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!

Jedi May Be Allowed To Perform Marriage Ceremonies In Scotland

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the may-the-force-and-love-be-with-you dept.

Star Wars Prequels 196

ceview writes "The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill (Scotland) will allow groups promoting a belief to marry couples according to a report on the BBC. The government said the change was relevant to bodies such as humanists, who are classed as religious rather than non-religious at the moment. Groups such as The Flat Earth Society and Jedi would be allowed to perform such ceremonies."

cancel ×

196 comments

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

And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232165)

More seriously yourself take you, be laughed at more you will.

Re: And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232215)

I don't bash rubbish. I just trash it.

Protip : it's a nice fire starter for your next BBQ.

Re:And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232395)

I'm just thinking of the logistics I mean will it be R2's, Ewok's or Jawa's for pages? *HOOTINEE!*

Re:And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233445)

Ewok's or Jawa's for pages?

I think you're missing a couple of apostrophes. here, let me help you with that... "E'wok's or Ja'wa's for pa'ges'?"

He'll, thro'w in a few' mo're....

Where did all these high school dropouts who've never read a book they weren't forced to read come from? Please go back to the NASCAR site, slashdot is for nerds. Nerds read.

Re:And the Bible Bashers pitch it as a Bad Thing (4, Funny)

dintech (998802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232575)

However, some in the Jedi organization are not happy about it [thedailymash.co.uk]

Definitions. (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232177)

It all comes down to what 'religious' means legally. It's hardly a new problem. There are many people now who still hold to some religious belief but openly reject organised religion, and many more who are a member of a group most would call religious but refuse to consider themselves as such. There's even a group within Christianity who refuse to call themselves 'Christian' as they believe the term has become broadened to the point of losing all meaning, and instead call themselves 'Christ-followers.' These things really screw with survey attempts.

It's tricky trying to pin down in law something that is in the process of rapid change.

Re:Definitions. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232407)

It all comes down to what 'religious' means legally. It's hardly a new problem. There are many people now who still hold to some religious belief but openly reject organised religion, and many more who are a member of a group most would call religious but refuse to consider themselves as such. There's even a group within Christianity who refuse to call themselves 'Christian' as they believe the term has become broadened to the point of losing all meaning, and instead call themselves 'Christ-followers.' These things really screw with survey attempts.

It's tricky trying to pin down in law something that is in the process of rapid change.

Rapid change, or a constant shell game since the dawn of time? (which was scripted by the way, ref. Genesis)

This is nothing more than religion being rewarded every bit of karma it has ever brought upon this world. Go figure it's a statistical clusterfuck. Mirrors the concept itself.

Re:Definitions. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232453)

speaking of the definitions... do Dark Jedi count as well?
How about Sith? i see quite a few crimson lightsabers in the photo from the article. /s?

Re:Definitions. (0)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232695)

Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny. - Han Solo

Re:Definitions. (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232747)

speaking of the definitions... do Dark Jedi count as well? How about Sith? i see quite a few crimson lightsabers in the photo from the article. /s?

Sure, why not? If Scientology is considered a religion, and can be married by the Head Thalian (or whatever passes as the "High Poobah Priest''), then anything goes.

Re:Definitions. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232919)

It's tricky trying to pin down in law something that is in the process of rapid change.

How about, like, is it a religion . . . ? Or a business . . . ?

To help the recent financial shenanigans in Cyprus, the Church of Cyprus offered their assets as collateral. What worth could a couple of crumbled down churches with holes in them be . . . ?

Well, it turns out that the Church is the largest landowner there . . . and owns hotels . . . owns stakes in banks (oops!) . . . and, my personal favorite, . . . a brewery. And God knows what else . . . or maybe God doesn't even know.

Their wealth is estimated in the billions.

Sounds like a business to me. Do they, like, pay tax on all that income . . . ? How much do they charge for a wedding . . . ?

Re:Definitions. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233311)

So dodge the question. License any adult who wants to officiate marriages to do so without any mention of religion. What does religion have to do with it anyway? The officiant's contribution to the process is really only to verify that the two people signing the certificate have given consent, get the witness signatures and ensure that a copy of the certificate makes it back to the appropriate registrar.

Re:Definitions. (4, Interesting)

cusco (717999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233487)

One of the issues that may have led to the murder of Pope John Paul I after only 33 days in office (in addition to exposing money laundering in the Vatican Bank and the Curia's relationship with P2) was that he had ordered a world-wide audit of all the church's assets. He intended to return the Catholic church back to Paul's original vision of a simple ministry that aided the poor and downtrodden while spreading its message, which understandably upset some of the priests who currently live in palaces, ride in limos, and sit on the boards of multinational corporations. Some of us noticed that the audit quietly evaporated after his death.

Re:Definitions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232969)

My reading of the US Constitution forbids government defining what a religion is. I.e. it CAN'T make an official definition as that would be "making a law regarding and institution of religion".

Re:Definitions. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233057)

Religion is a system of known-false beliefs regarding the world and the past, as opposed to science and history which are believed to be true.

The big question is why do we give people who promote false beliefs privilege over the general population? We're rewarding poor behavior.

Re:Definitions. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233275)

Truth is not decided by a vote. Government policy is. There are a great many believers around, many of them in positions of influence, and the rest still comprising a major voting block.

And why not ? (5, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232197)

The important opinions are of the two people who are getting married. If they choose to have a bit of fun on the day that they dedicate themselves to each other, why should they not do so ? If people claim that the force will help their marriage, they are not making a claim any less rational (or based on evidence) than those that say the same of the god of chrstians, jews, muslims, hindus, ...

The churches like to give us the idea that, somehow, they ''own'' the concept of marriage. People had been getting married years before the churches brought the idea of religion into it.

Re:And why not ? (4, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232223)

I think they are talking about legal marriages, as in the kind that gets written down in some state-recognized document and has bearing on laws.

People can have whatever party they want and call it a marriage, truth is that these people will still have to go to somebody authorized to handle that administrative part of a marriage.

Why not just have some sort of certification system. If some person wants to be authorized to make legally binding marriages they can simply apply for certification (whatever that would entail) and go ahead.

Re:And why not ? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232295)

Yeah thats the way it works here in Australia. Anybody can apply for a marriage celebrant license.

Re:And why not ? (2)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232307)

People can have whatever party they want and call it a marriage, truth is that these people will still have to go to somebody authorized to handle that administrative part of a marriage.

In France, any marriage has to be handled by a mayor in order to be officially recognized. Whatever party or religious ceremony people want to have is completely besides the point.

This makes it unnecessary for the government to put into law what is a religion and what isn't. As such, separation of Church and States works as a separation of concerns.

Re:And why not ? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232585)

Are mayors allowed to refuse marriages based on moral judgement?

Re:And why not ? (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232871)

Nope, only based on what the law specifies..

Re:And why not ? (4, Informative)

mrvan (973822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232459)

In the netherlands a civil servant has to do the administrative part, but you can apply to become a "extraordinary civil servant" in order to perform marriages, which sounds similar to the certification system. I think the only legal requirements are the yes-saying, the witnesses, and the signing of the official document.

In general, religious people marry twice, once "for the law", and once "for the church", with the latter being the festive ceremony and the former akin to getting a new passport. When our crown prince and princess Maxima got married they did so first in front of the mayor, and then in a a protestant ceremony in the "new" church on the dam. Since the latter ceremony has no legal status whatsoever, you can celebrate it in any way you want (including protestant ;-)).

Re:And why not ? (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232511)

Scotland's already pretty liberal about what's permitted in non-religious ceremonies. You just need an authorised registrar, an approved location, and the inclusion of certain critical marriage-activation phrases in the ceremony.

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/getting-married-in-scotland/what-form-does-a-marriage-ceremony-take-in-scotland.html [gro-scotland.gov.uk]

Re:And why not ? (4, Interesting)

rapiddescent (572442) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232793)

you can get married at all sorts of locations in Scotland - some really cool like the vaults under Edinburgh and in all sorts of buildings. As it happens we got married at Stirling Castle and had full run of the place which was a great laugh, she didn't like the idea of getting wedding photos straddling the huge cannons. I thought it would be funny. she not.

You may be aware - Scotland is due to have a referendum in 2014 to become an independent country and leave the rest of the UK. Whilst Scotland has it's own parliament and is a "country" - it is still controlled by a "union of parliaments" by Westminster, London. If Scotland votes yes [yesscotland.net] then Scotland will be able to finance herself and make her own decisions. One of the key plans is to have a written constitution, although we helped write the USA's constitution, we were never allowed to have one by the UK. Scottish attitudes towards the human rights convention and the EU in general are quite different to that of the UK.

It is worth noting that there is a massive campaign of hate from the Unionist (i.e. "British") entities in Scotland which includes the state broadcaster. Scotland gets endless documentaries on "why Britain is great" etc and the BBC is heavily biased [newsnetscotland.com] towards the Union [craigmurray.org.uk] .

Re:And why not ? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233249)

While I support increasing our country's autonomy, I think that becoming a sovereign nation in this decade would render us only nominally independent, removing our political influence over the UK while retaining our economic and social dependence upon it. Functional independence first, then nominal independence. Not the inverse, which if I'm reading the SNP's timeline right, is what we're trying to achieve.

That's a whole other argument though.

Re:And why not ? (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233511)

And if you got your autonomy, Aberdeen might decide to go for their own independence as they can argue, "why should anyone else have the oil revenue, we could do it better ourselves".... :o)

Re:And why not ? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232545)

At the moment, religious leaders have particular authority to perform marriages, while authorised registrars have the authority for non-religious (civil) marriages. It seems that this would expand those legal powers to include, well, Jedi Masters I guess, but without necessarily classifying those organisations as religions.

Re:And why not ? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232799)

People had been getting married long before the state stuck its oar in to those muddy waters.

In fact, it took until 2006 for Scotland's State to stop recognising [legislation.gov.uk] new "marriages by cohabitation with habit and repute". Any pre-existing arrangements still have the force of law behind them.

Re:And why not ? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233417)

The state is necessarily involved because it has to do with the ownership of joint property. Ownership of property is a legal thing and disputes over it are necessarily governed by the state.

With fertile hetero couples, this also extends to the state having a necessary interest in establishing custody any children produced.

Religion and everything else are truly irrelevant and not the state's business.

Re:And why not ? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232637)

The important opinions are of the two people who are getting married.

No, it's a legally binding contract, subject to various laws.

Having said that I see no reason why a Jedi would be worse at doing the paperwork than a pedophile.

Re:And why not ? (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232691)

Having said that I see no reason why a Jedi would be worse at doing the paperwork than a pedophile.

I wouldn't want anyone from the BBC involved either.

Re:And why not ? (1)

L1mewater (557442) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232915)

People had been getting married years before the churches brought the idea of religion into it.

I don't think this is fair or accurate. For most of human history as far as we know, church and state were the same thing. Any sort of marriage recognized by a government or tribal group or whatever was de facto religious.

Excellent (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232227)

Anything that makes a mockery of the privileged position religions enjoy is a good thing. I'm a humanist but would never consider myself part of an organization, let alone a religious one with special legal powers.

Because the Jedi code forbids it! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232229)

Jedi's are not permitted to love!

Re: Because the Jedi code forbids it! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232255)

*force choke*

Re: Because the Jedi code forbids it! (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232297)

*force choke*

I've never heard it called that before, but if you can't get married I guess it's the only option.

Re: Because the Jedi code forbids it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233259)

Jedi never perform this technique!! You *must* be a SITH LORD!!!! GET HIM!!!

Jumping to conclusions you are, young Jedi.... Limited to the dark side choking is not!

Sorry Yoda :(

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (4, Funny)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232273)

Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life, so you might say we're encouraged to love.

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232341)

You make them sound like hippies.

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (4, Funny)

margeman2k3 (1933034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232489)

You make it sound like you've never seen episode 2.
I envy you.

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232779)

so you might say we're encouraged to love.

You horny goddamn hippies already tried that line in the 60s. We didn't buy it then and we're not buyin' it now, dagnabbit.

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233333)

If you have only one word for love, then you would think so. There are at least three different kinds of love, so you can narrow it down. You have amor, or romantic love, which is probably the forbidden one for a Jedi since it implies attachment. Then you have eros, whose meaning you can probably work out. I'd imagine the Sith are forbidden from feeling eros, which is why they're always so pissed off. Finally, you have agape, or overall brotherly love, which is compatible with compassion.

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232463)

Jedi's are not permitted to love!

Yes, but this text is not about marriage between Jedi.
To agree with their beliefs should be enough to be married by a Jedi!

Re:Because the Jedi code forbids it! (1)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232515)

Jedi is the only religion compatible with the Higgs field (the force) and the standard model of the quantum universe, it is in fact the true religion. /s

Re: Because the Jedi code forbids it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232549)

Her holiness the Invisible Pink Unicorn will stab you with her horn for such blasphemy.

You don't see her do you? There. That's the proof you have seen her and such she exist.

May her hoves never be shod.

Could it be true? (2)

slashmojo (818930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232249)

Does this mean there are actually females of the Jedi persuasion as well?! The mind boggles.

Re:Could it be true? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232409)

*Salivates*

Re:Could it be true? (1)

bjackson1 (953136) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232639)

Re:Could it be true? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232753)

Spoilers! Force choke!

Re:Could it be true? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233147)

Leia is the daughter of a Jedi - does that count?

Perfroming them? Fine. (2)

skine (1524819) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232257)

I guess I'm fine with Jedi performing the marriages, so long as they don't get married themselves.

Re:Perfroming them? Fine. (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232281)

Won't somebody puhlease think of the younglings?

It's just a contract (2)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232259)

What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?

Re:It's just a contract (4, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232277)

What business do religions have with marriage? Marriage is simply a legal agreement between two people that carries certain benefits and obligations. Why do religions keep insisting that they are somehow empowered to decide who can get married and how? And if some religions are allowed to conduct marriages, then why not let every religion do it? It's not like any of them are more 'real' then the others.

Re:It's just a contract (2)

srussia (884021) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232317)

What business do religions have with marriage?

Nothing, if the persons involved do not wish to participate in any religion. The key difference: religious involvement is voluntary, state involvement not so much.

Re:It's just a contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232583)

I think that was his point. You're asking what business does the state have in regulating it. He's saying, well what business does any non-state authority (ie: religion) have in regulating it. If anyone should regulate it, it should be the government as it's the only one that actually gives marriage anything more than a symbolic meaning.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233397)

Actually, it's quite easy to avoid state involvement. People can easily live together, have children, demand the other person stay faithful,... without state involvement. The state only becomes involved when the couple decides to involve the state by making their marriage legal.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232447)

Well... Marage has been a religious union, for well nearly as long as they have been marage.
For the bulk of the time religion and government was one. Then they split rolls a few hundred years ago and the split marage between the two because both sides didn't want to give it up.
For some Christian religions marage is a sacrament just like communion or last rites.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232541)

Yes well marriage has actually been a state-recognized union for longer than religion was involved. Its purpose was mostly concerned with property rights and inheritance rather than love. And religion and government didn't merge into one until much more recently (and even then, only in certain cultures). For some reason our country needs to believe its history comes straight from Israel to Rome to England to US. Despite the fact that there are quite a few people from older cultures and traditions living here.

Re:It's just a contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232609)

you're spelling is atrocious. also you're wrong. marriage existed before most modern religions were even formed. it's existed in some form or another well before recorded history. so, no, marriage has only been a religious union when those that deemed to call it that did so. it does not have to be religious and it was not religious when it was created.

Re:It's just a contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232933)

You forget that religions also existed before most modern religions were formed. The sacred / divine / spiritual has always been attached to marriage in nearly all cultures and all times. Even if you don't like the religious element, it doesn't change the fact that most major milestones in life were imbued with supernatural significance. That has been the case for all of recorded history, and is evident in earlier archaeological prehistory. Your (you're?) statement is nonsense.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233365)

"supernatural significance"... there's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

Re:It's just a contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232937)

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask...
If marriage has existed "well before recorded history", then how do you know about it? How old are you?
Also, "marriage existed before most modern religions were even formed"? Talk about ambiguous...
What counts as "modern religion", and where do you draw the line to form your conclusion about "most"?
So those were your earth shattering "proof" statements, followed by your conclusions, which are no more apparent than before you started rambling.
It sounds like you're just trying to push forward your opinion using empty words to fill space.
Why don't you just say what you're thinking?
"I don't like Christianity, because it means that I have to submit to single moral authority which is not myself, and I am not willing to do that, so I am going to be against everything that Christians stand for because it makes me feel better about myself."

Re:It's just a contract (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232531)

The problem is why the government is involved with marriage at all.

The word marriage in tax documents should be removed and replaced with 'civil union'.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232623)

That's how it works in Canada. No difference tax-wise between a married couple and a common-law couple. A few European countries probably have the same setup, but I'm too lazy to look them up.

What I don't get is why "civil union" needs to appear in the tax code at all.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232863)

What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?

What business do religions have with marriage?

Marriages were a public, religious commitment before the community and god long before government insinuated itself into the situation. Government is used to ensure additional benefits, and disbursal in the case of divorce, because the government maintains the courts, at the behest of the people, who are the ones who do marriage. Government is the servant, helping smooth things the people choose to do, like marriage.

Now that you've had your history lesson, the man asked you a question: What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?

Re:It's just a contract (2)

Ottibus (753944) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232391)

What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?

Because most states provide differential taxes & benefits based on marital status.

It is the same reason that the state defines who is an adult (and many other things).

Re:It's just a contract (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232561)

What business does the state have regulating marriage per se?

Because most states provide differential taxes & benefits based on marital status.

It is the same reason that the state defines who is an adult (and many other things).

Not to mention immigration status, inheritance rights, parenting rights (in the UK at least unmarried fathers have to apply to a court for parental rights), and much more

Re:It's just a contract (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232559)

The same authority it has in overseeing other long-term contracts? You need a licence to be a bank and give someone a mortgage.

Re:It's just a contract (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232955)

At least three thousand years of legal history and tradition.

Marriage is a legal arrangement: at its root, a contract that strongly determines property rights and inheritance. In my country (USA), marriage carries literally hundreds of legal benefits ranging from tax breaks to fast-track naturalization.

So while it's natural to think of marriage as a very personal part of life, living and sleeping with someone is the personal part, and there is also a big legal aspect that ultimately the state is responsible for interpreting and enforcing.

Doesn't seem special (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232283)

Where I live you can be a civil celebrant and call yourself a Jedi if you want.

Solution to make everyone happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232441)

1. Rename marriage to partnership
2. Require pre-partnering written applications to state-appointed ministries to have them verify you're not siblings (and that you're not suspiciously importing a wife you don't know from abroad, etc, in accordance with laws). "May we partner up?"
2. Let people celebrate it with whatever ceremony they please, be it churchly or with all their relatives eating at a family restaurant -- the event itself is optional and bears no weight
3. Require another written application to have the proceedings continue. "Yes, we do want to partner and here are our signatures."
4. Detach from the religious idea of monopoly of the matter while allowing religious to continue with their ceremonies as usual
5. Profit
6. Earn achievements Modern Society IV and Separation of Church and State Revisited

Re:Solution to make everyone happy (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232571)

We already have that in Scotland, it's called a Civil Wedding. (Not to be confused with a Civil Partnership, that's a whole other headache.)

mod dowN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232509)

irC network. The Usenet. In 199w5,

"groups promoting a belief" (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232543)

I look forward to the first Unix promotion group wedding. Probably followed by an Apple Fanbois civil partnership.

FFS, Samzenpus... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232631)

... did you actually RTFA? No? Thought not...

What the article actually says is that a spokesman for the Free Church of Scotland - a fundamentalist group with beliefs roughly aligned with Wahhabi Islam or Haredi Judaism. He is using the example of having Jedi wedding ceremonies as Appeal To Ridicule [wikipedia.org] .

The government has not "made Jedi marriage legal", except in a very indirect sense.

I think it's disrespectful (2)

BlueCoder (223005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232657)

Disrespectful to both recognize and to perpetrate a supposed Jedi religion. Not that the logic of the belief system is any less valid but rather the fact that it started by definition it was made up. I am agnostic. Atheism is a belief if not a religion in it's own way.

Who really believes these people really host these beliefs rather than being tongue and cheek believers?

Re:I think it's disrespectful (5, Insightful)

Raumkraut (518382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232737)

You say that like it's not feasible, from a religious perspective, that the concepts behind the Star Wars universe were divine inspiration bestowed upon mankind by some supernatural Force.
That is, after all, no different to the root source of religious "knowledge" quoted by most (if not all) religions. The only difference is that other religions generally started with oral traditions and writing books, rather than going straight to cinema.

Re:I think it's disrespectful (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232765)

Wait, are you parodying commercial - aka 'organised' - religions? The whole subject is so ridiculous that I really can't tell.

Re:I think it's disrespectful (0)

Alioth (221270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232823)

Atheism is a religion in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby...

Re:I think it's disrespectful (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233437)

We all fly under the banner of Azeusists. Reject the Zeus delusion!

Re:I think it's disrespectful (2)

silanea (1241518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233049)

[...] rather the fact that it started by definition it was made up. [...]

And that sets Jediism apart from other religions because...?

All religions are made up (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233075)

Well, I think that all organised religions are in some way made up. Most religions are based on powerful experiences that influential people have had, but these people would have had to make up systems in which to place their experiences so that they can make sense for themselves and to be able to get their message across to others.

I have had a long talk with a minister in the Scottish Jedi religion about his faith, because I had found it fascinating.
The point that he made about his faith is that he had held his basic beliefs about spirituality for a long time and for many years he had been searching for a congregation that shared these beliefs. He had been part of various "New Age" groups but in the long term, none of them had felt right for him.
After many years, he found the Jedi church, and discovered to his astonishment that the basic beliefs were the same to his. He also told me that while they have adapted the spiritual and ritual content from Star Wars, there is no mythology from the movies. For instance, they don't believe that Darth Vader had existed -- that would just be weird ...

Re:All religions are made up (2)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233495)

For instance, they don't believe that Darth Vader had existed -- that would just be weird ...

You may not believe in James Earl Jones, but I assure you, he does believe in you...

Re:I think it's disrespectful (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233167)

At some point Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were made up, and many people take them very seriously. It's basically a question of how long ago the invention occurred.

Personally, I'd like to see a return to Greek or Roman gods, much more interesting in my opinion, and just as believable...

I'd love to build a temple to Athena in a modern city (I think it would make a fantastic tourist attraction). I just don't have the funds.

Re:I think it's disrespectful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233441)

I think that this is awesome idea

-- Anonyous divine inspiration.

Re:I think it's disrespectful (1)

Phydaux (1135819) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233269)

Disrespectful to both recognize and to perpetrate a supposed Jedi religion.

So what? Why should religious beliefs be respected?

Not that the logic of the belief system is any less valid but rather the fact that it started by definition it was made up.

All religions are made up.

I am agnostic.

Are you agnostic about Santa?

Atheism is a belief if not a religion in it's own way.

Atheism is a religion like turning the TV off is a channel.

Who really believes these people really host these beliefs rather than being tongue and cheek believers?

I would argue that many of the people who get married in religious ceremonies are not of 100% faith. I know a couple of atheists who married Christians in Christian ceremonies, is that "disrespectful"? What is the difference between using one made up fantasy over another?

Re:I think it's disrespectful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233335)

Atheism is a belief if not a religion in it's own way.

Who really believes these people really host these beliefs rather than being tongue and cheek believers?

Yeah man, and baldness is a hair color in its own way. Who are you to judge who believes and how much? If the religion is a lighter tongue in cheek religion why would it be any less real or worse than "kill all the non-believers" religion?

Re:I think it's disrespectful (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233465)

They all were made up "by definition". As far as I am aware, there is no religion that predates humans making shit up.

Umm... (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232717)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Jedi weren't supposed to marry, at least as of the movies. Is this going to be an Extended Universe sect thing? What does the Core sect think of this?

Re:Umm... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233009)

Pretty sure that was just another ass-pull retcon for some manufactured "drama" in the prequels.

New Metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232777)

In order to marry someone, you must believe something silly

Re:New Metric (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233025)

Why not? By agreeing to get married in the first place, a man is already demonstrating that he's capable of that.

"I believe this is not an utterly foolish decision and that it aligns with my long-term well-being and self-interest."

And I don't think we need any examples to demonstrating the silly shit women will eat up. We have the OWN channel for that.

Mesa pronounce you man and lady. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232835)

Jedi May Be Allowed To Perform Marriage Ceremonies In Scotland

"Daddy, why is the groom wearing a skirt?"

"It's not a skirt -- it's a kilt."

"Oh. Daddy? Why is the bride wearing honey buns on her ears?"

"I don't know."

Because people are retarded (0)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#43232893)

That's why

Up with the times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43232925)

So there will be same sex jedi marriage? Or gay jedis aren't allowed and considered gone to the dark side?

Independence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233001)

Hey, I guess that could be one thing we could run, a service where any weirdos can get married by flying spaghetti monsters or film religions!

Hell the fuck yeah! The more weirdos, the better. Come live here too, we need a little company, the women y'see...

civil marriage between two people should be ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43233265)

I don't see what's wrong with any of this. Sure, people may not always believe in the Jedi way and consider it as a parody but they still want to get married and they should be able to do so civilly. Now, two people does that mean only humans or can we marry a dolphin? If so, where can I sign up for some Jedi dolphin sex?

We Have That Here (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43233501)

The Universal Life Church [ulc.net] allows anyone to become "ordained" via the internet in many US States (and probably elsewhere as well). This allows them to marry people. Perhaps Scotland had more stringent requirements of their church leaders in this regard previously?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?