W Bush, and kept by Barack H Obama. Some of the controversy around that office includes the fact that the organizations that are funded by it are almost universally Christian-run, and have in some cases had the government funding put into evangelizing a particular variety of Christian faith.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498520)

the organizations that are funded by it are almost universally Christian-run, and have in some cases had the government funding put into evangelizing a particular variety of Christian faith

Unless you can show that other (non-Christian) organizations are trying to get involved and are being rejected on the basis of their denomination, I don’t find anything wrong with that.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498522)

Way to show a profound ignorance of the meaning of the 1st Amendment. Bravo!! *golf clap*

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498586)

All of them. If they dont' have to pay tax, then they are being supported by the US government.

Want to solve budget issue? removed tax exempt status from the books.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (4, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498272)

No non-profit organizations in the United States have to pay taxes.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498432)

No non-profit organizations in the United States have to pay taxes.

Sometimes it's easier to pay the damn tax than fuck around with the paper work not to.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498600)

They should.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498692)

yeah, but churches are for-prophet organizations...

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (2, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498674)

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:Fuck exceptions for religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498110)

For some reason in the UK we have exceptions for certain laws if you are a member of a religion. For instance, 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 a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them. As the gentleman in the article has demonstrated this is extremely silly. Who defines what a religion is?

And that's exactly why this news is a good thing.

The way to get rid of dumb religious-exception laws is to push them to their logical extreme, where anyone can become exempt from any law by either finding a religion which doesn't allow you to obey that law or, if so such religion exists, create your own.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (5, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498150)

Who defines what a religion is?

That's the key point here. Just because something is believed by many doesn't make it absolutely correct (well, in terms of everyone else anyway)... I mean which sounds more absurd, that there's an omnipresent being in the sky that knows all and watches over everyone (not to mention that the being "punishes" wrong doers), or that all life is connected by a inherent quality that connects every living being? You say "Who defines what a religion is"... I say "Who defines what a religion isn't"...

Religion started as a way to explain the unexplainable (Nature, Life, Death, etc), and in doing so implemented a moral backbone. Every major organized religion (I'm assuming major, I've yet to find any one that doesn't) attempts to qualify both aspects. They explain the hereto unexplainable, and they do provide a basis for moral life (typically through consequences in the afterlife, if one exits in said religion)... So what defines a religion then? Does it need to be organized (and a 503c organization) to be considered a religion? Or does it just need to be a set of beliefs that a person follows? I personally don't believe in any organized religion. But I do have my own beliefs about it. Does that mean I shouldn't be exempted from a law that violates my belief (For example, I believe that helmet laws are immoral. If someone wants to take the risk, let them) because it's not organized? Once we as a world can get our heads around that concept (that a religion is a set of ideas, and not something you are a "member" of), the world will be a lot better of a place...

IMHO at least...

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498536)

Religion started as a way to exercise control of a population by offering reward and punishment beyond physical reality. To the faithful damnation/magical curse provides a tool more threatening than imprisonment or death. To the faithful heaven/magical blessings provides a more enticing reward than liberty, security or even survival. The need to answer unknowns extended from the need to use those unknowns for control.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (4, Insightful)

Ralish (775196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498156)

An excellent point, and one I'd hope others pick up on, especially the media. This isn't stupid because he's a Jedi, because frankly, his religious beliefs have no lesser basis than any other religion (ie. none). This is stupid because it demonstrates the absurd double standard the law grants religion. The issue is people getting hang-ups over the fact he's a "Jedi" rather than analyzing the broader legal implications of the scenario that was played out.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498176)

I sense a market gap for motorbike helmets that are airbrushed to look like turbans.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (5, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498190)

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:Fuck exceptions for religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498234)

And Hooters doesn't hire flat-chested women OR men for waiting tables. If you can't legally avoid hiring employees that completely contradict what you stand for as an organization (no matter what it is), where can you draw the line. It's not all discrimination.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (2, Insightful)

pagaboy (1029878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498256)

In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women. It's one rule for us, and another for them.

Kind of depends. If it's for a cleaner or a mechanic, then discrimination on sexual orientation is clearly an issue. However, if churches were unable to refuse employment for someone in, say, pastoral care, with a lifestyle or beliefs contrary to that church's teaching, then such a law would go beyond anti-discrimination and become intolerant dictature.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498344)

For instance, 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).

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.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498672)

Not harming anyone else isn't the same as not having consequences for anyone else.

True, but in this and all similar cases the consequences are not due to the act itself, but rather due to the action of some other party (usually a government). If you're upset about being made to pay someone's medical bills, blame those who would force you to do so. If you're instead upset about additional ER time and resulting cost increases, blame the hospitals for choosing to treat the "undeserving" with the same priority as the rest. (Unless they are forced to do so, that is, in which case you can once again blame the government for setting that particular policy.)

If someone were to credibly claim that they would steal $10 from you were I to step out my front door, and I stepped out anyway, it should be obvious that this third-party remains entirely responsible for your loss. I could have prevented it by remaining inside, but I have no obligation to do so, just as nothing I did forced the third-party to take $10 from you. Their decision, their action, their responsibility. The indirect effects on the tax-payer resulting from "risky" behavior are the same, just scaled up a bit. The behavior causes no direct harm to others, and any and all indirect consequences to the tax-payers are entirely the choice and responsibility of the tax-collectors.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (2, Insightful)

euxneks (516538) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498424)

[...] 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!??

Cant beat them? Join them, (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498478)

Why don't you create your own religion, where you establish as a basic tenet, the ability to discriminate against "the faithful", "the believers" etc. Then get a bunch of people to follow you and you actively discriminate. If they sue you for discrimination, you sue the government to get religious protection. Force them to confront their own inconsistent stand.

Theologian here (3, Interesting)

Fished (574624) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498494)

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 pundit sense.) But what happens when George W. Bush takes over and he and the Republicans from the Bible Belt start defining what's acceptable religious belief?

The problem is that government doesn't have a very good record for being able to pick the side of the angels (anymore than religion does.) 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. 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.

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.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (2)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498508)

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 foundation stones now, and protests like this are a high profile way to protest legally. I applaud it.

Re:Fuck exceptions for religion (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498548)

For some reason in the UK we have exceptions for certain laws if you are a member of a religion

In the US as well. Some laws get exceptions (Sikhs can wear turbans to school, where hats are not allowed), some don't (Native Americans cannot use Peyote).

In a more outrageous exception, churches are allowed, when choosing a candidate for a job, to discriminate against gays and in the Catholic church's case women

How is that outrageous? Presumably those jobs have a requirement of "being a good Catholic". You can not hire a mute person as a lumberjack (they cannot shout warnings, a job requirement). Only discrimination not tied to job performance is important.

It's one rule for us, and another for them

I feel more comfortable living in a society where the rules are sensibly applied. No alcohol while under a certain age, fine. An exception when taking Communion, also fine.

Who defines what a religion is?

I think you just have to state that it is a religion, if all you want to do is call it that. I would you want an exemption, I would imagine the burden of proof that it's a real belief, and not one ginned up for the exemption is on a sliding scale. If your religion requires you to wear a hat, I think the burden of proof should be very low. If your religion requires that you take every Thursday off to drink, I would imagine it is quite high. If your religion requires human sacrifice, it shouldn't matter because it's beyond the pale.

Religious views, truly held, are unfalsifiable. The government should not stand in the way of people acting on their religious views, when its reasonable to make an exception to the law to pursue them. On the other hand, questioning the validity of the religious view as truly religious vs. pragmatic makes sense. The US Supreme Court holds that the same action can be constitutional or unconstitutional based on how the legislature decided to enact it.

Irrational behaviour from a "church" member (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498008)

Anyone else surprised? Seems to be the common element amongst most church memberships.

Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods (2)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498020)

I don't recall either Yoda or Luke wearing hooded garb. Not that the whole basis of this story isn't ridiculous, I'm merely saying it also appears Jediism is inauthentic.

Re:Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498112)

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 (1)

electricprof (1410233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498376)

Apparently, wearing a hood renders a jedi completely unidentifiable, even to a mind as powerful as Jabba's. I must write a proposal for funding to see if this protection extends to other forms of headgear?

Re:Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498144)

The Emperor and Bad Anakin wore hoods, and I think Obi Wan would sometimes wear his hood in New Hope, but that seems more like a desert thing than a jedi thing. There could be other examples but this is about as much time and effort that I want to spend writing about some Star Wars tools.

Re:Not really sure that Jedis wear hoods (4, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498206)

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?

Sith Religion (1)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498530)

Oh - that gives me an Idea. Can I create a Sith Religion and start a legal Crusade against the Jedi?

Membership would be a problem, since there are supposedly only "two at any time."

OTOH, those guys would probably be a lot more fun to party with.

Just another reason to hate nerds. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498034)

No wonder people like this get the crap kicked out of them in school.

Chuch of Highlander (4, Funny)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498048)

Does this mean I can carry a sword too!?

Re:Chuch of Highlander (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498322)

Yes, but you have to test your immortality first.

Re:Chuch of Highlander (5, Funny)

Whalou (721698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498396)

The Church of Highlander can only have one member.

Re:Chuch of Highlander (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498628)

Does this mean I can carry a sword too!?

I'd rather join the Church of The One [youtube.com]

What BS! (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498068)

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? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498236)

Maybe he's Western Reformed Jedi instead of Eastern Orthodox Jedi.

Re:What BS! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498240)

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! (4, Funny)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498366)

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.

Re:What BS! (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498440)

Well, as it existed in the Galactic Republic/Empire, being a Jedi carried with it the prerequisite that you had to be able to use the Force to manipulate objects and people. If we're going to go by the canon-standard, this guy isn't a Jedi anyway. At that point he becomes just another moron who won't take his hood off inside.

But I believe the Jedi "religion" (which I must believe Lucas finds to be a whole new level of stupid) is quite different from the movie's Jedi Order, and has made up its own rituals and requirements in order to help them forget the fact that they aren't actual Jedi.
 

Re:What BS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498580)

How do you know he doesn't have the ability to use the force? Maybe he just doesn't want to flaunt his powers. How do you prove that a religious person really believes their religion. They could be lying to you. If someone attends Church every week, but doesn't believe it are they really Christians?

He would also have a legitmate complaint in the US (5, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498120)

Under the ADA, discrimination against retards is unlawful here too!

Re:He would also have a legitmate complaint in the (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498232)

It is no longer politically correct to use the word retards. I think they are to be called Palin-Americans now.

Oh, the Irony (3, Funny)

Stoned Necromancer (926330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498130)

Star Wars and Jediism is accepted as a religion, but using marijuana for spiritual purposes is not accepted as a religion, even though the law permits the latter.
Don't get me wrong - I love Star Wars, but this whole situation makes me a bit bitter. :)

A little extreme? (4, Funny)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498134)

I generally hire staff that have an affinity for Star Wars - and at least one replica lightsaber. I also have systems named JEDI (Joint Enterprise Document Ifrastructre) and YODA (Your Online Document Archive) but do not insist on Jedi robes.

As it is, the guy was wearing a hoodie, not a Jedi robe.

Seems a bit extreme.

Re:A little extreme? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498196)

You turn Star Wars terms into acronyms and play with toys, and he's a little extreme?

Re:A little extreme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498590)

I generally hire staff that have an affinity for Star Wars

Do they allow discrimination on religious grounds where you come from?

Might not be PC, but... (5, Funny)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498158)

...Jediism carries the same credibility as other religions directly based on science fiction stories. Just ask Tom Cruise.

Re:Might not be PC, but... (2, Funny)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498546)

And of course the original "Battlefield Earth" trilogy & it's prequel "What The Big Alien Did Before Landing On Earth" trilogy some 20 years later were equal blockbuster successes to "Star Wars" at the cinema also...

Ronjeremism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498172)

My religion is based on cheesy pornos from the eighties. My dress code requires attractive secretaries to take their clothes OFF. Don't oppose my beliefs!

***NEWSFLASH*** (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498252)

Chris Jarvis, 31 year old Star Wars fan, finally gets laid and gets a life.

Re:***NEWSFLASH*** (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498300)

Lies.

He needs to go back to Jedi school. (4, Insightful)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498314)

Had he been a real Jedi, he would have just waved his hand and said "You don't have to remove your hood", to which security would have said "You don't have to remove your hood" and waved him on through.

Re:He needs to go back to Jedi school. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498614)

This is not the redundant comment you are looking for...

f...ing dorks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498364)

Get a life... There is no force. Jesus will safe you from redemption. Jesus F. C. is the way.

GROW UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498368)

you fucking idiot.

new religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498446)

Maybe next time I will walk in on with a stupid hairdo and eyebrows,which is from hooliganism(a new religion)...and sue them for neglecting based on my religion

Sweet (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498518)

I'mm starting a nudist religion.

Then joining a snake handlers religion.

Then I 'mon, tues, weds, thrus is a sabbith so I can't work those days religion.

freeballer (2, Informative)

freeballer (1160851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498538)

How sad, that someone is so stuck on an old movie they pretent its a religion.
Its not discriminating against religion, because much like all others, its made up!

i am a member of the church of predator v alien (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31498606)

i find it highly objectionable that my government's employment agency won't let me skin my victims and hang them on trees or spit acid in their faces

plus i am REQUIRED to fight with the alternate of my form to the death. the police should get this memo and stop harassing me in my lawful pursuit of my religion

One can only wonder.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31498616)

why he is looking for a job.

Or even needs one if he is a Jedi.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?