Jedi 'Religion' Grows in Australia

BBC ^ | 8/27/02

[marshmallow]

More than 70,000 people in Australia have declared that they are followers of the Jedi faith, the religion created by the Star Wars films.

A recent census found that one in 270 respondents - or 0.37% of the population - say they believe in "the force", an energy field that gives Jedi Knights like Luke Skywalker their power in the films.

Most of the 70,509 people who wrote Jedi on their census forms were suspected to have done so in response to an e-mail encouraging all Star Wars fans to get it recognised as an official religion.

But the majority do not seriously tell each other: "May the force be with you", according to Australian Star Wars Appreciation Society president Chris Brennan.

"When you look at it you probably have got about 5,000 people in that 70,000 that were true hard-core people that would believe the Jedi religion carte blanche," he told ABC Radio.

"Then you would have 50,000 fans that said 'oh yeah we'll just put down Jedi for fun, we don't actually have a religion of our own'.

"Then you probably have 15,000 people who did it just to give the government a bit of curry," he said.

'Not defined'

An e-mail was sent around the world in 2001 saying that if 10,000 people declared they were Jedi, it would be recognised as an official religion.

But the Australian Bureau of Statistics said it would be categorised as "not defined".

Thousands of people in New Zealand and the UK also followed the advice of the e-mail - with Jedi Knight even being included on the list of religions by UK census authorities.

[freebilly]

The World Development Forum reports that if the world were a village of 1,000 people, there would be:
564 Asians
210 Europeans
86 Africans
80 South Americans
60 North Americans

There would be:
300 Christians ( 183 Catholics, 84 protestants, 33 Orthodox)
210 without any religion or atheist
175 Moslems
128 Hindus
55 Buddhists
47 Animists

Worldwide, Christianity is more popular than atheism.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"Jesus" is simply our translation of Joseph (Y'shua), a very common Jewish name

No, Joshua corresponds to "Y'shua", not "joseph".
"Joseph" correponds to Yosef, not Y'shua.

[watchin]

Your average 4th century Christian fanatic was a monk who lived in solitary, and killed no one. You need to brush up on your history, quit the pseudo-intellectual masquerade, and remove remove your anti-Christian filter.

[semaj]

"How come when I say, it's a BOOK, B-O-O-K, I don't get the same reaction??"

I don't believe the Bible was written as pure entertainment as the Star Wars saga was. Of course I could be wrong.

[semaj]

"He just has to get a few people to say that he did."

You forgot to mention that they have to be willing to die in order to maintain the fabrication.

[freebilly]

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm (Link to CUNY webpage)

In the US there are 159,030,000 individuals who identify themselves as Christian (76.5% of population).

There are 29,481,000 individuals in the US (14.1% of population) who identify themselves as not religious, atheistic, or agnostic.

[freebilly]

Most people in the US prefer Christianity to atheism.

[freebilly]

nearly 20% of adults who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic also report that either they themselves or someone else in their household is a member of a church, temple, synagogue, mosque or some other religious institution

The preceding is also from the CUNY website.

"I might be an Atheist, but in case I'm wrong, I'm not STUPID..."

[GSHastings]

You are replying to the wrong person.

Sorry. My browser draws a line between the reply menu and the message associated with it, but not between the reply menu and the next message. So it looks like the reply menu is associated with the wrong message.

[GSHastings]

No, you missed his point. Dieing for something "proves" nothing, except the strength of the belief of the person willing to die. Since uncounted numbers of people have been willing to die for many, many mutually incompatible religious (and other) beliefs, their deaths "prove" nothing, either, except the strength of their convictions. No one claimed that non-believers died for something they pretended to believe in; that's a straw man argument. The argument is that dieing for what you believe in doesn't prove anything...

Well, I beg to differ with you, but you did miss the point.

The argument is NOT that "dieing for what you believe in doesn't prove anything.".

The argument, rather, is...Nobody will choose to die for something that they do NOT believe in. And that is no strawman. There is ample historical evidence that those people witnessed events that they would not deny even as they were being tortured and killed.

[GSHastings]

you want us to believe this miracle based on the eyewitness testimony of people whose veracity is alleged to stem from their willingness to die to prove their veracity, which is circular reasoning and proof of nothing

So, let's see. Some people 2,000 years ago claimed to witnessed something miraculous. They were tortured and killed, but they refused to change their story about what they saw. So, what's really missing here as concrete proof is....video?

[GSHastings]

How come when I say, it's a BOOK, B-O-O-K, I don't get the same reaction??

Because the M-O-V-I-E was written by people who's sole purpose was to seperate you from your money, and risked a little of there own to do so.

The people who wrote the B-O-O-K did so with the sole purpose of helping you attain something much more valuable than money, and did so at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Don't confuse those who WROTE the book, with some who may have USED the book for other purposes.

Unfortunately, many people's beliefs and knowledge of the B-O-O-K, is mostly what they have been taught by those who write M-O-V-I-E-S.

[GSHastings]

.....In such a case, I could, of course, entertain no doubt of the good faith of the witness; it would be only his competency, which unfortunately has very little to do with good faith, or intensity of conviction, which I should presume to call in question.

--David Hume

The fact remains that the Gallic Wars and the Annals of Tacitus are horses, and you're reporting a centaur.

Then why don't you take a closer look at other indicators of the "competency" of the people who wrote the new testament. You might discover that they were all quite "competent" people. Extraordinarily so.

[semaj]

Thank you for your energetic defense of the Faith against the apostles of anti-christ present on this thread and throughout Free Republic. Although you may be casting pearls before swine, there are those of us here who appreciate and benefit from your arguments.

[kms61]

Nice to see that ad hominem is alive and well on FR.

[sadimgnik]

Why does the Australian government need to know the religion of Australians? Why does the Australian government need to make it illegal not to vote? Make it illegal to own firearms? Make it illegal to publish certain things on the internet?
The Australian government is run by socialist control freaks.

Actually, you are wrong on almost all counts.

Our Government does not need to know the religion of Australians ... that's one of the optional questions in our census.

It is also _not_ illegal not to vote (or compulsory to vote, which is much less confusing) ... the law merely states that you must attend a polling place and have your name crossed off the electoral roll. What you do with the ballot paper(s) is then up to you!

As for the firearm question: it is NOT illegal to own a firearm in Australia. Millions of farmers own, and use, long guns on a daily basis. Hand-guns, on the other hand, are much more rare ... and need to be registered.

I'm not happy with the Federal Government's King Canute-like attempts to control the 'net ... but they are observed more in the breach, in any case.

As for Australia's government being 'socialist control freaks'... that's actually quite laughable.

In many way, the Howard Government here is more conservative than the Bush administration.

Regards

Sadimgnik

[freebilly]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs

The Christian is asked, by Christ, to live an extraordinary life by extraordinary faith. Once we live by faith, the Christian is then provided extraordinary proof.

That "proof" is of no consequence to the non-Christian. It even appears foolish to the non-Christian.

In a debate with an Atheist, I will lose every time. How can I possibly cling to Christ resurrected from the dead? It makes no sense.

But in that nonsense, for the Christian, there is utter and irrevocable joy as in a banquet that goes on unending, deep into the night....

[stuartcr]

A quote from Ronald Reagan is not proof of anything.

[bert]

Is it just me or are people just basically nuts?....

No, people crave structure and freedom from uncertainty. You've pretty much got it right

[BikerNYC]

You forgot to mention that they have to be willing to die in order to maintain the fabrication.

Yes. The 9/11 hijackers' willingness to die for their cause says alot about the truth of their cause, no?